On your first point, I suppose that has been your experience with anarcho-capitalists and that's what your idea of justice is. I disagree with both as my experience with ancaps have been different and my idea of justice is also different and is based on logic and reason.

On your second point, if you think there is no ideal government and also think that anarcho-capitalism is bullshit, what kind of social order do you wish to see? I'm curious to know what you think it ought to be.

How do we watch Zap Stream through amethyst?

#asknostr

I understand where you're coming from. That would be how I feel too if I know conclusively with evidence that the accused person is guilty. It's a sensitive hypothetical situation.

But it wouldn't be ideal for society if everyone acts on everything solely based on their emotions. It would be chaos and barbarism.

That's why we establish a set of morals, laws and ethics that is common to all, to avoid such hypotheticals, to create a social order that protects people's natural rights, and establish ways to deal with those who violate them.

how many alt npubs you got anon?

Wait, I feel like we agree on more things than disagree and this whole debate is unnecessary.

What do you mean by 'high on their own supply' here?

Also, what do you think is the ideal form of government?

Justice is the alleged criminal getting a fair hearing in a court of law under the presumption of being innocent untill proven guilty, by an impartial judge, prosecuted by the victim in the case of rape or those related to the victim in the case of murder.

If proven guilty, it is up to prosecutor to seek the restitution that is just for them and the judge to decide if said restitution is indeed just according to criminal law.

The correct act of punitive measure accompanied by the right procedure in determining guilt or innocence is what justice entails.

The person that committed the crime has violated the natural law by violating the right to property of the victim's own body in the case of rape; and the right to life of the victim in the case of murder.

This opens up the criminal to the sanction of violence against them and has foregone the right to their own body in the first case, and the right to their life in the second case.

Educate me.

I suppose it's not how you earn money then🤷🏻‍♀️ Basic v4v, you must be getting it from something.

The feeds on relay tools are more interesting than my main feed. So I don’t look at them as much anymore.

What are your favorite tools for browsing nostr these days?

#asknostr

nostr:note1lvfm4aklu0kxt5nfe8r6u7aqfwhnpmfzrpmakxka7splfuy0duwq7mu9fw

The State wants to kill you and steal your stuff, but ETFs and large custodians are totally safe and effective because the big money and adults are here now. They definitely won’t rehypothecate or 6102, human nature is different now, stop being such a poor.

What is the correct act of justice for a criminal that commits rape and murder?

I think they do. But I can't refute your argument without further explanation from you as to why you think that is the case.

Maybe we agree on principle and it's only a semantic disagreement. Either way, it's up to you to come to your own conclusions through your own reasoning if you distrust mine.

If you'd like to explore my line of reasoning further, I recommend reading the book 'Ethics of Liberty' by Rothbard along with works of folks like Hoppe, John Locke, Lord Acton, Aquinas and Aristotle.

Everybody who believes in using the state to uphold "intellectual property" are "intellectual cucks".

Honestly people ignoring this are the ones who never really created original work themselves. Go write a song, or a book, paint something, create a unique program. And then watch somebody else earn money from it while investing none of your lost resources.

Honestly people ignoring this are the ones who never really created original work themselves. Go write a song, or a book, paint something, create a unique program. And then watch somebody else earn money from it while investing none of your lost resources.

Yeah, doesn't work that way for intellectual property though.

Ah I see.

The theorist in the case of ancaps doesn't 'dictate' but arrives at a set of moral, ethical and legal values through logical reasoning and argumentation with other people.

He doesn't bring forth a set of dictums out of thin air according to his own arbitrary value judgements and self-interest. He merely restates what has been known to human beings for millenia as natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning.

And he does this from the perspective of the individual, which is something that has been done for centuries as well since the enlightenment era in Europe.

Whether or not one accepts it, he leaves it upto them. He lets anyone believe what they want as long as his own natural rights to life, liberty and property are not violated.

This is why Ancaps and Libertarians don't advocate the use of physical force to bring about their idea of the world, unless their own natural rights are violated. Their chosen alternative is to debate and reason with people, to bring about an order that doesn't require a coercive State to maintain.

The alternative, however, to doing all this is moral and ethical relativism and positive law, which he believes to be a road to tyrrany.

In the case of communism, everybody owns everything so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who allocates resources and property.

In the case of moral and ethical relativism, everybody is right and nobody is wrong so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who determines what is right and wrong through the establishment of positive law.

If there is a spontaneously emergent moral, ethical and legal order that is built on natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning and argumentation, it is possible for the society to be anarcho-capitalist.

We don't have such an order, hence our society is not ready for that.

I'm all for building towards such an order. But without it, a coercive State will inevitably emerge even if you abolish the current one.

Conversely, I also wish those who are building freedom tech and other tools would explore their theories, as they provide a legal, moral, and ethical framework to take this technology forward in the real world, in the right way. Can't force these things though. It has to be a voluntary effort.

nostr:note1a5hrlwqn3arypx0s8krafmmthgzcck888wa3fq98mk4652fe8r7qsveak3

Does Broadcast do anything at all in Damus?

You don't know what you're talking about, credit cards are the best UX. Don't you see they are used in many more places than Bitcoin? That means the market has decided and the market is always right. People will never learn to use Bitcoin because Bitcoin doesn't have sign up forms, and that is what my company, satoshisignupforms.com, is trying to solve, we are going to make paying with Bitcoin as easy as typing 25 numbers in three different fields and then your full name and tax number.

💯

Defense applications

I subscribe to “if they’ve done it once, they’ll do it again” or whatever W said, but I’m cut throat. SpaceX is for what again?

Is there a reason Elon Musk Stans use nostr? You’d think they’d support his company X? Quite confusing.

I take a different view. I think moderation is hopefully not needed. What is needed is some way to differentiate topics within a community. As far as banning users, I would hope a group approach would work. Like maybe if enough community members mute a given user, your client can pick up on that signal and start muting that user also. Not ending up with a million communities for the same subject would be nice too, but not sure how you avoid that one without centralizing. I think there is a lot of cross functionality between circles of trust and communities. Maybe circles of trust can have a community-specific circle. Should this thread have some community hashtag? I don’t know what that hashtag is.

I take a different view. I think moderation is hopefully not needed. What is needed is some way to differentiate topics within a community. As far as banning users, I would hope a group approach would work. Like maybe if enough community members mute a given user, your client can pick up on that signal and start muting that user also. Not ending up with a million communities for the same subject would be nice too, but not sure how you avoid that one without centralizing. I think there is a lot of cross functionality between circles of trust and communities. Maybe circles of trust can have a community-specific circle. Should this thread have some community hashtag? I don’t know what that hashtag is.

Satellite.earth probably

MWhy use a VPN on Nostr (and anywhere/everywhere else)?

Well, without one: nostr:note18wuvkjvmamems0qmjl8glc6l0aqn30rzry4pszc8g53q0zwnf30q35ducd

So that the suspicion of self-interest does not arise at all.

No, for a real protest, ego must be left aside.

Pink is good, I guess; I just see lots of crypto bots spamming the feed. It's terrible when people and bots are treated the same. You know.

Ah that would be useful to get users to switch from Telegram to Nostr.

It is a good app but was a little slow the last time I used it.

DM's probably won't see traction till Jeff's MLS client comes out no?

All the scanning, AI and ML are apparently device-based only unless you dial into the Apple servers which is end-to-end encrypted so Apple don’t see or store stuff. For the ChatGPT integration you decide whether to give it permission. That all said, it’s all based on trust so who the feck knows what might happen.

I’m not worried about AI in my phone if it is disconnected from the internet and my apps.

It’s a bit like giving my phone to my daughter to play games. She’ll probably not start writing stuff on nostr.

Though I appreciate the efforts certain organisations and initiatives are taking with regard to privacy and keeping the internet free and open in India, I am a little skeptical of the way they go about things.

They speak way too much 'legalese' and seem to focus on the legal and political side of things a bit too much. Can prove to be difficult to get people to support them without talking about concerns that affect their day-to-day life, no matter how noble the cause.

It is also difficult for me to take them seriously because they never promote, educate people or even talk about Tor, Bitcoin, Nostr, etc.