Forced Ranting
i-am-dallas:

runningrepublican:

I feel like that 16% is tumblr. 

It is indeed common to coin a term with the adjective “free” prefixed, in order to take advantage of people’s unreflective infatuation for freedom. Thus in addition to “free market” we have “free love” and “free thinking.” Related to this is the word “choice,” used most notably by proponents of legal abortion, but also in the so-called “school choice” movement. Of course, neither freedom nor choice are always good things. If we had freedom to drive in any lane or direction we wanted to on a highway we would indeed have more freedom of a sort, but a freedom that would quickly nullify the possibility of driving on highways. But people generally do not stop to think about this, and simply respond favorably to anything having the adjective free attached to it.

So the second half of your argument boils down to “if not for the government, people would drive on the wrong side of the roads”? Come on now, you can do better than that.

i-am-dallas:

runningrepublican:

I feel like that 16% is tumblr. 

It is indeed common to coin a term with the adjective “free” prefixed, in order to take advantage of people’s unreflective infatuation for freedom. Thus in addition to “free market” we have “free love” and “free thinking.” Related to this is the word “choice,” used most notably by proponents of legal abortion, but also in the so-called “school choice” movement. Of course, neither freedom nor choice are always good things. If we had freedom to drive in any lane or direction we wanted to on a highway we would indeed have more freedom of a sort, but a freedom that would quickly nullify the possibility of driving on highways. But people generally do not stop to think about this, and simply respond favorably to anything having the adjective free attached to it.

So the second half of your argument boils down to “if not for the government, people would drive on the wrong side of the roads”?

Come on now, you can do better than that.

butmuhgains:

cadof:

You can’t have it both ways. It either exists or doesn’t. My guess is prior to January 20, 2009 Clive Bundy believed in the existence of the federal government.
- MK

This is the most retarded fucking thing I’ve read regarding the Bundy Ranch incident

I’m not surprised at all that someone stupid enough to make that graphic is also unable to pay their webhosting bill.

butmuhgains:

cadof:

You can’t have it both ways. It either exists or doesn’t. My guess is prior to January 20, 2009 Clive Bundy believed in the existence of the federal government.

- MK

This is the most retarded fucking thing I’ve read regarding the Bundy Ranch incident

I’m not surprised at all that someone stupid enough to make that graphic is also unable to pay their webhosting bill.

(source)

communismkills:

forcedranting:

Soylent 1.0 Update

tl;dr

- We recently put a brief hold on shipping, which has since resumed

- Early recipients of Soylent 1.0 indicated they were quite happy with the taste, texture, and ease of Soylent, but some experienced side effects including flatulence and headaches

- We took some time to work…

tl;dr

The folks behind Soylent just admitted that they’ve been lying to us. They published shipping dates back in May claiming that new orders would take about 10 weeks. Then, 10 weeks later, they came back and said “oops, we had a problem (at first it was a packaging problem — now it’s a “flatulence” problem) — and it’s going to take another 10-12 weeks to ship your order”.

That’s right — they’re claiming to have lost two and a half months of time, by pausing shipping for a week. I don’t know whether to be more upset at the delay, or that they’re insulting our intelligence with lame excuses like these.

So, to recap, after lying to supporters for nearly a year before finally delivering something to them, now they’re lying to new customers. Far from being a success story of crowdfunding, this is turning into a cautionary tale.

My advice would be to stay the hell away from these charlatans until they have a track-record of actually doing the things they claim they’re going to do. By no means should you give them any money at all.

Have there ever been any products delivered?

A friend of mine who signed up to the original kickstarter more than a year ago finally got his order a few weeks ago, so it’s not complete vaporware (anymore….), but don’t give them money that you might want to use for anything else for the next year or so, since that’s the best proven delivery time they’ve achieved so far.

tl;dr

- We recently put a brief hold on shipping, which has since resumed

- Early recipients of Soylent 1.0 indicated they were quite happy with the taste, texture, and ease of Soylent, but some experienced side effects including flatulence and headaches

- We took some time to work…

tl;dr

The folks behind Soylent just admitted that they’ve been lying to us. They published shipping dates back in May claiming that new orders would take about 10 weeks. Then, 10 weeks later, they came back and said “oops, we had a problem (at first it was a packaging problem — now it’s a “flatulence” problem) — and it’s going to take another 10-12 weeks to ship your order”.

That’s right — they’re claiming to have lost two and a half months of time, by pausing shipping for a week. I don’t know whether to be more upset at the delay, or that they’re insulting our intelligence with lame excuses like these.

So, to recap, after lying to supporters for nearly a year before finally delivering something to them, now they’re lying to new customers. Far from being a success story of crowdfunding, this is turning into a cautionary tale.

My advice would be to stay the hell away from these charlatans until they have a track-record of actually doing the things they claim they’re going to do. By no means should you give them any money at all.

How dumb do you have to be to throw rocks at soldiers carrying rifles?

communismkills:

forcedranting:

communismkills:

I’m confused here. Walter Block has always been in to the evictionism argument, even calling babies “parasites”, and yet I’m reading something he wrote that is a very, very, very pro-life position. He took a pro-life position simply to defend Ron Paul. That’s… not intellectually honest.

Here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/

vs.

Number 3: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/12/walter-e-block/response-to-a-jewish-opponent-of-ron-paul/

huh?

On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what it means to be pro life. It is entirely legitimate for a libertarian to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. The libertarian community, as in the case of the population at large, is greatly divided on this issue. Thus, to make this into some sort of litmus test for libertarians is improper.

As it happens, I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I adopt a third alternative, the evictionist position.

seems fairly consistent to me.

Read here:

"Yes, what "arrogance" on the part of an Ob-Gyn who has delivered some 4,000 babies. Who is Dr. Paul to define life as beginning at conception? Why, everyone knows, they just know, that life really begins at birth. Therefore, such horrors as partial birth abortion are entirely justified. I mean, the effrontery of the man!"

That does not read like the argument of someone who supports evictionism (which is abortion, even if he won’t admit it).

I didn’t read that as a serious argument. I read it as mocking his opponent.

communismkills:

I’m confused here. Walter Block has always been in to the evictionism argument, even calling babies “parasites”, and yet I’m reading something he wrote that is a very, very, very pro-life position. He took a pro-life position simply to defend Ron Paul. That’s… not intellectually honest.

Here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/

vs.

Number 3: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/12/walter-e-block/response-to-a-jewish-opponent-of-ron-paul/

huh?

On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what it means to be pro life. It is entirely legitimate for a libertarian to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. The libertarian community, as in the case of the population at large, is greatly divided on this issue. Thus, to make this into some sort of litmus test for libertarians is improper.

As it happens, I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I adopt a third alternative, the evictionist position.

seems fairly consistent to me.

An aggressive war is the great crime against everything good in the world. A defensive war, which must necessarily turn to aggressive at the earliest moment, is the necessary great counter-crime. But never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and the dead.
Ernest Hemingway
Still don’t get the concept of the “Petrodollar”

ordnungsokonomik:

I must be missing something important, hopefully someone can explain this to me.

If the Saudis agree to price their oil in dollars, that essentially places their oil in the same situation as goods produced in America. If the money supply doubles, the price of American goods double, including Saudi oil. This is no different than if the Saudis didn’t price their goods in dollars but in some other currency, since a doubling of the money supply would cause the exchange rate of the dollar to fall by half. Either way the price of oil would double in dollar terms. So there is definitely no sense in which the petrodollar allows inflation to be exported.

The only way inflation could be exported is if the price of oil in dollars was fixed. In that case, if the US money supply is expanded, oil would fail to rise proportionately with other goods priced in dollars, causing the relative price of oil to fall. More oil would be imported into the US, dollars would flow outwards (into foreign reserves), and American prices would rise less than otherwise would have. (This is why fixed exchange rate systems cause inflation or deflation to be transferred between countries.)

As to the question of whether the petrodollar raises global demand for US dollars, why this is important baffles me. After all, dollars are merely paper, the real value of American products hasn’t changed. If the Canadians decided they would adopt the US dollar as their currency, the result would be deflation as there would be the same quantity of US dollars spread across a greater amount of production. Sure, the dollar would be more valuable, but that rise in the value of the dollar would be exactly offset by a fall in the nominal incomes of Americans.

"The Petrodollar" was a creation of the diplomats, not economists. It was a project of Kissinger and Nixon as a weapon against the Soviets and the "3rd-world", aka non-aligned countries.

"Raising the global demand for dollars" has the effect of forcing increased reliance upon US (dollar)-based financial institutions to settle transactions, and that means that the US Government (through its regulatory system) can exert control over the transactions of 3rd parties, otherwise known as "sanctions".

If you need to use dollars to purchase some good on the global markets, and the US Government says “nobody using dollars can do business with you”, you’re suddenly going to have a hard time finding goods you are able to purchase. Even worse, your foreign reserves, deposited in a dollar-denominated account, would also be frozen and suddenly unavailable to make the purchase, even if you could find a seller.

Macro-economic analysis is not going to get you anywhere, because it’s not an economic system; it’s a system of power and control.

communismkills:

If anyone knows how to get rid of these stupid curls around your ears, let me know. Even if I straighten them, they go back to being curled and it looks blah.

Curls around your ears? You mean like these?

jenlog:

I think the argument that really shot through my belief in the state having an involvement in healthcare was, as D. Friedman describes it, the time the FDA admitted to killing 100,000 people.

I know what libertarianism is, okay? I watched hours of youtube videos mostly of julie borowski

eltigrechico:

Commenting on the state of the libertarian movement after the rapid growth in the 1970’s R.J. Smith once lamented to Brian Doherty

…it used to be that if you met a fellow libertarian, they were truly libertarian. They had read everything and knew everything—and now everybody’s a libertarian and no one reads anything. It’s just astounding—ask them the most basic book, they’ve never read it—‘I’m just a libertarian.’

In a sense, this is a good thing, as it shows the spread of libertarian ideas. If you talked to the average abolitionist in the 1840’s and 1850’s they were probably very well versed in the anti-slavery literature. They perhaps subscribed to The Liberator, they knew who Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison (et al) were and were familiar with their writings. They could themselves probably articulate a sound anti-slavery argument which they could defend well. But today, none of us know anything of that literature, because we have so absorbed the abolitionists central tenet that we don’t need to study, we just believe that slavery is wrong. And that’s certainly all the better for the cause of freedom.

So, as libertarian ideas become more commonplace in American society, we are likely to see more and more people who call themselves “libertarians” and even “ex-libertarians” who don’t know jack shit about what they are talking about. It’s a sign of progress. Even if it is infuriating and obnoxious to hear these people spout loudly about things they obviously haven’t bothered to give much attention or study to.

Hopefully, one day the earth will be entirely populated with such ignorant “libertarians”. And those who still bother to study libertarian ideas will be driven nuts by them, but at least they’ll be free.

It was eye-opening to me to talk about politics with Polish people, who had zero exposure to Liberal or Scottish Enlightenment philosophers. They forced me to consider just how many rhetorical shortcuts I had become used to making. In the US, when you refer to arguments made by the Founders, or by Rawls, or Locke, Hobbes, and Hume, most reasonably-well educated people will at least have a rough understanding of the argument being made.

With the Poles, I had to start over and explain the basic assumptions and foundational logic that I was basing my perspective upon. It made for some interesting conversations, and a few embarrassing moments.