Mr Glasses

''I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it''

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@michaelevknight First possession principle

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@GodIsVoluntary There should be a option to vote no and if it gets more then 1 vote the government has to stop interfering in that persons life

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@Proletarian420 @PeakStatism Banning technology is good? Wanting to ban AI is like banning the camera

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 @sigmahamster2 Data centers instead of "affordable" housing😍

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@NisseHultIsBack Frågan kring detta har dock inte med lagen att göra utan om beteendet är felaktigt. Han är en musiker som sjunger på pendeln ibland, det kanske klassas som ordning störande enligt lag men då är lagen felaktigt utformad

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@gra7987 Nja, de är urvattnade begrepp dock så på sättet du menar ja de är en myt

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@Phiophills If you wake up, ca 2000 b.c you would have a steak fly into your mouth as a battery lobster layed there for desert. But capitalist enclosed these reasorces which is why we have to work

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@fedde_81 @Bankautomaten @SebMattz Jag behöver inte läsa den för att säga att upphovsrätten är baserat på felaktiga grunder, all upphovsrätt är. Du säger vad jag kan o inte kan göra med min egendom baserat på vad andra tidigare har gjort med sin egendom

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@fedde_81 @Bankautomaten @SebMattz Inkorrekt etik om vad som kan gå som egendom, upphovsrätten är stöld i sig då den säger vad du får o inte får göra med din egendom trots att du inte inskränker på någon annans egendom

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@fedde_81 @Bankautomaten @SebMattz Skillnaden är att idéer inte är egendom, då du o jag kan ha samma idé samtidigt utan att de tar ifrån den andra att ha den idén. Så AI musik är inte stulen musik så som godiset hade varit slutet godis

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@GR1FF1NONE They existed for as long as they did. So no matter the philosophy of the time, as long as a market exist we will see positive outcomes

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@GR1FF1NONE This is why I reject what some other Ancaps believe, that people need to adapt the NAP for anarcho-capitslism to work. That savages can't benefit from the market, but the market will always work no matter whom are involved, it even survived in the USSR and was the reason

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 The difference is that value is subjective, of justice is subjective that means no action can be declared unjust, that is the difference

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 But I will take your suggestion and read that book, since you argue in both good faith and with respect plus you seem to know more about philosophy then myself

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 No since someone looking upon the painting would be the thing that makes that painting valuable. A+B=C, neither A(the painting) or B(the observer) has changed

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@FriedSchelling @VutPedro @Jeff83Maine I did make a distinction between the social politics but stated that the economic policies will be the same. In what way is that wrong? Can socialism ever lead to something other then state control over the production process

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@deffault133 @VutPedro @FriedSchelling @Jeff83Maine To be against "overproduction" is to be against humanity, production is good since it satifies wants and needs for people so producing more is good until people stop buying it. Anti-capitalist is anti-rational and being anti-rational is being anti human survival

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@Jeff83Maine @OliverChase1776 I don't know all of them but your anti-capitalist stance, white-nationalism(inherently leftwing since it is collectivist), workers "rights", hatred of Israel, talking about ZOG(left-wing in the way you speak about it, like they are bought by coopeations to hurt workers)

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 @ProjectAncap @user3927818 Mean that a just action is also an unjust action, being P and not P at the same time. As this violates the law of non contradiction it can't be true, therefore your theory of justice is by the law of excluded middle false.

[Mr Glasses @mrglasses01]

@long1736942 @ProjectAncap @user3927818 The issue is, even after reading your responses, that you cant draw any line so justice is a scale, something can be more just then something else. But for an action to be on a scale would imply that parts of it are unjust, since other things can be more just. It would therefore