MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623994E4.55625.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Mar 22 2022 07:58 pm
The Pharma Bro? You mean Martin Shkreli, that pathetic excuse for a human being?
well there's a lot of people that are pathetic excuses for human
beings. maybe most of us fit that definition. whats funny is he went
to prison for a whitecollar crime. and nobody suffered. he actually
made these investors money even though he dipped from his other company
to do it.
regardless of what you think of him, he is a genius. and when he spoke about those programs, he was correct.
Not paying your bill is also theft.
if i dont pay a bill, i don't go to prison or jail.
also these hospitals overcharge and make fraudulant charges.
I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it
went down to 2,500 usd.
in the usa you don't have to go without. there's many options.
I have to say, Libertarianism is the
most brainded economic/moral philsophy
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623A25B1.123881.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
What happens if you don't pay your taxes to fund the scheme du jour?
You get a fine, maybe have your home taken, and bank accounts seized.
If you still don't pay and knuckle under, armed men will come to take
you to prison.
If you don't want to go with them, they will use force to take you.
If you resist that force, they will attempt to kill you. With guns.
Every time someone says, "There ought to be a law," they are saying
that those who disagree should be killed if they don't comply. Any
time someone uses the government's (near) monopoly of force to enact something they want, that's what they're doing.
People choose not to think of their "reasonable" demands in that way,
but a failure to look to the end result doesn't make it so.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-civilisa
@MSGID: <623A6AA2.27792.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623994E6.55626.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on
Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123860.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like
tion.fe
You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your
llowgunp
citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.
Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you
live,
I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at
oint t
extract taxes.
Come to Spain and expand your catalog of experiences.
Modern Socialism is coercitive by force. It works on the premise that
you do what you are told, else the cops show up and beat your brains
out against a wall. The threat of force is usually very well hidden and people does not think much about it, but here is this: Socializing
forces scalate their threat against anybody who resists until disidence
is destroyed.
See, if you don't place a "No Smoking" sign in your bar you get a
letter with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you get a citation. If
you get a citation and ignore it, they command you to close the bar. If you refuse to close the bar, they send government mercenaries to close
the bar. If you still refuse to close the bar, they beat your brains
out of your head.
The common response is "Nobody is so stupid to push matters up to that point," and while that may be true, it does not deny the fact that
Every Single Command from Government is backed by the threat that they will eventually destroy anybody who disobeys.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Actually, Anarcho-Syndicalism is turning a territory into a federation
of cooperative companies (since they don't recognize the notion of nation), Communism is about turning the whole nation into a Cooperative (and eventually disolve the nation) and Fascism is about turning the nation into a company, in which every department is run in a semi-cooperative way.
The reason why Communist regimes end up operating as quasi-fascism is because in order to have people join the Cooperative you need to force them to join, and that requires power structures. Once you have power structures in place, the people on top has no reason to release the
reins because they can be the Dear Leaders forever.
Fascism has a similar peoblem with having people join State Unionized firms... they need to force people to accept working in the Union the General of the Week wants to give them, which is the reason there was
so much black market and illegal Unions going on in Spain back in the days.
Greenlfc wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <62388DD6.123861.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Arelor said the following...
The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb,
which makes it an easier sell.
The US is also very far from Libertarian.
(I'm agreeing with you here).
Socialism sounds smart to dumb people. Why shouldn't we take care of people and share our resources, and so on? It's just that socialism is the worst possible way to do it, because it relies on human nature
*not* being what it is. See The Tragedy of the Commons, or Lord Acton.
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but
not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it
ends up.
Gamgee wrote to MRO <=-
@MSGID: <623A7927.27800.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their
dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.
Either your insurance SUCKS BADLY, or you're lying.
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also
wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a
deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to
pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
Oh yeah, that's a great solution. Does wonders for the credit rating, too. LOL
I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill f much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.
That is a so-so solution at best and should not be considered a standard.
Captive markets are so bad because this sort of shit happens. Lots of medicines can be expensive in an area because they are the only authorized ones for disease X, but if you smuggled them from somewhere else you could have them for less than half the price.
You preach anarchy.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent anymore and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
Force is required, because in this ideological state, agreement/disagreement is rendered as moral/immoral. That is, "we" are right, because we have the solution and are moral, and everyone
else must be immoral. Take for examples the "taxation is theft" line. That belies a firm and rigid belief that only one pattern of property rights is legitimate, and people who accept an
other are not only accepting an inferior belief, but are IMMORAL and HARMFUL. These ideologies are profoundly anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment, as we have come to a system where what is mor
what our system should be, is based on consensus and self-rule. We choose our moral frameworks and precepts and alternative ones simply need to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
--- MRO wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 2022 09:35 am
You preach anarchy.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.
You preach anarchy.`
You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".
Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to
india and china.
i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house
other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances
well, but i wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer
days.
the doctor wrote to MRO <=-
post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.
As am I, and I usually do that, however, it seemed a long post to
quote (and scroll though) for a one line reply.
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
Yup.
--- GREENLFC wrote ---
No. Anarchy and Democracy are basically the same thing. You have to protect freedoms, and yes it's a tight balance. Basically, I line up with the US founders, Locke, etc, in that the sole purpose of government is to protect against outside aggression and to ensure individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Everything outside of that is wrong.
--- GAMGEE wrote ---
the doctor wrote to MRO <=-
Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.
I feel dirty.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans
all the time.
They'll start new projects and cancel projects all
the time, resulting in layoffs.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore -
Companies can let you go at any time (and people leave for
other jobs all the time). I feel like there's no such thing
as a job for life anymore.
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B1C1D.8900.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED87.55648.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:17 pm
why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?
$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.
there's a lot of factors and different types of insurance. with my current insurance i wouldn't have to pay that much probably. it's complicated stuff. you have a deductable you agree to, then you have various coverages for care and for drugs. i wouldn't expect someone
from another country to understand it because it's so convoluted.
For some providers i'm paying a lot and having to do that deductable,
for other ones i'm paying a few cents. there's also agreements that
the hospitals have with insurance companies and there's also generic drugs.
it's very complicated so you can't believe someone when they explain it
in 2 sentences.
Our system really needs to be gutted and fixed, and that's what Trump
was working on. You couldn't go in before and say how much to fix a broken arm? how much if i have a sinus infection? how much if i need a yearly physical? they would tell you to fuck off before. they don't
know. i'm not sure if that law/order got pushed through [or reversed
by biden] by trump, but it was a great thing. ---
MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B1D1A.8901.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED8D.55652.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:39 pm
The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the wife
sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place and have a
job for life.
It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to india and china.
i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances well, but i
wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer days.
btw, i could have had a couple houses via inheritance but i turned them down because they required fixing up, and i'd have to relocate. also houses can be a financial drain if you have an older one. ---
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-any
@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent
more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore
this very fact.
In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You
must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."
It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working
for our own good.
This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according
to which the government should only be transfered power that is
reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you"
is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.
The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because
it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a
corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to
force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B33B2.27814.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED8B.55651.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:35 pm
Most "Taxation is theft" card holders don't care if you want to
purchase services from the government. Anarchocapitalists and the like tend to think that if you want to set up a comune or a cooperative or
any socialistic sort of society that is a problem for you and your followers alone.
It is the socialistic types which build political systems and then need
to incorporate everybody they can into them. This is the main reason
why it is very hard to opt-out of heavyweight socialist services: they want to force everybody to participate. If you do as much as complain because it works badly you will be labeled a rebel, unless you imply
that it would work better if it grew bigger.
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B5B07.123912.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".
Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.
Here is the key. The *only* appropriate use for government's monopoly
of force is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and property. In the case of you not paying your rent or mortgage, you're infringing on
the rights of the true owner of the property.
Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B5B07.123913.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...
Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...
All of which covered up things like mounting debt, increased
restrictions on rights, the urbanization of society, and the eventual destruction of the nuclear family. The post-war years were *built* on debt, debt we as a nation can never pay back. The 20th Century was the fun part of a roller coaster that goes "splat" at the end. We're just waiting for the splat.
Gamgee wrote to Nightfox <=-
@MSGID: <623BC74F.27828.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623B8B02.64996.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm
well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.
You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.
So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?
It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.
Well, yes, to some extent. If those two items are preventing you from getting what you want, perhaps they should be changed?
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.
Agreed, and understood. But...... it's not that bad everywhere.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the time, resulting in layoffs.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all
the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the
time, resulting in layoffs.
Yup. They plan to do something. Then something happens (often it's new gov't regulations) that derails the plan. Since the current plan won't have any payback, they need to cut their losses.
There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore
That hasn't existed for decades now. Nothing new.
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.
This is what happens when the gov't interferes with the market.
Using the Socialist Utopia of California as an example:
+ Many locales actively block the development of new housing.
+ They dump a ton of rules and regulations on anyone who can get permission to build something new, and on the current landlords.
The result: Supply stagnates, demand stays the same (or increases). Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that means prices go up.
I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my vi of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a right make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
... *IT IS* documented, look under "For Internal Use Only."
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm
Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rentany
more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?
No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore this very fact.
In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."
It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working for our own good.
This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according to which the government should only be transfered power that is reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you" is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.
The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:36 pm
That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a ri make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.
Why does the State have claim to property but a Security Company doesn't?
The Spanish State fails to secure lots of property. Occupy style people ofte get into houses while their owners are out on vacation and then won't let th in. Many people who can actually afford rent move into a house and then refu to pay the rent because the government is not going to enforce rental contracts. What happens is you end up paying a Security Company to enforce y property claims, this is, you pay a group of tough guys who move in and one or another remove the offending party from property.
Since the State is failing to enforce property rights there, your logic dictates we should be bending knee to some sort of Desocupa styled agency?
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Dr. What wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623C6F6A.123932.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <623C8EBF.27841.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623C4073.55679.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
That is hidden circular reasoning. It asumes the State's claims for managing your property are legitimate; therefore, any management of
your property by the State is legitimate.
It also breaks off quite badly because the State may decide your money
is necessary for keeping up positive discrimination policies, pro gay campaigns and a whole lot of policies which you have mentioned to
consider self destructive. Feel free not to call it theft, butif they
take your money in order to perpretate what you consider a destructive activity then my bet is you'd have issue with that.
The circular reasoning breaks at the moment you put into question what legitimates the government to manage your property. It can't be the sovereignity confered by the population, since you have already claimed that the population has no say in the outcome of politics and that politics is a rigged game.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.
Then again, "debt sucks" card holders are usually not against debt per
se, but against contracting more debt that there is a plan for paying
off for. Specifically if the money is then missused, and MORE
specifically if it is missused in something that won't help pay the
debt off later.
See, if I contract debt and use the debt to build a machine, and then I use the machine to produce stuff, I can sell the stuff I produce and
then use the money to pay the debt off. If I take debt and use it to
bribe unions, pay diversity programs, or pay for benefits for the
CHurch, that money goes into a blackhole and is never seen again. And
then you still have to pay it back.
End result is that the common citizen is then forced to pay more debt
than he can pay off reasonably.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
According to your proposition, if the State is the source of all
property, and the State is legitimated to define what your property is, then it might decide that the legs of everybody whose Internet nick is boraxman belong to the State. Since the government defines what is your property or what isn't, then they could lay legitimate claim on
anything, including your legs, your house or your kid.
Needless to say, this is absurd. Therefore the logic falls appart and
the premise (that the fact the State has a legitimate, unlimited claim
to property because it is the source or property) is false.
There is a reason why US Constitutionalist are so anal with their Constitutional rights, and are always bitching "the Constitution this"
and "the Constitution that." The reason is no other than the fact the State is recognized as a rotten entity which cannot be trusted with limitless power. The very existence of bills or rights and the like
(which are very, VERY Western) is an open admission that State's power structures will be used to stomp the population if left uncheck.
So here is your non-dogmatic real world example of wide acceptance of
the idea that Governments are dangerous to its own subjects. With
plenty empirical evidence of what happens when the government is not
set hard limits at that. Gotta love those Marry your Rapist laws in
15th Century I guess.
Claiming that "The Alternative to my Government" is worse does not make your proposition good. All it does is convince people to worship Satan instead of the Alternative, but that does not mean eating babies in
Black Masses is virtuous.
What actually serves a use is to recognize Satan's dark nature, so when
he makes a move to grab more of your stuff, you can recognize it for
what it is and act accordingly, instead of falling for Satanist
propaganda about his legitimacy to break your butt when he pleases, because he acts with your good at heart.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the
Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the
law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't
property cleared things up
Denn wrote to Dr. What <=-
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
Arelor wrote to Dr. What <=-
There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.
And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".
Actually, his proposals are more in line with Rivera's Fascism than
with modern progressives.
Which makes acusing Libertarians of making baseless untested
propositions funny, because Spain had a Rivera influenced political
system for decades and it was proven to suck big time.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.
The population does have a say in democracies, in societies which recognise right to self-ownership and self-governance. I do concur with critiques tha we have now does not match this ideal, but that idea is sound. Modern Liber Democracy is based on the idea that because the state represents the will of the people (in theory), and we are by means of the system in place, governin ourselves. This is a preferable form of governance than autocracy.
The states claims are legitimate because we believe them to be so. That is same for any system. Monarchies, theocracies even anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist states. All these are legitimate when we believe them to be so. To argue that because YOU don't consider it legitima and therefore it is a tyranny, that is an accusation against ALL system, including yours. All systems without exception.
The claim of circular reasoning doesn't hold. The circle is broken by recognition that the state is legitimate, and it is legitimate according to Western values because of the reasons stated before. If we, en masse, did n believe the state to be legitimate, then so be it, it is no longer legitimat It could force itself, but then it would be a tyranny. A state which takes money under the pretext of providing basic social service sand uses it to ke up discriminatory policies, etc, would, should, according to Western values, considered illegitimate.
This is the flaw in Libertarian reasoning. It proposes that an axiom alone render a state legitimate, which is closer to how tyrannies operate (adopt o values, no choice what they are, or else). The "voluntary" nature is a lie, because it too must act like a state and enforce management of property. Th is no "natural" state of property rights. The moment you accept that someon can own a block of land they don't actually live on and make those on it trespassers, you have a state, and you are at the exact same point where we now, with a claim that the management of property is legitimate, and the ent deciding so, enforcing that, is legitimate.
Now, if your claim was the state is usurping its power, abusing the system, failing to uphold the ideals that modern Western civlised culture is based o and that those in power should be replaced, by means of revolution with thos who CAN uphold those ideals, then that is a claim I can agree with. But wha people want to do, is use this problem as a means of sneaking in their own ideal
The reason the West is the Best is because we managed to squeeze in Constitutions, a Bill of Rights, rule of law, and checks and balances that k the state in check, INCLUDING an armed population. You cannot have freedom you are not willing to oppose the state. Opposing the state is very legitim when it needs to be opposed and I think there are cases in the West where th warranted now. The US is almost, if not already, a fascist state.
But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.
So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Denn on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am
I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.
That hasn't existed for decades now either.
Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.
I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.
But they're there sucking the tax coffers, I do agree many don't really wor
the ones that do work usually screw over the tax payers.
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Modern Democracies' claim to legitimacy is that their sovereignity
comes from its citizens. Since the citizens delegate their power on the government's agencies then the government agencies' actions are legitimized as an extension of the will of the people.
Now, as you have pointed out, governing agencies rarely act as an extension of the will of the people. Frankly, I can't remember many politicians here who got elected and then _tried_ to carry out their political promises. That alone puts a heavy dent in governments' claim
to legitimacy, since if their power is not an extension of the will of the people, their justification is proven false.
So you see, it is just not a single axiom hacking at the idea that governing bodies aren't full of shit.
That something is right or wrong depending on how many people supports
the idea is moral relativism. If you buy into that idea you must then conceede that Identitary Politics and measures which priorize ethnic
and non heterosexual minorities over normative mayorities are morally right, since such ideas pack much more support from Western population
in general than the alternative.
So you either recognize those policies as legit and change your
political views, or recognize your proposition for moral relativism as absurd.
The claim against your circular reasoning holds because you are taking
the Government's right over property as a tautology and then running around in circles with it. "The government has the right to define your claim to property by virtue of being a legitimate definer of property." Which I have reduced to absurd too in an earlier message.
And yes, something I have actually argued is that governing agencies
are usurping the power transfered to them by citizens - if such
transfer can be done. I don't think a citizen can transfer to the government rights a citizen has not, but modern Democracies claim it is
so done.
It is funny you make a case against voluntarism since your proposed economical model is presented as a voluntarist one by a number of
groups :-)
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.
So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?
I see States as Wintel hardware. They suck for a number of reasons but
we keep rolling with them because that is what most of the population
can afford.
Modern States are actually QUITE recent so there is no shortage of examples of alternatives. Actually, most of mankind's (Pre)?History has been spent in tribalistic-like anarchy and we haven't all died, so
there is that.
Feudal systems work without a State. They consist on people swearing fealty to more powerful people, who swears fealty to people who is even more powerful than them. Kings didn't use to be heads of State, but
just men with a lot of support. If they messed up with their own oaths they lost all their support. Variations of this still exist in the
world.
Honestly, I think the best no-State alternative would be similar to Spanish Neighbourhood Juntas (which, by the way, are recognized as administrative bodies). They are like town halls which rent land from villagers and then use it to produce stuff, which they sell, and then
the benefits are invested in town infrastructure. Or they own a
percentage of the village and rent it to third parties, and invest the profits in village infrastructure. Or, most usually, a mix of both.
They get bonus support points because the govnerment tried to stomp
them not long ago - with a very serious backslash. Corruption is very
low because everybody knows everybody and issues would be noticed very very quickly. Involvement is very direct because if something is not working you can talk about it with the Junta members in the bar and you can replace them just as quickly if they prove themselves useless.
Oh, and the current lieutenant in mine has an awesome horse who he
loves so much, and will let me visit him anytime I want.
The big issue with Neighbourhood Juntas is they only work with small populations in which everybody knows everybody, so they aren't really a general solution for, say, anything larger than my village. Lots of Spanish anarchists would split cities up in hundreds of small neighbourhood Juntas but I don't think the concept translates well to urban areas at all. I guess cities are stuck with Wintel hardware.
So let's recap:
1 - There are Stateless political models which work without imploding
(and this can be proved) Heck, Revolutionary Catalonia in the 30s consisted on a bunch of trade unions, cooperatives and militias and
lasted 3 whole years before Franco stomped them. Bonus points because I think you would have liked it. 2 - They are not Universaly aplicable and/or are morally bankrupt in their own way.
3 - Modern States are morally bankrupt, but have too much staying power
in the places where they are implemented, so the places that have them
are stuck with them. However, it is important for the population to acknowledge that their governing State is morally bankrupt in order to limit its ability to spread its filth.
That pretty much sums up what I think. I hope it makes sense now.
Dr. What wrote to Arelor <=-
@MSGID: <623DB508.123954.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-
Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:
"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"
Which is the normal argument for the leftie Elites: Let the "experts" decide for you. They are way smarter than you. (Which implies that
they think you are too stupid to decide for themselves.)
They also ignore that in EVERY instance where this has happened, the
gov't has turned corrupt and taken everything for the few at the "top".
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof that slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is
forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their
debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released
after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided
with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave,
and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Hello Moondog!
** On Thursday 24.03.22 - 14:16, Moondog wrote to Arelor:
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.
WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?
This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof tha
slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.
they would also do stuff where they said they had cost the owner money but dam
ing equipment or whatever, and then tack on years.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It m coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of governm system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.
I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, wi 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that y believe should exist.
I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative worse.
Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determin *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim t property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful prop it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which en your rightful claim to your income.
Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours alienable and conditional to contract.
If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up
I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.
This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.
My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.
Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?
My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. [...]
The city governmentThe main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. [...]
WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?
--- GAMGEE wrote ---
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Haha! That actually made me LOL for real. :-)
Thanks for not being easily offended, like so many.
All good, cheers.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-> > I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane
you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.
Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.
Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.
Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.
Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.
This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.
My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.
Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?
Voluntary servitude exists. Terms for employment at most companies
would probably qualify since the servitude is based on compensation for time served.
the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-
I'm glad you liked it. I'm tired of the always offended people... and I've had enough of eternal september...
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
- nostalia
nostalia wrote to Dream Master <=-
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to
start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.
SSDs took that valuable time from me!Ya.. darn the new tech making things so fast!
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: nostalia to Dream Master on Mon Jun 06 2022 06:30 pm
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each
Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.
If you're sticking with a spinning drive, swapping the drive out for a Hybrid SSD makes a world of difference. Picture a SATA drive with 4-8 GB of cache stuck on the side of it. It boots like a SATA drive, loading all of the apps you use into the cache on first load, so the next time you open the app, it's served from the fast flash cache.
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am
I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.
But, when do you get the coffees?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?
I hate leaving stuff on unecessarily.
If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.
I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.
Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD
my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Arelor on Thu Jun 09 2022 07:30 am
my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though
Yeah, it sounds like a marketing scam XD If it comes with ECC memory then
I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea
i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
I don't know.
If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.
I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.
Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.
Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.
That does make it challenging. I did find an IDE SSD a couple of years back for an old Thinkpad T42 I couldn't bear to part with.
Best. Laptop. Keyboard. Ever.
Even though you're still limited to IDE transfer speeds, the lack of appreciable seek time made a huge difference.
... Where is the center of the maze?
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 513 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 07:01:39 |
| Calls: | 8,287 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,517 |
| Messages: | 928,375 |
| Posted today: | 1 |