American here with a tip for non-Americans: any time you see one of us start 
complaining about "woke" anything, feel free to ignore anything else they have 
to say.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 18:10, justina colmena ~biz 
<[[email protected]](mailto:On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 18:10, justina colmena 
~biz <<a href=)> wrote:

> Well, to be honest, we don't have the vanity license plates or a team of 
> mounties standing guard in front of our houses while we program on OpenBSD 
> drug-dealing software in the U.S., and U.S. contributions are generally 
> unwelcome to the OpenBSD project anyways.
>
> What would J.D. Vance say? I do believe it's about time for Americans to get 
> off the property of woke socialists and communists who are colluding and 
> imposing other secret and hidden sanctions and refusing to let us use *their* 
> software anyways. Berkeley, CA is part of the USA after all. I do think we 
> need to re-conquer the BSD's from the Canadians and their cop-calling Karens.
>
> It's essentially Canada/EU-only nation-state-level intellectual property, and 
> German hackers keep having us SWATTED by our own politically partisan local 
> unionized beat cops on false reports from compromised police stations with 
> fake and forged charging documents in court if we do any such programming 
> work on any such software on our own property.
>
> On March 28, 2025 2:49:57 PM PDT, Ben Goren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Um … might I suggest?
>>
>> This discussion has wandered quite far from anything related to OpenBSD. 
>> While I’m sure there are many here sympathetic to your comments, this really 
>> isn’t the appropriate venue for them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> b&
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2025, at 1:54 PM, justina colmena ~biz <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Freemen on the land also advocate schemes to avoid taxes"
>>>
>>> Such as voting down the said taxes. Unless there is some other scheme in 
>>> place to tax people against their collective will.
>>>
>>> "Je ne contracte pas" — so whatever it was I didn't agree to it. Somebody 
>>> else's agreement. What about all those shrink wrap license agreements on 
>>> commercial software offerings? After you've paid for them and can no longer 
>>> get your money back by returning the item you paid for.
>>>
>>> “I stopped nurturing any interest in Ancap/Libertarianism when I realized 
>>> it is but yet another neuroatypy.” — There's got to be a good reason for 
>>> enacting and enforcing some kind of "law" other than just a bunch of petty 
>>> rules to punish people just for the sake of punishing them.
>>>
>>> For example, a lot of people are too lazy to mow their own lawns, but then 
>>> they go to court with service of process and summons to appear to force 
>>> their neighbors to mow their lawns to their expectations. In which case I 
>>> suppose a blade of grass a fraction of an inch too long that tickles your 
>>> bare foot is a prime example of "neuroatypy" unless it's actually against 
>>> the law to go barefoot on your own lawn in neighborhoods like that.
>>>
>>> On March 28, 2025 9:59:34 AM PDT, Sylvain Saboua <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, I see ! You're from the “Common Law v Maritime Law,” “Free Man on the 
>>>> Land” [1] bunch. I've enjoyed this conspiracy theory a lot, in France we 
>>>> had the “je ne contracte pas” [2] stemming from it just last year. But 
>>>> French law stems from Napoleonic Civil Code, i.e. continental law, which 
>>>> is ; little to do with Common Law... Anyways.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land_movement
>>>>
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxWnBY9qjby4Uw71PwEZ3EvFhlKiWRqkB9
>>>>
>>>> In the end, I believe this all stems from the misplaced free association 
>>>> thought (or misplaced “right brain” more or less). As somebody else says, 
>>>> “I stopped nurturing any interest in Ancap/Libertarianism when I realized 
>>>> it is but yet another neuroatypy.”
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-03-28 14:58, justina colmena ~biz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The shrinks got too litigious, and "mental health" is practiced as a
>>>>>
>>>>> branch of "law" alongside "intellectual property" and other matters
>>>>>
>>>>> that are either "imaginary" or "all in your head" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> There are laws against "simulating legal process" over such imaginary
>>>>>
>>>>> matters etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>> https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-11/chapter-56/article-4/section-11-56-620/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but such laws are never enforced, because even without a Constitution
>>>>>
>>>>> the law itself can't be illegal in a court of law, and even if it
>>>>>
>>>>> were, the attorneys can't prosecute themselves or else they'd put
>>>>>
>>>>> themselves out of business for their own practices.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "law" itself by definition being whatever "lawyers" keep
>>>>>
>>>>> themselves in business practicing and billing for. Unless you think
>>>>>
>>>>> you can be successful in court as yet another crackpot mentally ill
>>>>>
>>>>> "pro se" petitioner with a flat tire or another speeding ticket or
>>>>>
>>>>> traffic violation on the way to court you must answer, with paying off
>>>>>
>>>>> all your parking tickets and getting your vehicle released from city
>>>>>
>>>>> hall impound after court, but your own petitions are just going to be
>>>>>
>>>>> professionally dismissed for failure to appear at any one of those
>>>>>
>>>>> numerous perfunctory court hearings for filing a suit. Cops have
>>>>>
>>>>> grappling hooks and shoot-out axle nets to physically disable and stop
>>>>>
>>>>> your vehicle on the road now. That's why the real pro lawyers always
>>>>>
>>>>> hail a cab or take Uber or Lyft to court because you can't even
>>>>>
>>>>> consider driving or parking your own vehicle in a hostile red-light
>>>>>
>>>>> district.
>>>>>
>>>>> On March 28, 2025 2:48:29 AM PDT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-03-28 07:01, justina colmena ~biz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:51:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time izzy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meyer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curious why you chose to invalidate this person's experience that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>> made themselves vulnerable about. Sure- you have your views on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that's totally cool. But maybe try being a bit more forgiving of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> someone who, again, made themselves vulnerable next time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People serve process with mental health allegations that sticks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> worse than a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> felony record in court for the rest of a person's life, and they
>>>>>>
>>>>>> want others
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to be forgiving of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh ! I think I get you. I had the impression that you were sympathetic
>>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> antipsychiatry, especially given the related posts on your blog. I'm
>>>>>
>>>>> still
>>>>>
>>>>> not very sure but ... I've never been charged for anything criminal or
>>>>>
>>>>> against
>>>>>
>>>>> the law, you're making quite a broad generalization here.
>>>>>
>>>>> When talking about mental illness and the aforementioned soothing I
>>>>>
>>>>> get from
>>>>>
>>>>> obsd and suckless, I was alluding to the relative cognitive overload
>>>>>
>>>>> undeliberately enforced by other projects which seems mostly absent
>>>>>
>>>>> from these
>>>>>
>>>>> two – as hinted at in the title of my page UNIX.html @saboua.xyz
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mental health services, like those of astrologers or magicians,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> psychics,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tarot card readers, palmists, have gained far too much of a sheen of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> legitimacy (or color of law, as it were) in court for service of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> process and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> summons to appear -- Say does a person really have an organic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "mental illness"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of known etiology? Or is it simply a case of simulated legal process
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> catch-all diagnosis to make a person appear "formally mad" in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> court of law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for some other legal summons?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right. A lot of diagnoses are abusive, esp. when considering
>>>>>
>>>>> the prevalent
>>>>>
>>>>> traumatic liminal state that pervades among our relatives within
>>>>>
>>>>> society. But as
>>>>>
>>>>> for me I attribute this to Big Pharma's lucrative motive, not legal
>>>>>
>>>>> summons which
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen cases of while at the ward.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely no morality is inherent in the "law" just because it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely. Legal is not necessarily moral.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvain Saboua

Reply via email to