deleted by creator

I’m not being smart or funny, but apparently I’m getting under your skin.

Say what you will about socialist beliefs, they are absolutely more nuanced, historically rooted, and varied than what you call libertarian. You also don’t see super wealthy corporate oligarchs as thought leaders on the left. Your Ayn Rand inspired cult was entirely assembled by oligarch sponsored anarcho-capitalist think tanks.

I haven’t argued for socialism of any kind here, and I won’t. You have probably heard most of the reasons why your opinions on socialism are nonsense, and you have probably not really heard any of them. I’m not wasting my time on that.

You guys all spout the same platitudes constantly and ignore every reality based argument. It’s not exactly opaque (or interesting).

Arrogance is the only language that ever penetrates with people who think in platitudes. It’s not my general attitude, it’s a tool that sometimes wakes up zombies. American libertarians are always surprised to find someone more arrogant then themselves.

What you believe to be a political philosophy is nothing but empty rhetoric assembled by powerful elitists for the express purpose of consolidating and extending their power. It’s intended from the outset to neuter actual libertarian movements. Wake the fuck up zombie.

Excerpts from the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism:

In the mid-19th century,[10] libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists.

And

In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian[35] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[13] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[36] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States.

Don’t feel too bad. Having no fucking idea what you are talking about just makes you a typical American style libertarian.

As for centralizing power, corporate personhood and broad deregulation are about the most radical systems for centralizing power that have ever existed. You are still ignoring the entire history of conflict between unions and corporations. Unions had their day using the “libertarian” model and all that came from it was disaster. It wasn’t until the labor movement gained political power and had pro-union regulations put in place that unions had any real ability to negotiate with corporate power. But that’s all reality so it’s irrelevant I guess.

Libertarianism is properly a socialist philosophy, but it’s been coopted by the far right in America who then started exporting their bullshit to the rest of the world. It’s entirely possible for two people to call themselves “libertarian” and have next to nothing in common in their understanding of what that means.

Most libertarian support of unions in America is a bad joke. It’s meaningless feel-good rhetoric that completely ignores the entire history of unions in America. Corporations have a million ways to crush unions and union organizers. Without government regulations requiring corporations to engage with unions, unions are next to impossible in reality. But that’s just fine with the kind of people attracted to the Libertarian party, because they don’t live in reality.

There is a ton of academic interest in the relationship between sexuality and fascism. It was first noted in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” by Wilhelm Reich after WW2. My comment is, of course, a massive oversimplification of a complex social dynamic.

It’s the same dynamic that made US racists paranoid that black men wanted to rape white women when, in fact, their deeper fear was that white women wanted to have sex with black men. Fascists are particularly sensitive to sexual relations between “their women” and whomever they have chosen to blame for all their misfortunes.

Women live in the same declining capitalistic society as men, yet they are far more resistant to fascism. That’s not to say there is something wrong with men or masculinity. Society puts different pressures on men and women so they react differently.

Did someone ask all men to apologize for something?

How is it insulting? I didn’t say it was you. Fascism is a social phenomenon driven almost entirely by men. That doesn’t mean all men are fascists, or that there is something wrong with masculinity. It’s about certain men in certain situations reacting in what is an entirely predictable way. It is perhaps an insult to fascist men, but I’m comfortable insulting them.

No, it’s not “men’s” fault, but the people who’s fault it is are primarily men. That’s not an opinion, that’s just history, not to mention what’s happening before our eyes. Even women who are fascist push patriarchy. There is no point in debating whether fascism is primarily a male driven phenomenon. The only legitimate question is why?

Fascism is sociologically rooted in the sexual insecurity of men. That’s why it’s always men driving it.

“Sir, this is Four Seasons Landscaping”.

That’s an accurate summation for my understanding as well. Things that the judge should look at when considering a minimum sentence are defendant cooperation, displays of genuine remourse, and indications that the defendant is unlikely to continue breaking the law. If the judge can find any of that, it’s beyond me how.

None of his current convictions are expected to come with a custodial sentence

Strict adherence to sentencing guidelines actually would see him jailed on his current convictions. If he isn’t given some kind of imprisonment it will be because the judge was afraid of the aftermath.

I’m not so sure he’s much of a security risk, unless he is still in possession of sensitive documents. I sincerely doubt he is capable of remembering anything in the way of valuable secrets. Anyways, even if he did, any adversary would be daft to trust he remembered correctly.

Trump’s way ahead of you there.

He was arguably a worse president than even Trump. Which of them is a worse human being is a different question.

claims included in a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review think tank…

I immediately distrust anything coming from a “think tank”. From what I can tell of this organization, they look like a front group for the interests of the health insurance mafia.

I was in IT back in 2001 when the Code Red virus hit. It was a very similar situation where entire enterprises in totally unrelated fields were brought down. So many infected machines were still trying to replicate that corporate networks and Internet backbone routers were getting absolutely crushed.

Prior to that, trying to get real funding for securing networks was almost impossible. Suddenly security was the hottest topic in IT and corporations were throwing money at all the snake oil Silicon Valley could produce.

That lasted for a couple years, then things started going back to business as usual. Microsoft in particular was making all sorts of promises and boasts about how they made security their top priority, but that never really happened. Security remained something slapped on at the end of product development and was never allowed to interfere with producing products demanded by marketing with inherently insecure designs.