the state taxes what are basic needs within its society to insure that anyone who benefits from its protection is guaranteed to be earning it. thats simply the most sensible method of taxation.

no state is free to those who choose not to believe they are part of it yet choose to still depend on it

And then goes out of it's way to make competiting with them for supplying those needs needlessly expensive. There by keeping their justification for taxing.

i would state that if you can manage to have the protection of a state without paying any taxes your stealing from the state and everyone around you

you would be an incredibly privilaged person in that community for the community to choose you of all of them not to have to provide anything to have the same rights and benefits they all share by mutual cooperation with eachother

yet i assume thats not really whats desired, whats truely desired is absolute freedom, which you can only get without a state, and thus you also can only get in part of the world no community claims to own, true wilderness

So you force me to use the provided road, make it near illegal for me to build my own, then say I'm stealing when I don't want to pay taxes for something you are forcing me to use?

ive already stated i beleive the united states over reaches, i think you should be able to do far more than you can do in the united states with what you pay taxes for

however you could never build a road without paying for taxes, for instance you cant build a road without owning the land the road is going on

Sure you can. That just causes a bunch of other problems.

sure you can overreach yourself onto other people into the community

but i dont think grenade would agree with that either

im arguing from a hypothetical perspective of a principled state, not a perspective of the united states of american. in my opinion i don't believe someone should be able to do ANYTHING productive in the united states without being taxed (within measurable reason) however on the same hand i believe the taxes should be less and the amount of things you should be allowed to do when you are paying taxes should be massively increased

people born into a state are a problem because they didn't choose to live there, and they don't have the option to leave by default usually, unless there happens to be unclaimed land near by.

because they are born into an environment not of their own choosing and then after 18 years have to choose without any incentive by their progenitors (who usually would prefer them to remain in the environment they are born into unless they themselves fled it) to choose to stay within that environment or go to a different environment?

They don't have the choice to go to a different environment by default.

Because it's possible no other state allows them in

yep

though i would encourage more states to be open to ideological immigration

its the only form of immigration i agree with even though it to has some degree of brain drain

Unless there is unclaimed land, these people are potential trapped by the circumstances of their birth. There is also the possibility that moving far enough to get to an accepting state is just not possible.

there hasent been unclaimed land on earth for thousands of years

theres only been land that was claimed by those to weak to maintain it

except antarctica

at one time in history you did have some benefits, due to a lack of multiculturalism and genetic predisposition you were much more likely in the past to be born into an environment you were best adapted to. now that is only a higher chance but hey hindsight is twenty twenty

now you can be an african born in the arctic circle

even for creatures born into environments that they have a chance to be best suited for, some unfortunately dont live happly. i call this the "lifes not fair principle"

its unfortunate to be an antistatist when in fact the natural predisposition for humanity is to form community in order to gain protection in numbers and concentration of effort through cooperation. it thus becomes very difficult to find part of the world where you can live without being part of that due to the natural instinct of humans is to assume you are like them and thus when they see you living on your island they bring their version of "the right way" after assessing all of the defenses you have and preparing to have 100x more firepower than you when they introduce themselves

like i said, freedom doesent exist

but if you try hard enough you can get some definition of it that you can still protect yourself from other's worse definitions of it

and thus i give you the united states of america

or you could get lucky and own your own icbm with a deadman switch

i do have some sympathy, im not ignorant to the romantic nobility of man against nature without the complications of man kinds struggle with each other. but you'll never find a pure life of man vs wild in the presence of humanity. maybe in outer space but even then its only a matter of time before an individual in space cant protect themselves from communities in space without their own community in space.

i agree

We truly live in a society

Discuss

I disagree

We live in a collective

I live in a house

the house has walls

#bordersecurity

I can agree on the conclusion that houses are inherently racist and islamiphobic

A house killed the (supposedly) wicked witch of the west.
So we can say they are sexist at the least

And they hate those whom are different

And they are xenophobic

People murder themselves in houses so they promote suicide

They shelter nazis so they hate jews

Xenophobia isn't that bad

Omg you support drumpf don't you

You rather have Trump or millions of African and Islamic invaders in your Country?

A foreigner supporting trump! The horror 😱 /s

Diversity is our strength @Stefan Payne

diversity of thought*

exactly

and I don't want murders or rapist coming to my country

i think thats what makes the regressives so mind numbing to listen to

they all think the same shit

and its kinda creepy in a cult like way

You can have all the colorful diversity you want, as long as you think and act as directed by the MSM

Merkel disagrees with yall

Merkel deserves to be hanged for treason

At least she is not a Schröder version 2.0

Greens destroy everything, they should be exiled

Der Steuer Kanzler

ya know

a part of me wants to see the EU come to power with merkel at the helm

and then the actual 4th Reich actions start to tumble down

and everyone wakes up

NO

politically Merkel is as good as dead

and AKK is no better, there was one CDU "Club", who left the party and joined the "Freier Wählerverband"....

Does she have a nice cozy retirement position in the EU system lined up?

AKK=?

Furer of the EU army

lol

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer

Basically Merkel 2.0

She's the new Head of the CDU and probably a Merkel Puppet...

Our PM is “retiring” and wants a nice cozy job in an International organization either under EU or UN. The sad thing was that he had planned to not sign the UN migration compact in Morocco. He changed his mind after a merting with Merkel, in return for assistance.

Ah her

Yeah, with how things are, the Civil war will come

some shit like Lebanon will be coming to Europe as well, with all the Africans and Muslims here...

the US has a small enclave

look up Dearborn Michigan

taken over

Yeah and they believe they have to take over the World and conquer everything because they are "the best of people" and we are "the worst of creatures"...

You really should read the Islamic sources.

It really can't get any worse than that. And it doesn't allow change at all because the hypocrites are the same as non-believers

they need a protestant movement that is willing to arm up and go to war with the classic interpretation

And then, what do they get? A shitty interpretation of the book. Doesn't solve anything...

the survival of the religion against massive backlash

There is just no non violent solution to this problem. THAT is the Problem.

the reform islam movement needs to be birthed and gain traction in the western world

that way it is sympathetic to western values

and fly the banner of islam in the face of the ' old barbaric interpretation'

It is not possible!

how so?

the bible has been rewritten before

Yes, but the Bible didn't have the death penalty for apostatcy

but the new koran may get rid of that clause and since it would start under the protection of western values have a pretty strong foothold to gain traction

And then someone finds the "old scriptures" and reverts the shit back to the beginning.

because that is what has happened in the last 20-40 years in the Islamic world!
Just look at Kabul 1960s and now.

yeah i saw

and the history for that change is pretty nuts

so the only thing you can do is to convert them to Christianity...
And if you have to deport them and remove them from western civilization....

i have a friend who converted to muslim

hes currently fighting in the middle east against radical islam

Condolences....

i have hope for a new more western islam

its a rather nice idea

replace the old and busted with a new and acceptable

Um, Stefan, many a Christian through history has been killed for apostacy

I don't. Because if it happens, it won't last long and Islam will always revert back...

And there more progressive forms of Islam. I know adherants of it.

but they do need a rebranding

Yes

a new name to separate them from the radicals

@DrYuriMom how close are those tho Christians??

You mean how close is the interpretation to Christianity?

yes

i see it like Christian vs Catholics

Islam needs a christian

See, if you remove all that Conquest and savage bullshit out of the Islamic scriptures, you'll end up with a shitty copy of the Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam?wprov=sfla1

you dont remove the conquest, you just adapt the message

and the end agreement

The five Pillars of Islam are fundamental tenants of the faith and have nothing to do with violence

MEE6BOTToday at 5:12 PM
<#463068752725016579> is in slowmode. You will be able to post there again in 0.0 second, alright?

okay mee6 LOL

Now just get the 95% of the muslim world that doesn't, to practice those progressive forms of it

That will be difficult but not impossible. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation and for the most part is not radicalized. Turkey was pretty secular as well although lately they have a leader that is conflating religion with nationalism.

Modi is doing the same thing with Hinduidm and heaven knows we've had Presidents do the same thing with Christianity.

Converting 95 percent of over a billion people will be difficult. You have a way with the poetic understatement, Cat.

Religious absolutism can fade. We have seen it happen before. Usually economic prosperity helps.

I don't think 95% of Muslims are radicalized. Again, look at Indonesia. Look at Bangladesh.

Look at Turkey under previous leadership.

The most populous Muslim nations for the most part are moderate

As I see it, our enemy is really Wahabism. Even more than Iranian Shia, Wahabism and the sects of it are who kill us and want us subjugated.

The 9/11 killers were followers of Wahabism.

Here we go. In Indonesia, as of 5 years ago 72 percent of Muslims favored making Sharia law the official law of the nation. 66 percent say religious judges should have the power to decide family law and property disputes. 50 percent say sharia law should apply to non-Muslims. 48 percent favor stoning as the punishment for adultery. 18 percent say that apostates should be killed. 72 percent say there is only a single interpretation of Islam. 94 percent of Muslims in Southeast Asia say that you must believe in God to be a moral person. 32 percent say a woman has a right to a divorce. 55 percent say there is a conflict between religion and science.

And these are the moderates, Cat? Heaven forbid I should meet any Muslim shy of moderate.

That's not very moderate

Yes, that is the Problem. If you really believe in Islam, you are pretty radical in your belief. Like Stoning for Adaultury and ohter shit.
just look at what BRITISH Muslims say about this issue. There's a video about that on Youtube. And they are very radical as well...

@Bookworm Also, source?

```That's not very moderate```
Wich is why China at last put them in Gulags. because all the shit they did before didn't solve the Muslim Problem. And now they go to the extreme.

There is a reason why its always the same people, sometimes from the same Countrys, cause the same kind of trouble. If they are in the US, UK, Germany, hell even Japan and Korea. Always the same shit.

The difference however is that the Japanese and Koreans are proud of their nations and love to be there. Thus they hate these people and, if they are too bad, would throw them out of the Country...

We are cucked and said to be Nazis at birth and have to tolerate those with different oppionion. But you know what: WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT PEOPLE THAT COME HERE TO TRY TO STEAL FROM US; RAPE OUR WOMEN AND KILL OUR MEN!!
We should also be allowed to hate them.

And of course throw them out of our countrys.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/#ftn10

@Bookworm Joa, die Statistik ist schon ziemlich übel und zeigt, wie weit das ganze verbreitet ist. Und das schaut echt nicht gut aus...

Sorry, Stefan, I only speak languages from countries that manage to win at least one World War, but I assume what you said was encouraging, so thank you.

Sorry, My Brain didn't switch to the right mode.

now again in the right language:
@Bookworm Yeah, the statistic looks pretty bad and shows how widely spread it is. And that really does not look too good/primising.

I'm not sure how to weigh in on this...

In regards to Tims latest vid. I recommend this article. It only takes 4 min to read and is full of graphs
https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/who-doesnt-want-to-hear-the-other-side-s-view-9a7cdf3ad702

The left has become the new Facists

*far left

@Deus Vult (JESUUUUUUUUS!) The "Left" has declared anyone not far left is now a NAZI ALT-RIGHT TRANSPHOBIC RACIST SEXIST ISLAMAPHOBIC Monster.

This is still the far left

Just because they are the loudest leftists does not make them any less far to the left

Well they have been actively kicking everyone out of who isn't "Left Enough" so the Far Left has banished everyone else to being Alt-Right

Yes, this does not make them the only people leaning left

They are just the majority

The old "Left" is now the center

No

The center is still the center

Tim has seen simular results where "Left" people are now calling themselves "Right" because they have been kicked out for not being "left" enough

Yeah. One of them is the president.

Add on to it this "Intersectional" dogma that plays right into Hitler's re-branding of Nationalist Socialism (See the story about the Feminist Mien Komf paper getting published) that the new "Left" pushes

Still not "new" they have always been there

They are mainstream now

To those who have told me my caution over Russia and its current leadership is simply my cold warrior soul showing, can you honestly tell me that the two weapons described in this article are not first strike ordnance?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-is-poised-to-add-a-new-hypersonic-nuclear-warhead-to-its-arsenal/2018/12/26/e9b89374-0934-11e9-8942-0ef442e59094_story.html?utm_term=.1bce54865d3a

They are.

Putin just wants the old soviet guarantee of a conventual free hand in limited scale conflicts

If only one side has first-strike ordinance, they are guranteed a win.

If you have the capability to maintain nuclear armament, and do not, you have already conceded.

My only complaint is that we do not have better.

If both sides have the same capability, neither will willingly pull the trigger.

none of these are a "First and Only Strike" weapon, so regardless if anyone uses them EVERYONE LOSES!

Unless you are a mad fool who thinks you can win.

It doesn't mater if you think you can win, everyone will lose a nuclear war. Period. The only one that wins at nuclear war is Death.

Untrue, in a war between a nuclear power and a non nuclear power, the nuclear power wins.

It's just a question of when they decide to push the button.

Or they give up.

That's pretty much how an arms race works...

There are many more factors than that Bookie Boi

im going to say the n word

change my mind

You have no need to

Memes is not a lidget reason

On services (platforms), where is the line for impermissible speech?

Who the fuck knows, and that is the problem

We (my crew) often disclose XSS and other vulnerabikites found in the wild, usually on twitter, of whicever website. And occasionally someone will get picked up and get temp suspension

Trust me, it is insane how the CRTL-Left facists that run these platforms selectively enforce shit

I dont think they're being selective in that case, seems more by chance

and I cant blame them for prohibting coordinated hacking activity on their platform

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ySC7edHO0 please share with your friends

good luck i suppose, seems tough to show evidence

Please share with a freind and let them know if they have anything please contact the gentleman in the video

Youtuber law is doing a hero's work

Yes he is

Ok wtf

Who did it now

Imma fuk u up

What are my options now. I've been following the patreon debacle from a far...but haven't moved away from it yet. How do I pay you Time?

**Tim

he has like a recurring paypal thing on his website

Yeah, be mindful that you'll lose your rank once you drop your patreon.

as in, IMMEDIATELY.

@Hops , in case you miss that.

"Imma fuk u..." -Sexual Harrassment Coochie
@Hops I think he mentioned a direct payment method. Subscribestar *might* pull out of the Great Yeeting? I havent been keeping up

@Timcast sargon lied to everyone he said that patreon did not give him a warning when they did he just did this whole thing for publicity

Im curious, you got evidence?

citations plz

because that'd change... well honestly it would change a large bit, but their banning him is still against their ToS at the time.

and if you're talking about the whole vidcon thing, that was no warning. They call it a warning because apparently "them talking about him" is a warning

even though they agreed he did absolutely nothing wrong.

Pretty sure if Patreon gave him (or others) a warning they would have said as much when discussing the situation.

If that was the case, that chick would have said so.

She didn't. So the truth is somewhere in between

it's more likely patreon is claiming "X = a warning" retroactively.

because we know they're already doing that

but more importantly... what if patreon itself isn't ruled by activists, but instead is being pressured by paypal and stripe? We know Paypal threw Jihadhiwatch out because mastercard told them too.

IMHO, the moneylenders look like they're weighing in on the culture war

I've been watching everyone post and listening intently to Tim and even Styx the past two weeks. As I see it, the hyper-polarized west is a losing proposition for companies that have any control over who they partner with. There are many who will not do business with people who partner with those who hold views they see as abhorrent. On the other hand, there are those who won't do business with those who restrict speech to "mainstream" sensibilities.

That vid by Tim yesterday about efforts to maintain a seemly discourse on Twitch left me really thinking about my own actions. There are games I don't play simply because I don't like the comments I have to read or the behaviors I see. I have better things to do with my time than deal with mean people. I know many others who are turned off by the meanness endemic in many online games or gaming venues. The general dickery limits the audience and the growth potential of games. But when the companies try to police speech, they get whacked by their core players. So companies are given a lose-lose choice of either letting the toxic environment continue and limiting their market to a core group of people who like it, or restrict speech so they can appeal to broader audiences but get hit by the ire of their core players. Whether a company "gets woke" or not, they still go broke...or at least make less money than if the only issue was the quality of the game.

Problem is: you have to reward players for good behaviour not punish them for bad.

Insightful post

next problem: You ain't dealin with Adults here, most of the time...

we're talking (more often than not) about 10-15 year old youngsters.

So if we're talking about for example Tom Clancy's The Division, you first have to deal with everyone that is underaged.

I disagree we see in adults too

Of course, like that asshole Twitch Streamer that Jeremy mentioned a couple of days ago that got killed by someone.

toxic people like that should be banned from that game for life and other online games for 6 months

So you do believe in punishing people for bad behavior

if we are talking about hurting the other one in real life, yes.

in this case we're talking about false DMCA Claims

Isnt the average gaming age like 35?

@Timcast This "green new deal" stuff is idiotic. 1) The original New Deal was a major contributing factor to the Great Depression. Seems like a bad thing to make parallels to. 2) The claim that it will lead to an economic windfall is contradicted by the fact people are asking government to initiate and subsidize it. If it were profitable there would be no need to subsidize. Businesses make long term plans all the time. New companies come in and compete to put pressure on existing businesses.

all these things are true

I don't disagree that he Green New Deal is the wrong prescription for a real problem. That said, I think the New Deal was fantastic for the time it existed and there is plenty of evidence for that. Did it solve the Depression by itself. Of course not - the depression was too big to be solved by any one solution. But did it very possibly save the US from a revolution - arguably yes.

Good medicine, but wrong ailment for it in this case.

That's simply false.

Nothing about the new deal helped the depression

Not, it's not

Yes it did

It lead to a great part of it

The depression was *four years old* by the time even the intial New Deal policies were just beginning to start

Roosevelt didn't enter office until March of 1933.

What economic schools of thought seriously claim that burning fields and paying people to do unproductive work and keeping salaries artificially high helps clear mal investment?

The stock market plunge was in 1929.