Tea (PG Tips Original) with milk and sugar.

I agree with both statements.

Five Guys have better service that is free

It wasn’t free — they were charging money for it:

Jetflicks, which charged $9.99 per month for the streaming service

Empty on Thunder.

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

I’m not sure if they count as underrated, but the band that immediately comes to mind is The Dear Hunter.

We’re constantly running out; but every fes years, we figure out a new way to extract more oil/make do with the addresses we currently have.

It’s a supply and demand situation. We run out of things not only when they are physically exhausted, but also when it’s not economically viable to find ways to make more. But when demand increases enough, it will eventually become economically viable again.

Yeah, Alison Tifel wrote the episode “The View From Halfway Down”, which is what this poem is from and shares the same name with.

“The View From Halfway Down” by Alison Tifel has always resonated with me:

The weak breeze whispers nothing
The water screams sublime
His feet shift, teeter-totter
Deep breath, stand back, it’s time

Toes untouch the overpass
Soon he’s water bound
Eyes locked shut but peek to see
The view from halfway down

A little wind, a summer sun
A river rich and regal
A flood of fond endorphins
Brings a calm that knows no equal

You’re flying now
You see things much more clear than from the ground
It’s all okay, it would be
Were you not now halfway down

Thrash to break from gravity
What now could slow the drop
All I’d give for toes to touch
The safety back at top

But this is it, the deed is done
Silence drowns the sound
Before I leaped I should’ve seen
The view from halfway down

I really should’ve thought about
The view from halfway down
I wish I could’ve known about
The view from halfway down

Lemmy needs proper polls.

Ahh, the good ol’ sunk cost fallacy.

FreshRSS supports HTTP authentication, and there’s an open issue for adding OAuth support.

I think we seem to have different understandings of what “libertarian” means.

From my experience, it certainly feels common that people tend to have different definitions and/or misunderstandings of libertarianism.

I think that libertarian is simply the opposite of authoritarian

I take issue with the usage of the word “simply” — I advise against such types of reductionism. That being said, the comparison gets kind of tricky when one considers the different variants/offshoots of libertarianism, or other freedom/liberty oriented political philosophies. It’s tempting to try and reduce political philosophies to a point on a 2D plane, like the political compass, or, worse, a 1D line, like the left/right dichotomy, but it’s often quite a bit more complex — thinking in terms of absolute “opposites” can lead one down the wrong path. That being said, without being overly pedantic, libertarianism can be thought of as in opposition to authoritarianism.

little to do with taxes or other economic stuff.

While it may be possible that a definition of libertarianism doesn’t directly reference economic topics, they still arise as a dependency or result. Economics and politics are often tightly intertwined.

Government roads don’t force users to do anything but rather empower citizens.

Another argument for why government roads are ethical is because they fight off monopolization — property ownership is at high risk for monopolization. I’m not sure if the Georgist idea of taxing the land value that a private road would be on is enough.

The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.

The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.

I don’t agree that can work with violence.

What are you referring to?

I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?

I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.

This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.

I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.

If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.

Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare

Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?

If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.

I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.

Which 3 questions are you referring to?

more equal is more better

I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?

I have read it, and find it bullshit.

What exactly do you disagree with? It’s really just a definition. If you are encountering people who are advocating for authoritarianism while calling themselves libertarian, then they are misappropriating the term.

Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes.

This is very likely to be a faulty generalization. Also, there are policies on both the Democrat, and Republican side which can be construed as authoritarian.

Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.

I’d be very hesitant to call stategic voting “supporting”.

If there’s no case law, then what makes you claim that there was no individual right prior to Heller? You can’t know what the legal standard was without precedent.

I think the distinction is important so as not to detract from what is arguably more horrible and worthy of condemnation — pedophilia.