The Liberal Section (USA EDITION)

[Violet]

Note: After reading your last post, I made the connection that the chatroom and the forum are different. I wrote this without making that distinction. The server is only 'yours' (and also, as the donation bar and contributory posts lend credence: 'ours') so long as the company that owns the server lets you do so. The chatroom is moreso not yours (it's dal.net's, as those KILL messages make perfectly clear )

When you claim that you believe in minimization or elimination of a governing body because they interfere with your freedoms, yet you wish to be in complete control of everything that you decide you own and to declare what freedoms others have towards what you 'own'... it certainly invites some to believe your are a hypocrite. At the least, it presents to a person that it is not government that you are against: it is government not under your complete control that you are against.

1) I didn't decide I own the chatroom. I'm the one who registered it, created a bot for people to play with, and can edit anything to do with it. It is to all extensive purposes, mine.

Effectively, you do not own it. The person you 'registered' it with owns it, and you have politely asked them to let you pretend that you own it. It is not yours, but you do like to pretend that you own it, and you treat the forum as if you do. You are a governing body that is allowed to control this forum by another (larger) governing body.

2) I'm an individualist; people should be able to do what they want in their own property, as long as other people aren't being harmed by it. It is their property; their rules. Simple.

This is not your property... you'll notice you aren't allowed to do anything you can do with it. That is because it is someone else's property. Money laundering? That's a no-no. Child porn? No-no. The many-named block of no-no? It's a no-no.

I notice you think that what they should be able to do in their own property does not include hurting other people. I think that is a naive view... those who own a thing should be able to do anything that is possible with the thing. If they cannot, then it follows that they do not own the thing. People are owned all over this planet by governments and businesses and other people... and we are in no position to argue this point. Those that try to argue this point are usually slain, and are rarely successful in their revolutions. If they are successful, they turn right around and attempt to control people all over again.

And people are a vital portion of what one owns... if all of one's people rebel: a man with all the money in the world is become powerless. This is a weakness of all governments (even this one) of which they should be aware: they exist only so long as the people they hold claim to say they do. You will further notice that you supposedly cannot afford this server on your own, and require donations to keep it afloat (not unlike taxes, but voluntary). It would do you well, then, to recognize that you are not the sole owner of this forum, but that every person who contributes to its continued existence holds some small claim to it between you and them... but that no person who posts on this forum (including you) actually owns it (as it is the property of the people you registered it from).

3) I'm not against government in the slightest. I'm against a certain type of government; it just so happens that this type of government is present in almost all countries in the world today. How you can go from me wanting my own rules in my own property to thinking that I want to control what everyone does everywhere is quite beyond me.

If you are a for unhindered liberty, then you are against bodies that hinder liberty. If you want to hold rules to others where you claim to hold power, then you are hindering their liberty. However, you are only for unhindered liberty where you (yourself) are concerned. You (desiring to hinder liberty of others wherever you claim to control) are therefore not what I would call a libertarian... you are an authoritarian that is dissatisfied with not being the most powerful.

Odder though... is when you claim to have freedom of speech, and then you ban someone because they are getting on your nerves by applying this freedom. Ignoring the man telling crude jokes at the party is fine... preventing him from even being in the party because his jokes offend you is selfish and childish. If you know you're right, and you are tired of arguing with someone about your being right: you stop arguing about it. You do not have to have the last word. Given my experience in the chat room, fr0d0 doesn't talk if you don't talk (excepting the greeting/acknowledgment of your presence).

fr0d0 is perfectly entitled to hold his opinions, and to speak about them anywhere he wants that is open and public. I am not infringing on that freedom. What I found offensive and vulgar was his continued insistence that he knew more about my life than the person who had lived it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean everyone gets their own way when it comes to opinions.

Actually, freedom of speech means exactly that. Literally: freedom to say anything. Does not matter what it is. Vulgar? Fine. Slanderous? Fine. False? Fine. Insulting? Fine. Vital to the defense of country? Fine. Erotic? Fine. Scandalous? Fine. Disagreeing? Fine. Holier-than-thou? Fine. Not included in this list but exists? It is fine.

Anything less than this is not freedom of speech, but along a varying spectrum of what you are unpunished for saying.

If a newspaper refuses to publish my article, it doesn't mean I have the right to sue them on grounds of free speech, since they own the publication and get the final say as to what goes in it or not (their free speech). If the government (in any form) censors you, then you have a case, because that is the difference between the public sector and the private sector.

A newspaper is not owned by you, therefore they can publish anything that they want, and will or will not be punished by the people who actually own the newspaper. The speech in no country is free so long as there is a single thing that cannot be said according to that country. Pretending otherwise as if there is even a use for advertising "free speech" where none exists is laughable.

A government is a business that maintains control by not sending half its people into revolt against them and by not letting other businesses destroy them and take them over. You have no case where the government does not let you have a case. All of those 'rights' only apply as long as the government says they do.

That said, if fr0d0 wants to apologise for being an ass, I'll unban him. He personally insulted me; I want a personal apology (PM will do).

Then I take it you will ban yourself when you are an ass and insult people? Banning people because you are insulted is really quite lame, but i understand that those are the rules these days. How many people could I have banned from high school using those rules, i do not have to wonder

'Rich' and 'poor' are quite subjective. If you can go to college, have a reasonable standard of living (also subjective), and have a third of your day to do what you will: i'd say you are mildly rich. Others would say you are rich. A handful of obscenely rich people would say you are poor.

College in the UK is open to anyone. Government grants / support for the poorest students are available to make sure that everyone who wants to go, can go. It was through these government grants that I was able to go to university.

Then you are lucky for not living in Soviet Russia. Some would say you are rich for that. Some poor seven year old is picking through trash in Bangladesh to survive while you enjoy your rich life in the 'west'.

By the definition in the dictionary, "having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy", I am not rich. Let's try to keep this simple please. Society is divided up into classes based on your income / general ease of life. I put myself at lower middle class; not poor, but not rich either. I'm sure the lower class would call me rich, but there are a lot more people above me at this point than there are below me.

It is not a simple concept, adrian... it cannot be 'kept simple'. You *are* abundantly supplied when you *can* go to college. Many billions of people would love to be so rich. You claim not to have these resources... but you do: the government itself is part of your pocketbook. There can be people who are richer than you... but you are more than a far cry away from being poor. You are even so blessed with your abilities that great colleges have asked for you because of them. You possess your abilities, you are abundantly supplied by your government's resources, and you have a good chance at a decent future. That's three things most people do not have, and so you are rich by any other word.

As for me, I am absurdly rich by most people's measures: I can support myself through college with my own money and I'm not even of the age of majority. I am not as rich as I would like to, but I understand that I will never be so rich as I would like to be. I can go on thousand dollar shopping sprees without worrying about my future security (though I'd like to curb that habit ). I'm even rich by my own measure. You are not as rich as I am, but it is a lie to say that you are not rich.

---

The forum isn't your possession Adrian, it's something you set up that depends upon members to make it what it is. Same with the chat - you are merely a facilitator.

Whilst I have agreed that the forums are mine only on paper, the same cannot be said for the chatroom. I have kept the two distinctly separate for the very simple reason that the forums are under our total control (on a server the community pay for), whilst the chatroom is not, as it is hosted by dal.net. As such, we cannot impose the same level of moderation as we do on the forums, since not all members of the forums are registered in the chat, and people can easily pose as other people in the chatroom. Thus, the chatroom is my personal chatroom, no rules of the forum apply there, and I get the final say. I am usually the only one of the admin who even spends time there (apart from theVOID who occasionally pops in), so it doesn't affect the forums in the slightest.

Noted, and agreed. Though it will always be a bit much in my eyes to ban someone for not agreeing with you/insulting you.

[quote]Your decisions as admin have an effect on the community. You never act with only your own interests in mind, but those of the community as a whole. It is therefore absolutely relevant to compare it to governing styles, as you also take the role of self installed dictator. We're not talking about the liberty of one individual alone, but the liberty of those who are part of your community.

Yup, and the community of the chatroom is completely different to the community of the forums. The forums are community run, and as such I have not banned you from them, even though you've said far more in the forums about me than you have in the chat room. Whilst you may think of me as a dictator in the chat room, I am certainly not one in the forums; we have 4 admin of equal rank, and a large staff team backing them up. The members can challenge a ruling at any time, and even recently some of their actions made us reverse a ban. Hardly a dictatorship.

I am very glad you think so, and this raises my respect for you (and the staff) considerably.

Your current financial position has no bearing on this. To be accused of a suburban attitude is about your upbringing, which I'm assuming to be reasonably well off, from what you've said.

Again, you are assuming, and you are assuming wrong.

Except that he is right about this (you are reasonably well off).

Being a student is a choice. It's a temporary position which is usually undertaken with the view of vast remuneration at a later date, which is why the payback system was introduced. You've said your paying for your masters with your own saving... again... lucky you to have savings! I worked and saved as a student myself.

Yes, I had some savings; I think you'll find a lot of the lower middle class have savings, but that does not automatically make them rich. You are grasping at straws here, trying to paint a picture of something that I am not.

Does this lower middle class live in a society that will give them money with which they can go to college? If so: they are reasonably well off. You are where the rich people start. Given that you also have the crazy luck to have ability: you are going to stay reasonably well off or get ahead unless something absolutely horrible happens to you. But that applies to everyone, so it isn't much of a notation

I am sincerely sorry to have offended you by stating an untruth Adrian. So far I have no evidence to indicate this. If you want to take that to PM, feel free.

Great, a non-apology; just a heads up, but saying you are "sincerely sorry" about something you've done and then following it up by saying you didn't isn't the way one usually apologises and expects to be forgiven.

Possibilities: A: he is sorry he offended you, but he doesn't see how it isn't true. B: He was being as ridiculous as you say.

Take a leaf out of your own book for once; you claim to take on other people's opinions of you. Look back at what you've accused me of being, and see if you have any evidence at all to back it up.

Somehow, I don't think that's the wisest thing to suggest when it comes to you (or me, by the by). But whatever makes you feel secure at night

---

Bipolar in Alaska?

It's more likely than you'd think