Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

*** September 2011 low content thread ***

rated by 0 users
This post has 141 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James Posted: Thu, Sep 1 2011 3:51 PM

In this thread we post short things that don't require a seperate thread.

 

edit (-Nielsio):

Mandatory feel good song:




Previous low content threads:

August 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25783.aspx

 

July 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25323.aspx

June 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24987.aspx

May 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24393.aspx

April 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/23834.aspx

March 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/23166.aspx

January 2011
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21877.aspx

December 2010
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21375.aspx

November 2010
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20722.aspx

October 2010
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20457.aspx

 

  • | Post Points: 170
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Of course, he doesn't answer "why", but this is still pretty cool.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Might as well rant here...

A couple of months ago one of my friends (socialist) started a group on Facebook about "practical tax and spending cut deal" where he started a debate on taxes.

Today, another friend of mine (Democract, I suppose) was talking to me about how me and my other friend were looking into the matter as if it were pure math and economics and how we are disconnected from reality (something like that).

He always sensationalizes whatever he says, but this time especially.

"We've got to come to realize that we can't cut like this right now. That deficits are not a bad thing, that every country runs them and that we can run them as well. If we just cut cut cut we'll have nothing left and we'll just destroy the economy"

More rant here which I forget... Somehow he then changed topics into some "Great realization we need to make to save ourselves":

"If we just create a universal base which everyone must have to live, then we could fix things in the world. We could make people in Africa have houses for example."

So I asked how do we "force" them?

"We tax people and government gives it to the people in Africa. The people there wouldn't have to be rich, but have some universal basis that everyone must have. We can't just live while Africa is the way it is right now."

Now I remember he began this argument by saying "you know how in the past if you really wanted something you could kill someone and get it?" To which I replied "I guess de facto..." And he says "Well, so you had to do that in the past, but what if we can distribute the wealth better and you don't have to do that any more?" So then after his Africa idea I said "you're saying we should force people to give their property to those in Africa?" He said "yes." Well, what if they don't want to? "Kill them." (maybe not exactly, but something very much along these lines)

The convo went on like this, with me arguing "you can't aggress against people like that" and him saying "we already do it!" and me saying "exactly the problem with the system!"

I could not believe what he was advocating. He was quite literally advocating some Orwellian government superseding human rights to establish some order of things.

Where can I even begin to argue against him? His argument has so many holes and unethical points that I can see my hand through it if I wave it behind the argument.

I guess my best beginning argument would be "you're applying different principles to Africans and to the rest of the world. Africans thus have rights and humanity while we don't?"

Maybe I couldn't think of any argument because I was just so astonished by what he was saying.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Thu, Sep 1 2011 6:52 PM

Wheylous:
And he says "you know how in the past if you really wanted something you could kill someone and get it? ...Well, so you had to do that in the past, but what if we can distribute the wealth better and you don't have to do that any more?" So then after his Africa idea I said "you're saying we should force people to give their property to those in Africa?" He said "yes." Well, what if they don't want to? "Kill them."

Seems to me that he's proposing to kill Group A (or threaten to kill them) so that Group B wouldn't have to "do that any more" -- all the while neither group has asked him to do anything in their stead. Diagnosis: psychosis. Good thing you get to choose who your friends are.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Haha. He's generally not psychotic, yet this was pretty insane. I was quite shocked. But yeah, my friends do come off as a bit leftist :P These at least. Sadly our resident Republican in the school left, so I can't talk with him about stuff. Good thing is I know of two libertarian teachers in my school.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Surprisingly good description of anarchy by TvTropes:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnarchyIsChaos

I am also amazed how Wikipedia handles the subject.

Why does the public view anarchy so badly even when Wikipedia gives it a fair article? Is it because of Spanish anarchists?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Thu, Sep 1 2011 9:49 PM

I started a new subreddit (so I am the moderator): http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/ .

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Fri, Sep 2 2011 8:13 PM

Live remix of 39 songs.

 

Think of the possibilities! (..of no IP)

 

An accompanying street dance video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPbgnO81sQ .

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 177
Points 2,860
Naevius replied on Fri, Sep 2 2011 9:49 PM

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Sep 3 2011 12:50 AM

A perennial classic:

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Sat, Sep 3 2011 7:39 PM

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

 

2 weeks old, 250K views.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 72
Points 1,490
Loppu replied on Sun, Sep 4 2011 10:18 AM

Are there any well-known anarcho-objectivists?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

Fox Business right now is talking about new regulations on the fishing industry. One man that they interview says we MUST regulate fishers or else there will be overfishing and that we  know this will happen, No one ever mentions the obvious solution, that is more clearly defined property rights.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Sep 5 2011 7:04 PM

@Porco Rosso: I think we have to careful to avoid making glib policy recommendations - what exactly are property rights in ocean fishing? Without a free market in arbitration (dispute-resolution) there is no non-arbitrary way to assign property rights. "Property rights" assigned by government monopoly courts are a mockery of genuine property rights.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

@Clayton

I'd say the people that have been fishing those waters for decades or a century have some claim wouldn't you?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 12:21 AM

Thanks for the pointer, Nielsio... I didn't have the patience to watch the whole video from the beginning.

I think one of the important things to note is that it's really a mistake to refer to statutes as law at all. I will post my article on "A Praxeological Approach to Law" on this forum (had posted it on the new forum but nothing happened... plus, I've decided I'm not going to participate on the new forum due to the complete lack of respect that mises.org has shown to its users in this transition).

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 286
Points 4,665
skylien replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 10:06 AM

An interesting video about what Bob Pisani forgot to tell you about the GLD:



 

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 10:34 AM

More commentary:

SILVER ETF MANIPULATION. 'Why Gold & Silver?'

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage/healthcare-reform-should-seek-to-empower-the-patient

If you want to hear a short debate about the NHS click on the link to the audio at the bottom of that page. The man arguing in favor of the NHS basically makes up a bunch of "facts".

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 286
Points 4,665
skylien replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 11:37 AM

Thanks as well for the nice video Nielsio.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 443
Points 9,245

New Symphony of Science video!

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

"Repelling States: Evidence from Upland Southeast Asia"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1715223

If someone claims that property cannot exist without a state or that traditional societies did not have individual property rights, which is obviously ludicrous anyways, refer them to this paper. Also, the one mentioned in the paper by Dove is also very good. It can be found in the Journal of Agroforestry Systems in the 1983 issue on page 85-99.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,305
Gero replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 1:18 PM

Commentary on the Murphy-Smith Debate

The Murphy-Smith debate was advertised with a Mises Daily titled Tonight: Econ Cage Match of DEATH. After it aired, Jeffrey Tucker offered his thoughts. The video is available on YouTube.

I believe the debate would have been better if it was on paper rather than oral. Instead of time limits, let each debater write as much as they want. There could be opposing Mises Dailies on the front page. One day are the opening statements, followed by the rebuttals, followed by more rebuttals or their closing arguments, and that is all followed by reader questions. Also, a more thorough background of the Austrian and Keynesian paradigms would be helpful to those who are not as knowledgeable of each. This debate is a fog to newcomers, so if each side could give a summary of its view, followed by the details, that would be helpful.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 1:26 PM

4 yrs old, but new to me. Never heard of the guy before. Not sure if it has been posted before.

Interview with Aaron Russo...

[EDIT: How do I embed the video link/pic?]

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

Pretty sure its [ view: video link] no spaces. Like this

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

And if you can tell me who Nicholas Rockefeller is (and more importantly, how he fits into the John D. Rockefeller dynasty), you'll win a prize.

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=117952.0

It seems the guy is hard to pin down...?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 2:47 PM

John James:

And if you can tell me who Nicholas Rockefeller is (and more importantly, how he fits into the John D. Rockefeller dynasty), you'll win a prize.

I'll see if I can find any books he's written or public debates he has partaken where he explains his thoughts or agenda in more detail, and I'll get right back to you. 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Just realized that my class colors are black and gold :)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Quick note to whoever reads this in time (by the end of Sept 6):

Vote Ron Paul (a little bit down the page):

http://www.nationalreview.com/

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Is Paul's logic sound here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY&feature=related

? I find it a bit "eh" as anyone could make his argument.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 75
Points 1,255

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Sep 6 2011 11:47 PM

@JJ: Good point - and then there's this guy:

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:

Is Paul's logic sound here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY&feature=related

? I find it a bit "eh" as anyone could make his argument.

It's not about logic.  It's about definitions.  All these morons who talk about outlawing earmarks have no idea what an earmark is.  While a straightline definition is difficult to pin down, the main point is clear:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

That's basically it right there.  Earmarks allow Congressional representatives to specify how federal funds should be spent...as opposed to the Executive branch dictating in a more centralized fashion.  Don't mistunderstand me, the whole system is wrong, so it's pretty tough to defend a specific way of operatating within a system that you disagree with.  And that's why Paul's case doesn't sound as good as it should.  (Plus the host is doing his best to make him look bad.)

But the point Paul tries to make is a simple one: the Congress should dictate where money is spent...not the President.  If you search around for other videos you'll find one where Paul says "we should earmark everything"...meaning all monies should be appropriated specifically by Congress.

And what's more, Texas is a donor state...

Texas taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Texas citizens received approximately $0.94 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 35th nationally and represents a slight decrease from 1995, when Texas received $0.95 per dollar of federal taxes paid (ranking them 37th nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxation paid were as follows: New Mexico ($2.03), Oklahoma ($1.36), Arkansas ($1.41), and Louisiana ($1.78).

So this whole notion of Ron Paul "pork barreling" federal money into his state is just plain false.  The state is on net losing money thanks to the federal government's redistribution deal, while every one of the states surrounding it are on the federal dole.  As Paul said, he's just putting in the requests his constituents ask for, as they try to get at least some of their own money back.

 

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Huh. That is really really interesting. I myself would have readily taken up the cry against earmarks, but now I view things differently.

According to [http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/883]:

Ron Paul routinely votes against appropriations bills that include funds he requests earmarks for; he opposes those spending bills while believing that Congress has a responsibility to designate exactly how appropriated money must be spent.

Could it be true that his votes do not add to the total but allow him to redistribute it, and then he votes against the whole thing?

This sounds too good to be true :)

But wow, my view on earmarks has changed. Thanks. This seems like something less than 1% of the population would know... I feel special now :)

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 4 (142 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS