protonvpn cli keeps crashing Ubuntu 23.10
Van Wirdum's [The Genesis Book](https://amzn.to/3w2TPDS) was hard to put down--weaves the two threads of 'Austrian' economics and the cypherpunks into a nice origin story. Recommended.
Same! Had massively high triglycerides. Cut alcohol, carbs, limited myself to only a couple bites of the homemade desserts, and dropped them way done. Doc was astounded, "whatever you're doing...keep it up." Zero meds, only supplements like fish oil etc.
I would have married my wife for her culinary skills alone; but the fact that she's also an absolute *smokeshow* well it sure doesn't hurt...
#grateful
Too right too early and you actually lose influence because people don't want to be reminded they didn't listen the first time.
Seen it far, far too often.
But: stay the course.
People who parrot that phrase, "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," likely don't realize that this was shorthand for simple justice and was rarely executed (or even meant) literally.
Take bodily harm, like the loss of an eye. What monetary compensation is due? What if the victim is young? What if he's old? What if he's a farmer? What about if he's a watchmaker and loss of his eye has a direct impact on his ability to provide?
At one point there were price lists for body parts in the attempt to standardize. But each individual likely values his eye differently based on their vocation or earning potential, or even wealth.
How then to determine the compensation due? You don't. You say, "you took his eye; he is now legally allowed to take yours. Want to keep it? Let the negotiations begin."
It's frankly brilliant.
See William Ian Miller, [Eye for an Eye](https://amzn.to/3SjJ7AE)
What I meant to say is, "he made me do it" should not absolve the agent of his act nor should it implicate the influencer.
I think the West has made wise distinctions between words and actions, between feelings and bodies, and about holding only agents responsible for their own actions. 'Harm' should be limited to bodies and property. Libel and slander ares tough ones, but if we require evidence that this libel or slander has led to a loss of property then it seems to me that should be the limiting principle. "It hurt my feelings" should not be a matter for litigation. Neither should "he made me do it." Matters of reputational harm (whether true or false) should be settled in the open, not in courts. Still exploring this, though, open to other perspectives.
I observe an inverse correlation between personal fitness / hygiene and the purchase of marriage books
Curious
🧐🤔
AeroPress #maxi
#coffeechain
(There's some back story to that joke.)
Joking side, I think in their view, Hayek strayed later in life.
gm #plebchain #coffeechain
a new dawn approaches
#CarpeDiem #CoramDeo #ContraMundum
Without Mises, there would've been no Hayek.
Without Hayek, there would've been no Bitcoin.
For lack of a better term, "credit" where it's due.
#IdeasHaveConsequences
>The human heart is an idol factory.
Jean Cauvin
GOD CREATED THE MATH
ON WHICH BITCOIN DEPENDS
STOP WORSHIPPING A CREATION
APPRECIATE A GOOD THING WITHOUT MAKING IT A GOLDEN CRYPTOGRAPHIC CALF
SMH
#iconoclasm
No one (I hope) disagrees that this is unlawful/immoral. All of these questions assume some kind of enforcement arm of the State. Assuming this exists, then yes--all forms of theft (identity, fraud, etc.) should be liable to retribution (equalling of the scales).
But, assuming no State with a "monopoly on violence," the principle of talionic justice exists prior to any State (a.k.a., Natural Law), so the questuon is really "by what mechanism or institution should retribution be meted out?" How does a given community decide and delegate this power, if we each are not to enforce it ourselves? The "trial by jury of peers" has been the historical way of proving beyond shadow of a doubt (lest injustice obtain) a person's guilt, with the hangman delegated the somewhat unfortunate task of executing whatever punishment the jury-peers (the actual "judges") decide is fair and right.
A society without a sword *of some kind* is a society without justice.
I don't know.
Maybe "the devil we know" (adversarial court system) is better than "the devil we don't" (vigilante-ism)...(?)