Of course, that is only really a benefit if you actually care about the subject.
So that's why you grace this humble forum, Student. Awww.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Student: Oh that was indeed an excellent piece of evidence that was well researched. After all, it includes links from sources as authoritative as treehugger.com (citing their scientific claim that global warming will lead to World War 4) and the daily mail (I often catch up on news about climate change and Fergie there). And collecting all these links together certainly proves.....something....I'm sure. Unfortunately, I am not interested in debating your bold and original positions on global climate change.
Oh that was indeed an excellent piece of evidence that was well researched. After all, it includes links from sources as authoritative as treehugger.com (citing their scientific claim that global warming will lead to World War 4) and the daily mail (I often catch up on news about climate change and Fergie there). And collecting all these links together certainly proves.....something....I'm sure.
Unfortunately, I am not interested in debating your bold and original positions on global climate change.
Yeah I'm not much interested in nonsense like AGW or whatever the religious nuts are calling it these days either. But I will say, if non-peer reviewed "reports" from "green activists" and "green advocacy groups" and anecdotal evidence from "mountaineers" are good enough for the IPCC, I'd say they're good enough to include in judgements of the validity of global warming claims.
Here's some more if you're interested here, and here.
What would interest me more (and would be more relevant to John Stossel's video) would be if you could point to what peer-reviewed study was underlying John Stossel's assertions about poor forest management and wild fires. He mentioned none, which is odd because he normally loves to interview economists or scientists supporting his position. Maybe you can help point in a better direction?
Unfortunately I'm not really interested in forest management either. The relevant part of the youtube clip was the piece on the Native Americans and it was posted to supplement the previous comment on that topic. If you'd like to discuss forest fire prevention you're definitely welcome to create another thread, or better yet, I'm sure there are Smokey the Bear forums somewhere on the Internetz.
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/8099/are-forest-management-policies-contributing-to-nms-worst-fire-season-ever/
New Mexico has had a very dry period for the last 6 months, but bad policies have made the fires less manageable.
Johnny,
Don't worry. I doubt many libertarians actually care about forest fires either. Its just one more talking point. *shrug*
But that's why I stay away from internet politics. Its just screaming loudly about things you don't actually care about.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
I wonder how much you actually care abut them beyond pushing your own politics as well there Student dearest.
So that's why you grace this humble forum, Student.
No, I'm here because people love me. Sometimes you wanna go where everybody knows your name and they're always glad you came.
Student: Johnny, Don't worry. I doubt many libertarians actually care about forest fires either. Its just one more talking point. *shrug* But that's why I stay away from internet politics. Its just screaming loudly about things you don't actually care about.
No problem, Stoody. You keep on fighting the good fight. I'm sure Greenpeace has uploaded a new report you can forward along to the IPCC. Maybe you'll get lucky with a double header and the Smokeys will have put one out too so that you can alert all the "scientists" to the forest plight which I'm sure you care so much about.
Pardon the ignorance on my part, but what is this argument over? I'm unclear if its about J. Tucker's fascination with home appliances or something more.
Student wanted to pick a fight, that's all.
I live in the Pacific Northwest, forest capital of the United States. Anyone who says that public lands don't result in more frequent and more severe wildfires is full of shit. Privately owned forests look nothing like their public counterparts. You can hardly find underbrush in many private forests. There are no snags. Private forest owners maintain fleets of small fire trucks which are dispatched to stop small fires before they become large unlike the public model where lookouts try to monitor hundreds of square miles of forests then dispatch armadas of fire crews once a fire has become visible after burning for days.
Unfortuantely, public forests surround and touch almost all private forest holdings which greatly increases the risk of private forest ownership. If all forests were privately owned and insured, the incentive to maintain their capital value would result in negligible occurence of major forest fires. Socialists and central planners will, of course, remain willfully blind to this painfully obvious fact.
Clayton -
Actually, I just wanted to stress that a common libertarian talking point simply isn't supported by the most recent empirical, peer-reviewed research (or any peer-reviewed research so far as I know). That should matter.
Since it doesn't, I also wanted to lament the fact that just because a story is unsupported that won't stop some from telling it to further their political agenda.
That makes me said because that is essentialy what John Stossel appears to be doing (again he cites no source to support his assertions on the link between poor forest managemnt and wild fires) and people applaud him for it.
Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?
Great pro-capitalism video. (doesn't make the mistake 'Morality of Profit' did)
Jeez that's like the 5th time you've edited that one post. Here's some recent sources for you:
From five days ago: "Arizona fires expose forest management failure"
And from two days ago: "Time for responsible forest management"
And here's a nice economic point illustrating how government poisons everything: "Forest Fires Fueled By Incomplete Information"
And just for fun here's an interesting case of how government policies have led to conflicts between communities and companies that lead to fires in Sumatra.
Obviously if by the government's own admission the average annual acreage burned and federal appropriations for wildland fire management have both more than doubled, government is not doing a very good job at its charge. And it kind of makes one wonder what they're doing with their 30,000 employees and $5 billion annual budget apportioned for this specific area. And top this off with cases of multiple fires that raged out of control being intentionally started by the government on government property, while virtually none on privately owned land, I'd say government incompetence is pretty evident.
This is what Bastiat argued! As a matter of fact this professor(was he a professor, I couldn't remember?) in the clip quotes both Mises and Bastiat. Bastiat said that in the market onerous utility diminishes and common utility increases. So, yes, now individuals have much more wealth (in utility) than what individuals in the past had (even the richest ones).
Nielsio:Would You Give Up The Internet For 1 Million Dollars?
Great vid. Love it. Great closing too. But the guy makes a mistake in claiming that what someone could pay you to stop using it is the same thing as "worth/what you would pay for it". It's a great point to illustrate how people wouldn't trade their access for any sum of money, and yet don't have to pay much for it, but again, he already said that people aren't willing to pay very much for it. So by his own example it would seem there isn't a "tremendous gap" between what Internet access costs and what people would pay for it.
Seriously think about it....would the Internet really be that irreplaceable (i.e. you wouldn't take a billion dollars to give it up for life) if it cost $1,000/month? What makes the Internet so valuable is the amount of resources available and the communication it allows...and that is directly related to the cost involved in being online. If few people could afford to get online, the Internet wouldn't be so useful or fun. In a way, it's the low cost that makes it so valuable.
http://www.finallevel.co.uk/2011/06/28/team-bondi-controversy/
Oh noes those poor computer programmers and game designers working long hours.
Consider my complaints withdrawn. I asked for peer-reviewed sources that used empirical evidence to confirm the claim that increases in forest fires are primarily the result of mismanagement of those forests (which would of course require statistical analysis of MANY fires), and you succeeded in full. I think I knew I was out of my element when confronted with credientials of op-ed writer Linda Turley-Hansen, an "East Valley Resident" and "vetran TV anchor".
Now I must retire from this conversation a broken man. So you can expect no more responses or obviously futile attempts at rebuttal from me. As I fear that if I continue further, others will get the impression I am obliged to respond to every listing of links they pull from a half-hearted google search. And I do not have the emotional strength to be humilitated like that.
Fare thee well, scholar and patriot!
See ya sucker
An actual comment at Huffington Post:
Why is everyone suddenly so keen on trusting corporations and the private market? Pure libertarianism (as Ron Paul advocates) is MUCH more dangerous than a little too much government regulation. Do you really think eliminating the board of education and leaving that up to the private market is a good idea? Really? Do we want to trust everything we hold so dearly in the hands of a sector of our society solely built to create profit? Does that sound logical?
Hello Dave, I just took a look at your blog: and I must say that it is pretty damn awesome. I will likely even subscribe or whatnot. I liked your critiques on Marxism particularly. Kudos on the good work!
TY. Always encouraging to get positive feedback.
"...The 10 coins could bring $80 million or more at auction. But it's not clear that day will ever come. ..."
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Lew Rockwell misrepresented Ben Shapiro’s position on trial by jury by saying, ‘he wants to abolish the jury.’ If you read the opinion by Shapiro, Shapiro says, ‘Should we embrace the European inquisitorial system, in which judges ask the questions and come up with the decisions? Should we hire professional jurors? The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely. The rationale behind juries is still important, particularly with regard to politically-oriented trials: We don't want judges paid by government to have full authority to condemn those of different political persuasions. And the rationale behind a public trial is also still relevant -- we don't want Star Chambers or clandestine hearings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.’
I have no love for trial by jury. A bunch of uneducated, unaccountable riff-raff randomly picked off the street is hardly a recipe for justice. The supposed dilution of the power of the bench by placing the decision in the hands of the jury is a bigger myth than that democracy makes us self-rulers. The jury had to be invented as a cover for the abuse of power by the King through the King's courts. Without the power of monopoly on arbitration services, a jury is a useless appendage. Arbitrators would be professionals that bear full legal liability for their own actions just like anybody else and arbitration would lose its Great White Throne aura and become just another pedestrian white-collar job.
:EDIT:
why didn't you just ask me to change it?
Original posting of the video:
Here's a fun one I was reminded of by this thread where Paul Krugman lists his top 5 econ books. In this interview below, he discusses the one that ranks at the top of his list. Krugman basically provides an explanation for everything about the way he is in less than 90 seconds..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
^^Look at #23.
"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein
I'm also reminded of about 5 others (especially #19).
Here's a fun one. If you want to get to the best part skip to 4:25
The photo for his drier's license: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54052000/jpg/_54052148_fsm_strahlenhaube-1.jpg
Declaring himself a pastafarian, believer in the flying spaghetti monster as God, this fellow was allowed to wear his religious headgear, a pasta strainer, in his photo for driver's license.
For a second there I thought it was going to be an article about some guy who committed some act of civil disobedience for his photo in protest for having to get a license to own a drier.
Her accent was just too good to pass up. Yes. That's the only reason I thought you'd enjoy this.
From Ron Paul: "Here it is, our first campaign ad of the election cycle. What do you think about the ad? Be sure to share it with your friends and help spread our message."
This is next-level shit. This is really unlike anything I've seen from him in past campaigns. Could he win it? If he won, could he stay un-assassinated?
RP: why do central banks hold gold instead of diamonds?
BB: its tradition
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Here's Paul's afterward (with a h/t to Henry Hazlitt ):
Just made up a quote:
"Unintended consequences always trump good intentions."