Message from @Hugh_Mongoose
Discord ID: 540654196253392899
After I got my first win10 computer, I hated it so much that I tried linux out for the first time. Have pretty much only used linux since. Still have window10 installed, for rare cases that I need to use a windows only app for something.
Pretty much live in the terminal. So comfy. Cmd is shit.
cmd is shit but powershell isnt the worst. Commands are just too long but you can tab complete
Powershell is bloat, takes ages to load, i.e., not instantly.
PS pipelining is pretty cool if your background is Unix.
Microsoft is good like every third mainline release
Xp good, me and Vista bad 7 good 8 and ten bad.
So the next one will probably be good
MS has doubled down on anti privacy, centralized bs though
That's my primary concern
@possumsquat93 i am now satisfied
Also I've never had PS not launch instantly
sooo whats this i hear bout them lefties trying to kill kids that have allready been born?
is ca 9 months not enough to decide wether you want undertake the enormous task of raising a kid?
Virginia they are looking at a bill to kill in the hoo ha
sounds great
give it 2 years and we can legally abort stupid people
again the left destroys itself
checkmate amy schumer
building the wall is just another step for the government to completely control who can or cannot leave the USA. Change my mind (don't know if this point has been raised about the wall yet, if so feel free to message me with links of discussions)
Why change your mind? That's already correct.
That's exactly what walls are for
so why is the population which argues most for less government control in strongest support for the wall?
Perhaps because a static wall would net the same effect as a massive government apparatus. It is about achieving an outcome with the smallest possible government
Protecting the boarder is one of the functions the smaller govt people are fine with
Imagine the sheer size of ICE/Border Patrol agency if it should have the same effect as a wall.
read my first statement. A wall can prohibit crossing the border from both sides
Imagine a radical faction taking control over the USA and persecuting political opponents. Now total control over the border means pollitical enemies have it that much harder to get out of the states
It's somehow a related argument as in the free speach debate. Infringing on free speach gives that tool to whichever faction in power. As soon as you find yourself on the wrong side of political oppinion, those changes can backfire very strong
If a radical faction takes control over the government anything can be used against the people
IDs, national parks, tax returns, etc
The state will always be used against against the people. It's very existence necessarily violates the NAP.
Build the iron curtain!
We have more guns than people. The only radicals with anything close to a shot at controlling the U.S. would be Ancaps and they have a reputation for hating gov't in any form.
Then again there are also the 3%ers and the rest of the Libertarian movement.
I fully expect Motti tactics to be used if a radicalized U.S. gov't tries to deal with counter revolutionaries.
Not in any form, just in monopolized form.
```"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights."
-Murray N. Rothbard.```
```"Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
-Murray N. Rothbard.```