#HAWT
1 Like
Your mind cannot be manipulated, you are consenting in all those cases. Intellectual freedom is the only freedom that exists. To assert otherwise is to deny responsibility.
1 Like
Just look at his consenting. Just look at it!
1 Like
That’s implying that we have free will at all. Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, posited that since our brains are just a collection of atoms interacting in a way predefined by the laws of physics, anything we were ever going to say or do is already predestined. Or something like that. It was a long time ago that I read it, so I am (almost certainly badly) paraphrasing (and too lazy to look it up). He may not have even come up with the theory, but it was his writing on it that first exposed me to it. It’s a fun thing to think about.
The notion of “selling” the car presupposes that it can be owned in the first place! And that it can be translated to a symbolic value system.
I wasn’t intending to get into it here, but I think that “identity” in the usual personal sense isn’t a workable concept either. But I think it is more accurate to say that I am my identity, than that I can have an identity given to me by others, such as The State. I am only what I do, which not at all a fixed identity. I feel funny even about using a name, or personal pronouns, because “I” am merely a process, and one which is not separate and distinct from other processes. Identity is a momentary shorthand for something transitory, not unlike a weather pattern in the atmosphere.
People legislate and certify amongst themselves. It is something done between equals, not imposed by others. People are the government, which leaves no higher power to “certify”, which strikes me as quite a pompous idea.
Even given the usual contemporary systems people take for granted, nomadism is treated as much more difficult than it ever needs to be. And this is done deliberately, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it works against indigenous people, which is the roots of the practice going back to the Roman empire through to the founding of the US. Secondly, it concentrates hegemony, by making citizens answer to government, rather than being government themselves.
The excuses governments and companies often use for discriminating against nomadism are that it would make taxation impossible, which is certainly not true. Instead of specifying an address, couldn’t I just as easily specify a region? If I live within the borders of a state, can’t I still easy pay taxes, vote, and engage in all of the normal rights and responsibilities of citizenship? The problem is that is the government decides that they have autonomy, and citizens answer to them, that they claim the right to approve or disapprove of simple things people take for granted - such as personal identity and address. Am I not the ultimate authority on knowing who the hell I am? It would seem to be common sense. Being given an identity and an address by the state is done to subordinate people to it, and works to mold reality towards their convenience. We are accountable to each other, and doing so, we are the state. A separate state with its own agenda is merely control by a minority which is being obscured through various mechanisms of abstraction, and our being accountable to it - as it ascribes us our identities - paradoxically denies us any meaningful agency to account for.
I’ll play along. What do you think should happen when a drunk driver kills someone?
The degree of hysteria, hyperbole and unsupportable speculation in this post and its attendant comments is really quite impressive.
To sum up:
Under current rules:
Hobby and recreational drones < 55 lbs: Same rules as model airplanes. No registration or license required.
Military, Civil, and Commercial drones: must have FAA Airworthiness Certificate, operator must be licensed pilot with standard ground school/40 hours flight instruction. All manned-aircraft registrartion and marking rules apply.
Under proposed rules:
Hobby and recreational drones < 55 lbs: Same rules as model airplanes. No registration or license required.
Military, Civil, and Commercial drones < 55 lbs: no FAA Airworthiness Certificate, needed, no pilot’s license or flight school needed. Operators must apply for a one-time certificate, and pass aeronautical-knowledge test every two years. All manned-aircraft registration and marking rules apply.
As it currently stands, almost all commercial drone operations are technically illegal, as few commercial drones have FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and most operators are not licensed pilots.
The proposed new rules make commercial, civil, and military operation far less cumbersome, implement simple and sensible rules for such operations, and greatly reduce licensing requirements.
And they don’t change the rules for recreational and hobby users AT ALL.
The proposed action will simplify and liberalize current restrictions, not increase restrictions.
The hysteria over this is really unfounded.
2 Likes
And that is precisely what it is. An hour of my time is valued at ten flimjams, a car is valued at a hundred flimjams since the workers were valued at 2 flimjams an hour for fifty hours.
It’s all just proxies of proxies of proxies, and we accept the abstraction since it either gets way too simple (noone can use their life for value) or way too complicated (compute the precise number of flimjams I am worth per second).
I like the abstraction. It just needs to be fairer.
1 Like
Sure, I feel ya. But “I” is a shorter way of communicating that 
1 Like
Damn right, this is a case for the National Robot Association!
1 Like
That guy is a certified genius, unlike those too dumb to understand what he’s saying.
Sincerely,
Plannedchaos
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
