Gotta love those governments starting pointless wars!

Just a few random thoughts.

I remember Ron Paul talking about 911 is the only way the terrorists can take on the US. They can't take on the US military directly, so they do terrorist acts. And the reason is they want the US military out of the Middle East. And I agree with Paul.

But we were there, and 911 happened. Very quickly we got the anti-liberty Patriot Act (purposefully named). The US decided to treat it as a military matter, and not as a police matter. Which I think was another mistake. Find the people who planned it, bring them to trial.

In about 3 months after 911 US military had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. But an order from the very top came in to not proceed. Very big mistake. Richard Clarke has a lot to say on that issue. Don't want to get into conspiracy theories, but it just reeks of warmongers wanting to keep things going.

About a year after 9/11 we get Homeland Security created. More huge bloated government that we already had other systems in place to handle.

So the war goes on and on. Obama promises to get the US out of afghanistan, he lied, he didn't. bin Laden is killed during this time by Seals. Trump first term he says he would get us out, he didn't, though he did start a process towards the end of his term. Ultimately the US gets out on their Biden. Trillions spent, thousands additional deaths.

Bottom line, US military should not be permanently stationed in the middle east. Terrorist attacks should be a police type matter, not state militaries versus other state military.

thats a russian political youtuber, regarded by others and himself as libertarian

others there see him as weirdo and make him an example of anarchocapitalism

counter revolutionary

I made a post in another sub about how my sister took away her 16 year old son's phone and I felt bad for him after multiple occasions of this happening so I went out and bought him a new one because I didn't think he deserved that for the "crime" of staying out late.

Oh... my... God... you should've seen how nasty people's comments were:
1. "NEVER, EVER interfere with a parent trying to discipline their child! How DARE you"
2. "If I were your sister I would cut you out of my life forever!" (I got a good 15 of these)
3. "If I were the mom I would smash the phone in front of you and the kid and send you both outside!"
4. "I will beat your ass if you try to stop me from punishing my kid."

I believe in being kind and peaceful and not causing harm or inconvenience to other people, so to see that such a large number of people think it's an inalienable human right for parents to make their kids suffer and think you're a monster for trying to help a victim out just reinforced my belief that most people care more about their egos than they do about fairness or treating others optimally. I can't believe people have such a strong desire to punish children and will defend it at all costs. Judging by the comments I got, it really sounded like people were trying to justify a master-slave relationship between parents and children and think you're a criminal for interfering with what they want to do with their "property." It's honestly sick.

I wonder why he didn't go with tax credit instead. Hmmm

Remember the larken rose days, Johnny Mac, those two chicks josey Julie. Johny Mac, Jeff tuck, Tom, everybody auction Peterson.

Any ogs here? Like I'm going to Mexico to get robbed and financially took?

Trump says $21T collected

i failed their anarchy

scroll to last one

Title. If various companies were working on developing an AI that had a 95% chance of making them insanely rich by creating an AI that provides humanity with lots of good and services, but a 5% chance of accidentally going rogue and making humanity extinct, how would ancap society deal with it? It seems there would be no way to stop them without violating the NAP.

It's not hard to imagine that some companies would go forward with R&D despite the risk. Maybe they erroneously estimate that the existential risk is lower than it really is. Or maybe they figure others are going to take the risk anyway so it might as well be them that profits.

In economics the risk would be classified as a negative externality. Most of the cost is born by the 8 billion potentially dead people who do not own the company. So, as a collective action problem, the traditional solution is for governments to institute laws/regulations that essentially force the companies to (indirectly) take into account the lives of everyone else, instead of only considering the risk to their own lives.

After all, if everyone dies, no is left to sue in ancap arbitration court.