I guess we'll see next year, people have criticized every move he's made and he's been pretty good so far

This is not a hallucination when you take a look at the "Unum Sanctum" papal bull, which is still in effect today.

That's why I said what I said about those owners being the RCC and the Jesuit Order.

When you sell a car vs renting one you realize what a massive scam car rental services are.

I hope we can come up with a better system one day.

I just traded in a car I bought 5 years ago for 20K and got 10K for it. If I'd sold it myself I would have gotten more.

I put about 85,000 miles on it during that time and of course I spent a few hundred dollar on maintenance during that time.

The last car I rented cost me $800 for one week and it was a newer model of the same car I traded. Wild.

Civilization cannot be built on a subjective ideal such as the nonaggression principle. Without an objective moral framework, we can’t define good vs. bad. It just becomes a matter of opinions, and who’s to say which opinions are better than others? Even philosophers like Aristotles acknowledged God (unmoved mover) even though they lived before Jesus’ time.

Holy shit I think it was

Yeah.

People say that bitcoin was a discovery because all of its parts stay existed, satoshi just put them together.

Are you atheist ?

Once you see atheism for what it is as a new retarded religion you can never unsee it.

Which movie is this?

It comes down to the difference between that which is alienable and that which is inalienable.

To say something is 'alienable' means you can transfer it to another person, while the word 'inalienable' describes that which cannot be transferred.

A man's property and the resources he owns are alienable. He can enter into legally binding contracts that involve the transfer of such things.

But a man's will is inalienable from his self. He cannot separate the two, which means he cannot enter into a legally binding contract that involves his self.

Such a contract would violate the right of his future will to ownership of his future self, making it contradictory and legally bogus.

Hence, if a person enters a contract of voluntary enslavement, that can only be considered as a promise, not a legally binding transfer of an ownership title.

Should a person who entered into an enslavement contract decide to stop being a slave at some point in the future, the contract then becomes void. The slaver cannot legally enforce this contract in a court of law.

If the slaver attempts to physically restrain him from leaving, he becomes an aggressor who shall be prosecuted.

P.S. Note that this makes the 'social contract' of citizenship under a government completely bogus. It's even worse in this case as it involves the will of someone else in the past violating the right to self-ownership of other people in the future.

Every modern government is essentially a slaver if this reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion.

One of the most unforgettable lessons from the hoaxvid-19 psyop, was how complicity with tyrannical diktats from the state was sold as being virtuous, while choosing liberty was smeared as dangerous selfishness. Fast forward, and the same mental gymnastics are now being performed around free speech. If you dare to believe in free expression and privacy, suddenly you're accused of being in favor of showing porn to kids, while the same people clutching their pearls are busy pumping alphabet-soup ideology into classrooms without parental consent. There is no virtue in being silenced by tyrants, because 1984 comes at you one day at a time.

Yeah when you were born in a given jurisdiction, for the privileges of federal + state + county + municipal regulations, laws, codes and taxes you “opted” in. If you don’t like it next time try not being born.

I like adding that social contracts aren't real.

In addition to involuntary conscription being slavery, there are also other statements I use as litmus tests for how much a person believes in freedom like,

"Taxation violates property rights and is hence, theft."

"Property right is a human right."

"Property rights are necessary for freedom of speech and expression."

"Not all property titles are valid and just."

"Contracts can only be made with alienable ownership titles."

"Right to life and self-ownership is inalienable and cannot be violated."

"Freedom is not about popularity contests and free stuff. It is about the inviolability of natural rights."

How a person responds to these statements would give me a good idea about whether he is serious about human freedom or just virtue signalling.

The same as Peter Schiff, In his books advocated for a gold standard which is basically administered by central banks.

Mises also applied free market principles to fiat money when that's communism.

Mises believed in central banking. Not a legend in my book.

Metric just makes sense, it's designed for easy math. I'll never understand how Americans stick to imperial measurements, even though I'm old enough to know them and convert in my head.

How many cheeseburgers per bald eagle does your car get?

Me too. I will listen to Jeff until every ounce of fiat has left my body.

Is 'AI growth can fix debt burden' the new copium?

Laughs in Jeff Booth

‘Carbs and sugar are bad’ is a complete psyop

I am the most lean and jacked I’ve been in 4 years eating tons of fruit, juice, honey, sourdough, skimmed raw milk, well cooked veggies, and lean-ish meat

?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=92b9afa869748baaa089f868c504b9ec39e0a0bf

You are right to a certain degree. However, how do you explain guys with no legs turning up for an ultra marathon? David Goggins ran 100 miles in less than 24 hours with just 3 days preparation. Ran on broken legs, shat and pissed himself, but managed it. Only drive and mindset helped him do that.