CapeXit 2

[Grant]

Jaa millions and millions of South Africans, instead of using those funds to fix, maintain, upgrade, expand etc it's used to enrich themselves, it's like we're donating to a bottomless pit with our tax money.

most of us are not donors tho - our money is taken by central govt in the form of taxation under prevailing legislation.
the donors are the ones shelling out large sums to various political parties, often hedging or spreading their bets across multiple parties.
i'm of the opinion most do this to curry favour and buy influence - more than out of altruistic reason

 

[Grant]

Harsh....

sometime reality is harsh, unfortunately.

reality is there are no deep-pocket donors to fund a cause that has little prospect in succeeding at this point in time.
were the economy of the w/c a whole lot stronger that it currently is, that may well serve as incentive for a change of mind

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

. .

. .


Bye

On that first image, are they basically calling me a Commie, because I reside in Gautengalengaleng?

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Simple.

When you make it illegal to call someone a name or insult them, you may not see the cost of doing that... but what you have simultaneously done is weakened kidnapping laws and the constraint the existed on the State in terms of violating your liberty..

Nothing prevents you if you can't stand insults, from not associating with the person in the free economic regime when you do that.

But what you won't be able to do, is arrest someone, or deprive them to any degree of their property (otherwise called 'a fine'), simply for expressing their opinion.

Hate-speech is not a crime. Threats if credible imminent violence is.

Don't confuse or conflate them. Because the consequences are significant.

Hate speech is entirely irreconcilable with a free society.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here in self-defence (private defence) scenario.

In specific circumstances, speech / (verbal aggression) can be INTERPRET as being "violent" or a "threat" and you'll be within the law ( in certain and specific circumstances to use) to use less lethal force i.e pepper spray for example.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Steaming hot thread this, I'll be taking a real break.......

Sunday evening entertainment...

 

[Grant]

Sunday evening entertainment...

brian has always been somewhat averse to the heat in the kitchen

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Ok

Cool.

Not that I can recall what I said exactly, but as sentiments remain the same, here we go again.

I would like, and vote, for secession in an instant. If I believed it was remotely a....

- Economically
- Legally
- Practically
- Logisticall
- Historically
- etc

You are aware that list is still possible, even if you don't believe it.

...probability.

And ignoring completely the fact that it would plunge SA into civil war.

So in short, you are PRO Cape Independence, so then why are you negative towards this thread, and the other PRO CI users, especially @lexity and @Brian_G

 

[lexity]

And you will probably be completely mystified when you get banned again.

Awww, did someone call you a henpecker?

Poor baby.

Come on Cray.

I've been using these softball insults for years. None of you guys took the bitch off-ramp about it.

What gives, now, all of a sudden?

 

[lexity]

Simple.

When you make it illegal to call someone a name or insult them, you may not see the cost of doing that... but what you have simultaneously done is weakened kidnapping laws and the constraint the existed on the State in terms of violating your liberty..

Nothing prevents you if you can't stand insults, from not associating with the person in the free economic regime when you do that.

But what you won't be able to do, is arrest someone, or deprive them to any degree of their property (otherwise called 'a fine'), simply for expressing their opinion.

Hate-speech is not a crime. Threats if credible imminent violence is.

Don't confuse or conflate them. Because the consequences are significant.

Hate speech is entirely irreconcilable with a free society.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here in self-defence (private defence) scenario.

In specific circumstances, speech / (verbal aggression) can be INTERPRET as being "violent" or a "threat" and you'll be within the law ( in certain and specific circumstances to use) to use less lethal force i.e pepper spray for example.

I said that the only time speech is a crime is when it is a credible, imminent threat of actual violence.

That's the tradition in Western law. Also, as mentioned before, proportionate force may be used in self-defense. So even if you did consider name-calling a crime, your self-defense must be limited to speech itself.... not actual physical force. Putting gaffer-tape over the insulter's mouth for example, would be excessive and hence not defensive force.

So I'm not sure which part you disagree with, Snek.

Calling someone a nasty name, alone can never be considered a threat of violence.

 

[theratman]

brian has always been somewhat averse to the heat in the kitchen

View attachment 1893489

More like

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

I said that the only time speech is a crime is when it is a credible, imminent threat of actual violence.

That's the tradition in Western law. Also, as mentioned before, proportionate force may be used in self-defense. So even if you did consider name-calling a rime, your self-defense must be limited to speech itself.... not actual physical force. Putting gaffer-tape over the insulter's mouth for example, would be excessive and hence not defensive force.

So I'm not sure which part you disagree with, Snek.

Calling someone a nasty name, alone can never be considered a threat of violence.

Fair enough .

Although, a vast majority of the time I personally refrain from calling people nasty names, I leave it for the truly deserving...

Haters gonna hate, so they'll report you whenever the opportunity arises.

 

[lexity]

No they aren't lexy.

And no you don't. You need to be specific about what state regulation you are referring to.

If I'm not mistaken, every supermarket needs a business license, and a private one is not sufficient to avoid the violence of the state.

Your business can be shut down by an uninvited 3rd party, if you don't meet its standards.

This is how the mob operates.

You can think of the state as a supercharged mob.

 

[lexity]

Fair enough .

Although, a vast majority of the time I personally refrain from calling people nasty names, I leave it for the truly deserving...

Haters gonna hate, so they'll report you whenever the opportunity arises.

Nobody gets reported for using those words... seriously.

A 'hen-pecker'?

Ffs.

I didn't think mybb's hall monitors could get any more petty.

But you don't see anyone else getting posts removed for these soft-ball, indirect insults. I don't know why today was special. There is nothing new about me calling the regulars on this thread pinkos.

I'm sure whoever reported me and whoever responded by deleting the post has absolutely no clue what a pinko even is.

#nurse-ratchett-vibes
#one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest

 

[lexity]

Any citation on that - or are you just making things uo as you go along?

I don't think I need a citation. Not if all I'm saying is that any uninvited 3rd-party to a voluntary transaction between 2 consenting adults is - in the view of the two traders - an unnecessary expense.

Otherwise that 3rd-party would simply be invited into the transaction.

p.s. The same monopoly on accreditation principle applies in healthcare... see this article for more:

How Medical Licensing Serves Big Pharma at the Expense of Public Health | Mises Institute

The purpose of medical licensing is not to protect consumers but the financial interests of privileged trade organizations allied with Big Pharma.

mises.org

 

[ToxicBunny]

If I'm not mistaken, every supermarket needs a business license, and a private one is not sufficient to avoid the violence of the state.

Your business can be shut down by an uninvited 3rd party, if you don't meet its standards.

This is how the mob operates.

You can think of the state as a supercharged mob.

Ok, you need to be specific, who is issuing these business licenses you refer to, what do they cover and not cover?

 

[Cray]

Ok, you need to be specific, who is issuing these business licenses you refer to, what do they cover and not cover?

According to AI you need the following....

Opening a supermarket in South Africa requires mandatory municipal registration, a Certificate of Acceptability (COA) for food safety, and compliance with zoning and fire safety regulations

@lexity do you agree/disagree with supermarkets having to comply with food safety and fire regulations?

 

[Cray]

p.s. The same monopoly on accreditation principle applies in healthcare... see this article for more:

How should healthcare accreditation work, in your view?

 

[ToxicBunny]

According to AI you need the following....



@lexity do you agree/disagree with supermarkets having to comply with food safety and fire regulations?

Yeah I'm aware of certain "licenses" needed, but they're more "proofs" that you aren't trying to kill everyone with shyty business hygiene.

 

[vigras rojara]

How should healthcare accreditation work, in your view?

He thinks there shouldn't be any accreditation at all. If someone dies due to incompetence or lack of adequate standards, the dead person will use a different provider next time. Free markets regulating themselves and all that...

 

[ToxicBunny]

He thinks there shouldn't be any accreditation at all. If someone dies due to incompetence or lack of adequate standards, the dead person will use a different provider next time. Free markets regulating themselves and all that...

free markets solve all problems really.