taylor price
çĽćĽ / Permanent Vacation
PR's Tumblrdome
Xuebing Du
NASA
romaâ
oozey mess
Discoholic đŞŠ
Keni
if i look back, i am lost
Love Begins
Show & Tell
wallacepolsom
todays bird
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
@theartofmadeline
art blog(derogatory)
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
Misplaced Lens Cap
seen from United States
seen from Peru
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Iceland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Iceland
seen from Vietnam
seen from Netherlands
seen from France
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Puerto Rico
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
@fredmakesbread
I assure you sexual activity is necessary for our shareholders
>immigration status and race were determined from driving behavior
lol lmao even
I'm more worried about genetic information being inferred from driving days
Im curious how sexual activity was determined by driving behavior
"& connected apps"
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
June is a âManâs Monthâ meaning itâs a month where men / boyz can just chill-out. i know thatâs misogynous but itâs OK
Now that the Heralds have re-sworn their oaths, do yâall think theyâre still capable of getting drunk? The Return canât. I know Jez was wasted the last 1000 years, but he had forsaken his oaths. If the new oath pack is like the last oath pack, they should be constantly imbued with investiture. Which means no more getting drunk, potentially.
#1 I'm pretty sure the Heralds didn't have access to surges or Stormlight without the Honorblades. Not really about the oath itself. Feel free to provide a source to prove me wrong if you have it.
#2 Their bodies are reconstituted by Investiture, but that doesn't mean they constantly have free Stormlight ready to heal them whenever. Unlike Returned, who have one big Breath from Endowment and then a bunch of regular Breaths to sustain them.
#3 Radiants (like Shallan) could get drunk if they wanted, and I'm sure Heralds would have the same control.
A successful record setting Scientology raid.
can they do something constructive like idk plant a garden
as if destroying the aura of importance and competence enjoyed by exploitative cultists isn't constructive
not to defend exploitative cultists or anything, but maybe instead of saying that it's okay to commit crimes against Bad People, you could explain how this isn't a blatant violation of private property rights?
Can a cult based on deceit, that extracts massive amounts of property from it's members through manipulation, lies, and intimidation truly be said to own anything legitimately?
If you lie to someone to get their money, are you not a thief?
Do thieves have property rights, or do those rights get suspended until those they have victimized have been made whole?
Technically, lying to someone to get their money is fraud, not theft. And I haven't done a deep dive into Scientology specifically, but couldn't the same be said of any church by a non-believer? If Malachi says that the Lord will pour out blessings if you bring the tithes to the storehouse, is that not a lie, from an atheist's perspective?
Assuming their gains are ill-gotten, A stealing from B does not entitle C to steal from A. A cannot be justly killed by any random person just because they possess stolen goods, so some fraction at least of their property rights must remain intact. So to say that A doesn't rightfully own B's goods that were stolen does not necessarily mean that all of A's other legitimately owned goods are forfeit and now unowned.
The "Church" of Scientology is an obvious scam that only an idiot would think is legitimate and their buildings are 100% funded through said scam.
You said yourself you have no real knowledge about them, so maybe don't overextend yourself arguing for their supposed rights.
As for "A stealing from B does not entitle C to steal from A"
Hard disagree. Sanctimonious horseshit.
Robbing known thieves is a public service. Especially if you manage to make some or all of the victims whole in the process.
You don't know me and you don't owe me anything. I follow you because I was under the impression from your other posts that you have a similar philosophical/political framework as I do - that is, a roughly Rothbardian libertarian/anarchist property rights framework. If I misjudged what your first principles are, we can agree to disagree. I started this discussion because I'm trying to figure out how your endorsement of trespass, vandalism, theft, and general hooliganism is consistent with that framework.
If a carjacker steals my car, and you take it from him to return it to me, you have done me a service and done nothing wrong, even if you had to use force in the process. I totally agree on that.
If you know someone is a serial carjacker and see a car in their driveway and then proceed to key the car, burn it down, or steal it and drive it around as if it's totally up for grabs, you haven't made the world a better place. All you've done is become a vandal, an arsonist, or a thief. And your crime isn't against the carjacker, it's against me.
A thief doesn't have property rights over stolen property but someone does, and if that person isn't you, you have no right to act as if it's unowned.
Criminals commit crimes against other criminals all the time. It's why gang violence is a thing. Adding to the total number of criminals isn't a public service.
Yes, in the event that there was a reasonable way to return said property of course destroying it would be unacceptable.
However, in the case we are discussing the wrongdoer has obtained legal immunity for their wrongdoing, and it would be nearly, if not totally impossible for any non-institutional actor to effectively return said property or even identify the victims.
In this case, decreasing the wrongdoer's opportunity to enjoy his ill gotten gains is a perfectly valid move.
I mean, what the fuck is Ancap about allowing thieves to gain legal immunity through corrupt govt officials, and then just standing by shrugging and saying "Oh well I guess I can't break this utterly corrupt law, so I will just let the thief profit?"
To me that sounds more like Legalism than Anarcho-Capitalism.
Okay so just to be clear, you actually do agree that C isn't entitled to steal from A just because A stole from B. There's just this special case with added context where you think it's a good thing.
My position is not a legalistic "that action is illegal and, therefore, immoral." I don't think it's accurate to call "don't destroy things that don't belong to you" an insanely corrupt law. I can see where you're coming from that extralegal means of obtaining justice are justified when legal means are not available. My disagreement first of all is whether non-victim third parties have any business trying to get justice. Secondly, I see no fundamental distinction between this argument and a communist saying "all business profits are based on wage theft, so it's okay for me to steal and loot whenever I want."
A successful record setting Scientology raid.
can they do something constructive like idk plant a garden
as if destroying the aura of importance and competence enjoyed by exploitative cultists isn't constructive
not to defend exploitative cultists or anything, but maybe instead of saying that it's okay to commit crimes against Bad People, you could explain how this isn't a blatant violation of private property rights?
Can a cult based on deceit, that extracts massive amounts of property from it's members through manipulation, lies, and intimidation truly be said to own anything legitimately?
If you lie to someone to get their money, are you not a thief?
Do thieves have property rights, or do those rights get suspended until those they have victimized have been made whole?
Technically, lying to someone to get their money is fraud, not theft. And I haven't done a deep dive into Scientology specifically, but couldn't the same be said of any church by a non-believer? If Malachi says that the Lord will pour out blessings if you bring the tithes to the storehouse, is that not a lie, from an atheist's perspective?
Assuming their gains are ill-gotten, A stealing from B does not entitle C to steal from A. A cannot be justly killed by any random person just because they possess stolen goods, so some fraction at least of their property rights must remain intact. So to say that A doesn't rightfully own B's goods that were stolen does not necessarily mean that all of A's other legitimately owned goods are forfeit and now unowned.
The "Church" of Scientology is an obvious scam that only an idiot would think is legitimate and their buildings are 100% funded through said scam.
You said yourself you have no real knowledge about them, so maybe don't overextend yourself arguing for their supposed rights.
As for "A stealing from B does not entitle C to steal from A"
Hard disagree. Sanctimonious horseshit.
Robbing known thieves is a public service. Especially if you manage to make some or all of the victims whole in the process.
You don't know me and you don't owe me anything. I follow you because I was under the impression from your other posts that you have a similar philosophical/political framework as I do - that is, a roughly Rothbardian libertarian/anarchist property rights framework. If I misjudged what your first principles are, we can agree to disagree. I started this discussion because I'm trying to figure out how your endorsement of trespass, vandalism, theft, and general hooliganism is consistent with that framework.
If a carjacker steals my car, and you take it from him to return it to me, you have done me a service and done nothing wrong, even if you had to use force in the process. I totally agree on that.
If you know someone is a serial carjacker and see a car in their driveway and then proceed to key the car, burn it down, or steal it and drive it around as if it's totally up for grabs, you haven't made the world a better place. All you've done is become a vandal, an arsonist, or a thief. And your crime isn't against the carjacker, it's against me.
A thief doesn't have property rights over stolen property but someone does, and if that person isn't you, you have no right to act as if it's unowned.
Criminals commit crimes against other criminals all the time. It's why gang violence is a thing. Adding to the total number of criminals isn't a public service.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
A successful record setting Scientology raid.
can they do something constructive like idk plant a garden
as if destroying the aura of importance and competence enjoyed by exploitative cultists isn't constructive
not to defend exploitative cultists or anything, but maybe instead of saying that it's okay to commit crimes against Bad People, you could explain how this isn't a blatant violation of private property rights?
Can a cult based on deceit, that extracts massive amounts of property from it's members through manipulation, lies, and intimidation truly be said to own anything legitimately?
If you lie to someone to get their money, are you not a thief?
Do thieves have property rights, or do those rights get suspended until those they have victimized have been made whole?
Technically, lying to someone to get their money is fraud, not theft. And I haven't done a deep dive into Scientology specifically, but couldn't the same be said of any church by a non-believer? If Malachi says that the Lord will pour out blessings if you bring the tithes to the storehouse, is that not a lie, from an atheist's perspective?
Assuming their gains are ill-gotten, A stealing from B does not entitle C to steal from A. A cannot be justly killed by any random person just because they possess stolen goods, so some fraction at least of their property rights must remain intact. So to say that A doesn't rightfully own B's goods that were stolen does not necessarily mean that all of A's other legitimately owned goods are forfeit and now unowned.
A successful record setting Scientology raid.
can they do something constructive like idk plant a garden
as if destroying the aura of importance and competence enjoyed by exploitative cultists isn't constructive
not to defend exploitative cultists or anything, but maybe instead of saying that it's okay to commit crimes against Bad People, you could explain how this isn't a blatant violation of private property rights?
you've got to admit you were wrong every once in a while. it gives other people false hope that they can convince you of things
Holy shit how do you zoomoids use tumblr primarily on your phones, I've done light vacation scrolling and I want to fucking kill myself. You live like this???
If I have to scroll past that revolting "dandruff comb" ad where its actually lice it's a plate full of fucking AI slop lice eggs being combed onto a plate... And this is how the majority of people engage with not only Tumblr but the whole fucking Internet???
Every day my view on humanity darkens a little more
virtually anything you might think to use on phone is better on browser, phoneposters need to be executed on the streets
Firefox for Android and uBlock origin for Android and there's no ads at all.
ReVanced can also mod the Tumblr APK on Android to block all ads.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
tragic: local man forgot to add salt to his wife's bagels
What idiot communists think 'from each according to his ability, from each according to their need means: I get to do whatever I want and be given infinite luxury goods whenever I want.
What it actually means in practice: Comrade, you are able to work 16 hours a day at the radioactive asbestos factory. And you only need flavorless gruel and a cot to sleep on. Actually scratch that, having a cot is bourgeois decadence.
Quick tell the socialist and former socialist states that their higher homeownership rates than any capitalist nation is bourgeoise decadence.
Lol you must be talking to babies. Which tracks if you're a libertarian or rightoid.
Ownership you say? đ¤
Yeah, you can have personal property. You can't have a factory, private property, as personal property.
The bank has your property, you're paying off your mortgage. And even then the US government has imminent domain.
So, 62% of Americans "own" their homes. While 89% of Chinese people "own" their homes. Either way, the Chinese have a better homeownership rate than the place with the American dream.
Leaving aside your apparent inability to understand the concept of 'comedic exaggeration' and the questions of how communist modern day China really is and how much we can trust the CCPs stats.
I'm curious what exactly is the distinction between 'private' and 'personal' property. We've agreed that your home is personal property you can own. I'm assuming that means I can start growing food on my land. But what I start giving away some of the food to my neighbors? What I start selling it as a source of income? What if I find growing and selling is too much work all by myself, and I offer money to people to come help me?
At what point would my house become 'private' property
Sounds like you're home became a business.
I really hate just making up shit to answer your questions because the principles are available to you right now.
Okay, your home. Is yours. Personal property. A factory can be owned by you under capitalism. That's private property because many people work there and you extract the profits privately. If however, the factory was owned by all of the employees, they share the profits and ownership and the responsibilities the individual owner would have in the past. It's a more democratic workplace.
Idk why you would turn your home into a business, but let's say you did. Under capitalism, you make $20 off someone's labor, you pay them $10. And pocket $10 because you're a genius that came up with the idea of turning your home into a business. Under socialism, you and the worker negotiate the wage. Typically, the end result is them getting to share in the profits and the ownership of their labor. Since you cannot exploit yourself, you have arrived at a more fair employment. Your house is still your personal property. You live there. Now, if you want to open it up to private ownership, through a board of directors or shareholders, you no longer make the decisions by yourself of how your property will be used, the private investors now have a much larger say.
Idk why you would turn your home into a business
You dont know anybody who makes/sells things out of their home? I know at least one guy who pays local kids to help weed his garden(the produce he sells at a local farmers market).
Now, if you want to open it up to private ownership, through a board of directors or shareholders,
Okay, but what if I just want to grow a bit of food to help supplement my income?
> Under socialism, you and the worker negotiate the wage. Typically, the end resut is them getting to share in the profits and the ownership of their labor.
This is demonstrably false.
1. In a free market (and in the status quo), the employer and employee also negotiate the wage.
2. In the status quo, the end result is typically at-will employment with a mutually agreed upon hourly wage or annual salary. Many if not most people prefer to be wage-earners rather than entrepreneurs, and not without good reason.
Let's leave aside for a moment high-paying, highly-skilled jobs and simple agreements between two people, which more often than not involve literal negotiations before a wage/salary is agreed to. Just because a prospective Wendy's drive-thru worker can't set any wage they think is "fair" does not mean a negotiation hasn't occurred. A worker accepts a $10 wage if they don't expect to produce more than $10 with the skills and resources at their disposal (while accounting for uncertainty and time preference). In other words, they accept a wage if - all else being equal - they don't think they can do better anywhere else.
If the employer profits $20 more after hiring an employee than they did before, that doesn't mean the employee's labor is worth $20. If the employee's labor was worth $20, they could do it without the employer and pocket the whole thing. Conversely, if the employee required $20 as a condition of employment, they would not be hired, as it would provide no benefit to the employer.
In a free market, workers are never compelled to work for a wage that they don't agree to. The alternative to accepting any given wage is not abject poverty and starvation, it is self-employment. If the prospects of self-employment are less attractive than the wage/salary being offered, the employee freely and rationally accepts the offer of employment. As long as people can own property and freely contract with each other, this outcome will never be prevented.
One thing I think people who have only seen the Lord of The Rings movies dont quite get is that the entire first half of the book Return of The King follows all of the major characters except Frodo and Sam. When Aragorn marches on the black Gate to distract Sauron from Frodo and Sam's quest, we have no idea whats going on with them. The last the reader knew, Frodo had been paralyzed by Shelob, and captured by orcs(that was where two towers ended.).
I feel like that is a very different experience as a reader.
yes and as a 10yo reading it for the first time I hated it so much I actually skipped that entire volume to get to the Frodo part lol
ATTENTION ALL BERRYPICKERS. clean your screens and lock in, there is a new color sensitivity test
Find your Just Noticeable Difference in colour perception. How small a colour difference can you actually see?
Evil and terrible
Itâs cute that youâre an anarchist and you say the government is illegitimate and everything.
But we all know you sit in your car and wait for the light to turn green.
This is either good trolling or low iq criticism.
No, it's just correct.
It's that, too, but the implied criticism is not. Yes, anarchists obey traffic signals, but no, that is not at odds in any way with anarchism.
Its because we don't want to get hit in the intersection you pistachio brained moron
anarchists: a society can have rules and order without state enforcement
this idiot: you obey rules, gotcha!
If the rules canât be enforced they donât exist.
We all know you donât obey traffic laws because you thought about it and decided it was a good idea. You didnât register your car, or follow the speed limit because you talked about it with your neighbors and all simply to agree to do it by social convention.
Itâs because those laws are written down and then enforced.
that's funny, I don't remember saying rules don't need to be written down or enforced.
i said state enforcement.
So how should the rules on that list be enforced then?
if you need me to tell you that, you're in no position to make posts about what anarchists do, think, or believe
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Itâs cute that youâre an anarchist and you say the government is illegitimate and everything.
But we all know you sit in your car and wait for the light to turn green.
This is either good trolling or low iq criticism.
No, it's just correct.
It's that, too, but the implied criticism is not. Yes, anarchists obey traffic signals, but no, that is not at odds in any way with anarchism.
Its because we don't want to get hit in the intersection you pistachio brained moron
anarchists: a society can have rules and order without state enforcement
this idiot: you obey rules, gotcha!
If the rules canât be enforced they donât exist.
We all know you donât obey traffic laws because you thought about it and decided it was a good idea. You didnât register your car, or follow the speed limit because you talked about it with your neighbors and all simply to agree to do it by social convention.
Itâs because those laws are written down and then enforced.
that's funny, I don't remember saying rules don't need to be written down or enforced.
i said state enforcement.
Itâs cute that youâre an anarchist and you say the government is illegitimate and everything.
But we all know you sit in your car and wait for the light to turn green.
This is either good trolling or low iq criticism.
No, it's just correct.
It's that, too, but the implied criticism is not. Yes, anarchists obey traffic signals, but no, that is not at odds in any way with anarchism.
Its because we don't want to get hit in the intersection you pistachio brained moron
anarchists: a society can have rules and order without state enforcement
this idiot: you obey rules, gotcha!
