🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@gunkslinger Nope, im advocating for a state which NEVER breaks the aggression principle. In which is primary role is to provide defense against those who break the non-agression pact. This would be called a defense against agression and thus completely allowed within any group operating under nonaggression principles.

Which was what i said the first time

@anornymorse
Its a specific form of Libertarianism which believes there is a need for the government but said need should be minimized to a handful of key areas.

@gunkslinger @Liberty4Masses

@gunkslinger
Take your pick really. A dictionary is usually a good start.

@Liberty4Masses

@gunkslinger yup the problem is you dont seem to understand the historic and current definition of non-aggression.It only forbids the initiation of aggression, it allows for defense against aggression through the use of violence however. Which is exactly what I stated, that the state should act, and with coersion, should it be to prevent some other greater form of aggression, for example to prevent a murder. All of this is well established in the definition of the term.

@gunkslinger
Nope, nothing in the definition of libertarian that would suggest such non-sense. You really dont know what your talking about.

@Liberty4Masses

@gunkslinger
You really dont know what you're talking about. Already read both of them.

@Liberty4Masses

Ok so new Calligraphy question. Which ratio is better 2:2:2 (first line) or 2:2:3 (second line) ratio or 3:2:3 (third one)?

@gunkslinger
Agreed as a libertarian I believe the government should have some level of coercion over people. But only the minimum amount needed and applied as a force whose intention is to reduce the coercion others have on each other (for example one person murdering another).

@Liberty4Masses

@gunkslinger
I disagree Libertarianism is about maximizing each persons individual rights to self determination and to exercise their will power.

This can not be done without a coercive government of some kind since the will of one person to kill another would be odds with their will to live. The government theefore plays the mediator to resolve such matters in a way to maxmize overall freedom of will as much as possible.

@Liberty4Masses

@fahrni Thanks

@licho Odd, but sure

@licho
GPL usually cant be negotiated due to the viral nature. You'fd have to get permission from every author, every gpl libraries author, etc. Usually not possible.

If I wrote a book and released it to be open-source I would be happy if someone made a movie out of it. I had no intentions of making money off of it in the first place, so why would I find it unfair?

The other part your forgetting is the act of it being open-source is already reducing how much they can make off of it such that they are essentially making money off their additions.

Consider the book example. If someone takes the book, adds a single line of text, and then sells it. Well under a permissive license they must still indicate it comes from open-source. So anyone looking at the book on a shelf will quickly see that a free and open version (sans the one line) is availible for free. So if someone wants to purchase the new one they arent buying the full book, they are only considering the value of the one additional line and if that is worth buying the book.

In short they arent making money off your open-sourced book, they are only making money off of their ADDITIONS to that book. Which I dont see as even remotely unfair.

@rmbl @vaeringjar

@static

Bwuhahahahaha, lol. Best parody of an american yet! You win the internet for today.

@Liberty4Masses