HiYaBarbie

5 ms·

1.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
I've debated lots and lots of other psychopaths, going through variations of those bullshit distractions, so I'll just not bother now.
2.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
How does it matter?
3.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This is just your cognitive dissonance talking. You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months
4.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Look, the NSA as an organization, as a whole, is blatantly violating the Constitution, which is supposedly the most sacrosanct law of the nation. The fact that they don't care about what laws say doesn't get any clearer than that.
5.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
You're right to point out that the NSA doesn't give a fuck about the law, but.. > the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it Yo
6.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> they are probably allowed, under the same charter that allows CIA to conduct HUMINT missions, to attack Italian security companies They are definitely not allowed , under the Constitution , to monitor everyone, but they do it anywa
7.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Payment fees are high and plentiful because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere. For example, it's outrageous that they charge us something like $30 - $60 for a wire transfer, but that's what happens when they can charg
8.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Yeah, that was seriously weird. No one needs an emoticon to tell himself his own mood. It could be useful for surveillance purposes though..
9.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Alright. Well, we're talking about something that might be theoretically possible, but is impossible in practice. I don't think it matters.
10.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Wow, that's just absurd .
11.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is. That's not what happened though. I pointed out that bureaucrats aren't prudent when spending other people's money, and that's sel
12.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
So how does the 'optimization' work? :) I have no clue about physics, so I'm just curious.
13.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
The question is actually based on the false premise that value can be objectively measured/quantified. In fact, value is purely subjective. In other words, the value of 'Wikipedia consumption' is only what each individual pla
14.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Perhaps more clearly, GDP doesn't distinguish between productive and unproductive activity. The government could pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in, and that would contribute to the GDP even though it was a complete waste
15.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> if you're willing to spend enough energy, you can optimize the state an arbitrarily large system as you please Define "optimize" and "system"?
16.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> Thats exactly analogous - both oversized parking lot and burning down forests for few years worth of farming are profitable, yet highly undesirable. I specifically talked about an oversized parking lot getting reduced due to it not b
17.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> I'm always a bit weary, when people rely on physics or rigid math to derive economic conclusions. You'll be delighted by Austrian Economics then: http://mises.org They start from some axioms on how humans actual
18.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
For whatever it's worth, he was clearly not posting substantively . Perhaps a reminder would be in order?
19.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
If you take the idea of "getting rid of randomness" to its logical conclusion, it boils down to making the world deterministic. Does it make sense to pursue impossible goals? If not, does it make sense to philosophize about purs
20.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Oh come on. We all know politicians break their promises and lie all the damn time. We all know there's massive surveillance everywhere, very much against the citizens' wishes. We all know politicians don't give a shit about
21.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
In every single election throughout the past decades, there have been some people working hard to enact a change for the better. How's that working out so far? Will it be different next time? Vote the bums out.. so that other bums wi
22.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Dude, seriously. By that logic, it's unethical for you to buy anything , because something bad could have happened to someone along the production chain. That's a completely nonsensical view to take, because you just can't
23.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
It's not "an ideology", by the way. It's simple truth, and I pointed to one element of why it's obvious: >> bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money > Another view
24.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> If mass deforestation was so bad, no one would do it! /s Or production/mining with extreme environmental havoc How is that analogous to what I said? What is that "METASTABLE" nonsense? :P
25.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
What's the connection between this: > A hard core libertarian might argue that all those property owners should have the right to build parking lots if they want to, and it’s nobody else’s business. .. And this: > In my opinio
26.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Cute, but where would you draw the line? "You see, the government owns your car too, because you're driving on roads built by the government" "Oh but you see, clearly, based on the government deciding under what condi
27.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
All of which could be much more efficiently provided by private enterprises competing in a free market. Strangely enough, bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money.
28.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> America/Europe doesn't have to help Africa now just like they didn't have to hurt Africa for centuries before. You don't see the fallacy in yours? I have never "hurt Africa", nor have I ever "made
29.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Perhaps the safety-related government agencies aren't really doing their purported job?
30.
by HiYaBarbie 11y ago
> No, they're given a hard time because they ignore regulation like driver background checks or insurance or calibrated tamper proof meters. "Ignoring regulations" in this context basically boils down to "competing

More ›