Message from @NativeInterface
Discord ID: 476164015370797057
you will for now yes
i barely even followed their content or like ever
but the deplatforming of him across the entire internet is just mass censorship
I agree, it sets a very bad precident 😦
this is just step 1
but i don't follow alex jones, and never cared for his news cuz it seemed like lunatic conspiracies most of the time
you mean all the time
he is a joke and you know it
anyways, this is phase 1 of deplatforming people that doesnt align with their ideology
well some of it ended up being correct, if you removed the ranting madness around it 😛
im afraid of what phase 2 would be
phase 2 would prolly be removing any non-left opinion
i had a feeling that was the plan
>how much of the market needs to be covered to be considered a monopoly? i mean, no 1 government has a monopoly of the world
not the whole world, but some have just called dibs on an entire continent
okay but some dont
the problem is that they dont have what is considered legitimate ownership of the land according to homesteading principles
please define what you believe the homesteading principle is
you need to perform an act of original appropriation, like putting it to use or joining it to acquired property, or marking it as owned
you cant just plant a flag, write a constitution and pretend everyone agrees
okay, how long does something need to be unclaimed for there to be no claim?
old lady, no kids, no siblings, dies. no will, who gets the house? how long before someone can move in to make a claim?
what would we be waiting for?
make sure there is no one that was family to make a claim
or a friend or something
i think you would have that in mind if you go homesteading a house with dead people in it. you could take a chance and just go for it, but someone might come later and reassert their claim
and if you don't know if its true, it goes into arbitration, someone gets it
correct?
yeah
who pays for arbitration?
the ones who finds it valuable to do so
it can be paid for by anyone in any way except taxation
i want the same systems we have today, but without the taxes and state monopoly bs
so you mean, just as bad
the person with the most money wins most of the time
because why side with the person with less wealth, except in places of strong character and a defined set of right and wrong
both parties need to agree on a judge. if the judge always sides with the rich, there would be no point for the poor to consult that judge.
everyone has a track record
and no rich person would want a judge who wasn't going to side with them
particularly if they want the property
so, we have an impasse