PK htiw klaw eriF

With the radio silence from most candidates on the TPP and the Freedom Act, I doubt freedom is particularly important to the campaigns running in the Republican primary.

What's the hacking minigame?

Yeah, establishing your own service would be a pain, but it's not like this due to the existence of already existing private services. This would still be the case even if those private services (like steam) didn't exist. What you seem to be complaining about is the lack of a public service, not that private services exist. Which would mean that this isn't an example of private property being a limiting factor. Private & public services do not exist exclusively to one another. Establishment of a private service(currency processing or distribution of goods) that was open to all or is personal is limited by capital, which is private property. So it is limited by private property. As to a public service for exchange or distribution, we can't really have that with intrusion from government whether that government is a state or a corporation. A public service CAN be established without the government. There is no public service that actually needs the government. What the government does is bring the violence needed for forced participation or suppression; voluntary public participation is still possible. That's assuming some form of government pressure, whether from state or corporation, doesn't attempt to seize control over it. Given the actions of states and corporations, I doubt that would be the case.

Yeah, establishing your own service would be a pain, but it's not like this due to the existence of already existing private services. This would still be the case even if those private services (like steam) didn't exist. What you seem to be complaining about is the lack of a public service, not that private services exist. Which would mean that this isn't an example of private property being a limiting factor. Private & public services do not exist exclusively to one another. Establishment of a private service(currency processing or distribution of goods) that was open to all or is personal is limited by capital, which is private property. So it is limited by private property. As to a public service for exchange or distribution, we can't really have that with intrusion from government whether that government is a state or a corporation.

Haven't picked this up yet, but how has hacking changed?

Couldn't you just sell your product on your own website or something? I addressed that when I brought up direct sales. If you want to do that you have to either rely on an existing service or create your own service to process payment. The former relies on the property of others while the later is prohibitively expensive and effort intensive.

I got roped into a "movie party"(aka drinking screwdrivers and watching movies) and am currently bored to tears of Die Die My Darling.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market? Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market. Well there's IP, but you don't consider that valid. Private property, such as land and buildings, is similar to intellectual property in that it's a legal construct supported only by the threat of force from the state. When private property exists, both the means of production and distribution are private channels. So while production is obviously exclusive to those with access to means of production, the ability to distribute products is also gatekept by private entities. Steam is an example of this, as distribution of videogames is relegated to a private entity and entry into the market will be nigh impossible if you are unable to sell through Steam(or GoG or whatever other digital distribution service there is) due to the owners of the distribution channel not allowing it. Direct sales require a go between for payment, so if currency processors don't want to do business with you, you're out of options to sell your product and are barred from the market.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example? Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

You mean "private property" right? Can't really even have a market without at least personal property. As for intellectual property: The whole idea's hogwash. It's a concept that should be disposed of and not practiced. Yes, I meant private property. I suppose a market could exist without personal property, such as communes trading goods between themselves, but it doesn't sound particularly good.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods? I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses. But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions... Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

More spooks aren't the answer.

In all fairness, Bartho said pretty much the same thing about socialism here:https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/79124-road-to-the-white-house-2016/page-22?do=findComment&comment=1721703 Mine too.

I believe they're under the impression it's discrete, although I do find the idea of a married couple encountering each other on the site funny.

It's a dating site for people in relationships who want to have an affair.

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant. No one argues he wants a violent overthrow of the government or Stalinist repression. But government is always coercive, so once he establishes a confiscatory level of taxation whoever refuses to pay will still go to prison, just like the guy in my quote (of course he'd need a like minded Congress and I don't see that happening soon, but that seems like a poor argument for electing someone President). You already go to prison if you don't pay taxes in the US. See Wesley Snipes.

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/ What does this have to do with Sanders?He's trying to paint Sanders as a Tankie while the reality is that Sanders is a Social Democrat.Then why does he call himself a Socialist and not a Social Democrat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Does he not know what Socialism means, or is he lying? And why was he a member of the Socialist party? From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes." If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

So your best party is my worst party...interesting. Good to know: I'll know who to whack first when the apocalypse comes. I think we both know who would be whacked first from this forum in the event of the apocalypse.

I got 87% Communist, 85% for Liberal and Green, 84% for NDP, and 19% for Conservative.

So who are you Canadians backing?

Aren't they all?

It's hard to say, it could be that Trump does a Perot and splits the vote. Which if he's a Clinton shill would more than likely benefit Hillary.

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism. Why? I can understand being surprised maybe a decade ago, but after the Patriot(and later Freedom Act), the leaks from Snowden and Manning, and this TPP the USA looks like a police state.

Nah. It's a Marxist who defends the Soviet Union from Khrushchev onwards and more specifically supports the Soviets sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and/or the Prague Spring in 1968.Mao(ists) and the more hardline Stalinists condemned this. I've heard Anarchists call them Tankies, but then again Anarchists call most Marxists tankies in my experience.