securetree

Hey r/Watches,

Recently, my 1yo Speedmaster's chronograph start/stop pusher stopped working. I sent it in for repair, and the repair place quoted me ~$500, most of which is a full service.

Their reasoning was that the only way they could stand by their work was if they included a service. Is this reasonable? Should I try other repair places instead? My understanding was that a newer watch didn't need everything involved with a service, but I could be wrong.

I bought a new Speedmaster moonwatch from Jomashop in February. It suffers from a little bit of chronograph stutter - that is, the sweep will be a little uneven, with some ticks taking longer than others. One time, the chronograph hand actually stopped spontaneously - but I haven't been able to replicate this, and I run the chronograph a lot. Despite this, the chronograph and watch as a whole keeps good time - it averages +5s/day.

This is a fairly common problem with Speedmasters as I understand. Google "Speedmaster stutter" and you'll have some WUS testimonials.

Problem is, Jomashop warrany service is notoriously bad:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/4tkgy2/question_how_do_peo

I think there's a way to care about income inequality from a radical libertarian perspective. I know that's a trigger phrase for some of you - and for good reason - but I think I've got a workable middle ground.

Starting point: libertarians are concerned with both plutocracy and poverty.

1. Many existing rich people are involved with the government. Some control political elections, some get government favors, and a great deal of them got rich primarily because of state restrictions on markets. Note: this is not about rich people in principle, but the actual rich people in society today.
2. Many poor people are poor because of government. Zoning laws, licensing laws, property taxes, rent

Right now, attitudes in America are pretty against socialism / anarchism. The rest of this post explains why I think this is a big problem, and I'd like to know if you agree and how you plan to solve it. Conservatives are the most obvious target here, but the problem really has to do with non-socialists in general.

I imagine in the course of the revolution, broadly speaking, you'll be able to convince some people that your values and intended society are well and good. But ever since the cold war, Americans see socialism as totalitarian, filled with poverty, and generally a bad word (see how conservative pundits use it to shut down debate).

I understand that anarchists don't want the Sovie

I'm taking philosophy of law right now, and I really need some anarchist alternatives because the main theories in the literature are really fucking statist.

Let me give you some of the shaky foundations on which people tend to ultimately base their various theories (like textualism, law as integrity, positivism, natural law, etc.)

• An objective "will of the people / legislature / Framers"
• Left-field inventions like "penumbras" to justify vast new legal concepts*
• The spirit of democracy (which, surprise surprise, means whatever you want it to mean for your argument at the time)
• Picking and choosing "fundamental liberties"
• The right of the state to pass any law so long as is has

In most current legal systems, you can claim damages from someone if they cause you significant emotional harm (with some caveats, like that the harm could have been predicted).

People who want legal systems based on strong property rights (minarchists especially due to their lack of legal choice) might reel at this.

Certain legal norms would probably appear with the majority of law providers in an anarcho-capitalist society (basic property rights for example), roughly because most people want it. Indeed, David Freidman speculates that the common law would spontaneously occur because of its economic efficiency.

Disreg