Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:49:20 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


> 
>  >   yes, that's completely insane. Where did you get the insane idea that 'car theft' 'should' be dealt with using 'political assassination'? 
> 
> "AP" is merely a label, for an idea whose most obvious application is as a way to entirely get rid of what is called "politics".  Evidently, that confuses you. 

	I am not confused at all. I'm pointing out that not only that part of the system is insane. The name of system is wrong as well. "Assassination Politics" is a self evident concept. Murder of car thieves on the other hand is just sone insane nonsense that you somehow(...) attached to AP.


> Before I even publicized it, with Part 1, I realized that it could be a substitution for the then-and-now-current so-called "criminal justice system".  

	What about you answer the question. Where  did you get your COMPLETELY INSANE 'idea' of murdering thieves from, exactly? 

	As to replacing the justice system with "assassination politics" : that is insane as well. I suggest you go to a library and read a fair amount of liberal(now 'libertarian') authors. I can provide you a reading list...

	...but the bottom line is that a liberal justice system is based on natural rights,  voluntary courts and RESTITUTION. Not MURDER of thieves. 



 
> 
> >> If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.
> 
>  >   and now you're saying that you think it's OK to murder people for looking at pictures that the worst scum on the planet, americunt puritans and other psychos, deem 'dirty'.
> 
> Strawman, the dishonest argumentation of first misrepresenting what somebody else said, and then "disproving" him.


	I am not misrepresenting anything, nor 'disproving' what you said. You think that looking at pictures is a 'crime', but since you think the 'crime' may be hard to 'prove' then you wave your hands.

	"it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system" <-- hand waving...

	...BUT if the 'crime' of looking at pictures COULD be 'proven' then you'd advocate murder for the people who look at pictures. Don't play dumb.



>    Now, YOU justify what you claimed, in response to what I said.  You won't be able to.  
> 
>

	oops. I just did. Maybe you need to review basic logic as well before learning what libertarianism is. 



>  >   you've just shown that your system is totally and completely flawed. 
> But you haven't explained how and why.  


	....What you are proposing, execution of thieves and non-criminals is COMPLETELY INSANE.
	
	What else do you want me to prove? Do you need proof that murdering thieves is morally wrong, let alone murdering COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE? 


> 
> 
> >> But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing.
> 
>     ....
> 
> >    either people will get murdered for looking at pictures or not.

> What alternatives would you suggest?


	Alternatives to what. I am following your 'logic'. You are threatening people who look at pictures with MURDER. I suggest you learn the fucking ABC of libertarian philosophy. How about that. 


>   
> 
> 
> >> Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals.  
> 
> 
>  >   how is a 'pedophile' a 'sex criminal'? Are you planning to murder children who 'play doctor' as well? 
> 
> I'm referring to people who actually act on their inclinations.  


	Now you changed what you said. And how is that a crime anyway? 

	And look and behold. You deleted my comment about children who play doctor eh. Again, are you planning to MURDER THEM TOO? You do understand that children 'playing doctor' are 'pedophiles' don't you? Or is that too much logic for you.

	So answer the question(s)

> 
> 
>  >   Jim : looks like you need to go back to square zero, start with the A of the ABC, and learn what libertarianism is. Cause you do not have a fucking clue.

> You need to go back and learn what LOGIC is.  

	Right back at you. See above. And after that you need to learn what natural rights are and how they apply to people of different ages.