Does your network not support UPnP? You shouldn’t normally need to port forward in order to seed a torrent, unless your network prevents NAT traversal.

Xournal++

Ok, seems fine.

What is the context behind this post?

Out of curiosity, what’s the output of # dmesg | grep iwlwifi?

If nothing else, I would recommend Firefox over Brave for the sole reason of the latter being yet another Chromium browser. It would be nice if we could eat away some of the browser marketshare from Google.

What I like about the free-ish markets

Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.

free market would punish bad actors

The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement

Would you mind defining “impossible to perfectly implement”? I don’t want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.

I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.

Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.

No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.

When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,

And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.

In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.

Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?

Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.

But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

I am an advocate of the use of one’s voice over the use of violence.

That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices

This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.

and has the resources to vote with their wallet

This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.

They are also incentivised to eliminate competition

The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.

You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.

I apologize, I neglected to write a specific part of my comment that ties in its intent. When I said “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms”, I did not mean to infer “Maximize individual rights, and freedoms at the expense of another”. The limit to the maximization of rights and freedoms is that they cannot infringe on the rights and freedoms of another. This was my mistake. I apologize for this confusion.

pay a child to work in a mine

I don’t believe in child labor. I believe that a child is not capable of giving consent. I believe that a civilized, and free society is dependent on the ability of one to give consent. Exploitation arises out of inability to give consent.

schedule workers for 80+ hours a week

If one consents, then there should be no issue.

drive without speed limits

Speed limits, and public roads are an interesting issue for sure. They are actually rather complicated issues to tackle. That being said, specifically for speed limits, I would argue that they are justified as an individual driving dangerously fast is recklessly endangering the lives of those around them – this would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

use as much water out of the local river as desired

This is also a difficult issue to tackle. I think this is where Georgism typically comes in. I am inclined to say that one cannot freely take water from a river for the same reason that one cannot freely emit pollution. That being said, in terms of tort law, it would probably be easier to make a claim against a polluter than one taking water from a river. Perhaps a limit could be imposed on the exploitation of a natural resource through a tax (this, I think, is in line with an argument that a Georgist would make).

dump waste into that same river

This would be pollution, and could be handled through tort law, and other environmental protection laws.

sell unregulated, untested medicine

I generally see no issue with this. One cannot willfully endanger the public without repercussions. I suppose the argument could then be should it be preventative, or remedial. That being said, the FDA, for example, does not only mandate a drugs safety, they also mandate it’s efficacy. There is an enormous difference between mandating a drug’s efficacy vs. mandating it’s safety.

[source] Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1962 to require that new drugs be shown effective, as well as safe, to obtain FDA approval.

I stand by what I’ve been saying.

What, specifically, are you trying to say?

Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?

On the contrary. If I hit the dislike button, I am actually making use of my free speech. The fact that you are able to say that you think I am silencing your free speech is proof that you still maintain your freedom of speech. Now, if I somehow had the ability to remove your comment (looking at you, mods), that would be silencing your free speech.

My issue with this definition is how vague it is.

This is somewhat intentional. One should note that Libertarianism is not perfectly monolithic in its ideology – in that it does not outline a regimented doctrine which must be adhered to for one to have the privilege of calling themself a libertarian. Instead, I would argue that it outlines a set of shared values being that one recognizes the importance of the state, but also possesses the goal to minimize it to the extent that is realistically attainable, and also that one possesses the desire to equally maximize the rights and freedoms of themself, as well as their fellow citizenry. You will find no exact agreement between libertarians on many precise social issues. What you will instead find is a set of common shared ideals with which they base their opinions.

what of liberalism

Liberalism, I would say, is where libertarianism inherits its desire for freedom. It outlines the philosophy that an individual should fundamentally posses a set of inalienable rights, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, equality before the law, consent of the governed, right to the private ownership of property, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but to instead give an outline to how I define liberalism.

what of minarchy

Minarchy, loosely speaking, is the desire to have a small state. Fundamentally, libertarianism will have the common denominator of a “Nightwatchmen State” in that the state should provide, at the very least, national protection through the military, and the enforcement of personal, and property rights through a police force and the judicial system.

The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough?

I would argue that the minimization of the state is not necessarily a destination, but, instead, it is an aspiration. While you could say that “small enough” could be a pure Nightwatchmen State, I am very hesitant to do so, as it would be to assert that this is the ultimate, and perfect form of a minimal state, which I feel would be an arrogant statement to make.

And then which rights are necessary?

Answering this with precision, and confidence carries the same sort of issues as that of answering “how small of a state is enough”? The world is unfortunately not perfect enough to be able to create such exact, and precise rules. We instead must state guidelines, frameworks, and principles from which we base our opinions, and legislation – we set our baseline, and determine on a case-by-case basis how laws fit in. One should be granted the rights to guarantee them maximal amount of freedom as can be realistically given so long as it does not infringe on the rights, and freedoms of others.

Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school.

The right to freedom of religion is not the assertion that one must practice a religion, but freely have the choice between them. It is the right to choose to practice a religion. I’m not well acquainted with the laws, and politics of France, but to ban one’s religious wear is to infringe on their free practice of their religion.

Is the right to hate speech required?

I would encourage you to define that. I challenge you to come up with a definition that is not based in personal opinion. One should not have the right to not be offended.

Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required?

These sorts of specific cases are usually left up to municipal bylaw, and tort law. A libertarian argument could be that no one should infringe on one’s private enjoyment their life without their consent. If one incurred damages for such non-consensual infringements, they should be properly compensated.

Who even decides and enforces that?

Tort law is typically enforced by civil courts.

You do realize that virtually every municipality in existence has noise bylaws, right?

I view libertarianism as the marriage between liberalism, and minarchy. A libertarian would seek to equally maximise the rights and freedoms of the individual, and to minimize the size of the state.

What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot – imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.

I believe you may be misinterpereting “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It’s not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.