"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

They're waiting for you Gordon.

In

The Test Chamber


Intercom 1: (feedback)"Testing, testing. (coughs) Everything seems to
be in order."
Intercom 2: "All right, Gordon. your suit should keep you comfortable
through all this. The specimen will be delivered to you in a few
moments. If you would be so good as to climb up and start the rotors,
we can bring the anti-mass spectrometer to 80 percent and hold it there
until the carrier arrives.

Why was HL1 SO good.. why do I still remember all the voices and scenes all these years later.

In this clip, he talks as much as Gordon Freeman.
He does look the part too...
Valve should use this as a promo for SteamBoxen!

Molyneux tries to take down Gandhi, like he tried to take down Mandela a few days after he died. Here, he gets into some interesting topics (and others not so interesting), like this premise that Gandhi supposedly didn't base his ethics on logical reasoning. This appears to have some truth to it since much of Gandhi's thinking was of a different kind than what most had seen at the time.

In this article, however, Molyneux is himself found to be falling short of his rationalist aspirations. The author, David Gordon, knows (as did Gandhi) the difficulty -- indeed the impossibility -- of coming up with a 100% rationalist basis for morality/ethics.

If nothing else, the axioms upon which the ethics are based will necessarily be irrational -- not anti-reason -- but outside of reason.

Harold Crick meet Arthur Dent. Arthur Dent meet Sam Lowry. Sam Lowry meet Gordon Freeman. Gordon Freeman meet Neo.

Is that the correct order of progression? Or is it back to Arthur Dent and his sandwiches?

http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/joseph-gordon-levitt-paul-rudd-are-frontrunners-to-play-ant-man/

"Lift the knife up and down."

Thanks Gordon.

Gordon Ramsay's Steps to Success

1: Drink lots of coffee

2: ???

3: Profit

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gordon ramsay, christine, apple pie, masterchef us, season 3, blind, chef' to 'gordon ramsay, christine ha, apple pie, masterchef us, season 3, blind, chef' - edited by lucky760

Fuck you, Gordon. Make my cry.

Your video, Joseph Gordon Levitt is the Lip Synch King, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I haven't had time to watch this just yet, but there's something in the description worth commenting:

But no serious economist or political thinker -- with the possible exception of Gordon Brown -- has ever suggested capitalism can break free of booms and busts.

With Germany's elections coming up in three weeks, I'd like to point out the fifth party of our current parliament, Die Linke (The Left), who argue for a modified form of capitalism, focused on the benefit of the population, not the corporations.

Naturally, they are a pariah amongst market-friendly proponents of corporatism, but they still keep all the other parties in check... to some degree.

I'm a cyclist, both on-road and off. One day, while on a trail no less, I was coming down a really steep hill hitting around 30MPH plus. I'm on the right side, no one else is around, it's the middle of the day etc. Near the bottom, some kid, who was on the other side of the trail by himself on the bench, gets up, runs across and stands directly in front of me.

Lucky for him I have better reactions but I certainly could have killed the kid if I hit him. In regards to the skater, I understand his side a lot better because I've had this happen to me. Given his level of concern for the boy, I'm pretty sure before doing the tricks he checked to make sure no one was in his path. And then suddenly, errant child out of no where.

Also, having 2 daughters I can also say she's a shitty ass mother. I see stuff like this happen often when the parents are completely off in lala land because they don't want to care for their child and "want a break". And the mother comes up saying "you hit him on his birthday?!" As if that makes any difference except, WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE YOU SO LONG? She causally walked over the from the pavilion, which her son was running away from and never once checked on her child. I have become Flash Gordon the moment I hear either one of my kids get hurt. I have leapt over benches, tables and other people.

So yeah, I agree, mother of the year and I hope that kid grows up and finds someone who actually cares about him.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.