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

*** January 2012 low content thread ***

rated by 0 users
This post has 321 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

 

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

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,305
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

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

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

They really need to make up their mind:

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jan 1 2012 5:50 PM

I hope that the thought of Chinese college students laughing at our once-great country 20 years from now is not the only thing that can motivate an American to want to see the insanity of our current political order stopped.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:
They really need to make up their mind

I thought we had it all figured out already.  Like I said, he's a homophobic homosexual-lover who thinks gay people should be executed, a racist who does pro bono work for interracial couples, a pro-abortionist who argues for anti-abortion ideals, and a Democratic party double agent RINO Republican candidate who lives by libertarian principles.

It's quite simple.

 

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

+2!!!

 

Also, Santorum likes big numbers:

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, Jan 1 2012 6:05 PM




So many they don't fit in a post. Link.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Jan 1 2012 11:26 PM

Paul leading in Iowa, but favorability rating down and Santorum has room to grow.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/headed-for-a-photo-finish-in-iowa.html

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 12:58 AM

LotR makes everything clearer:

http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/02/one-ring-to-rule-them-all/

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

EPICNESS:

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 2:13 AM

Statist!

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

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

What are you talking about? That was secession. Now if we keep seceding until we get to the individual level... :D

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

Crazy idea: maybe it would be best if Santorum wins Iowa so that he can gain enough momentum to win South Carolina. Then, he becomes the front runner, Bachmann and Perry quit. Then, because Santorum is so easily demolishable, Paul can come in for a win from behind the back.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 4:45 AM

Santorum wins Iowa?  Oh well.  Iowa means nothing (or at least it does if Paul wins).

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 12:26 PM

Good for a fan song!

 

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

Where'd you get that?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 12:43 PM

Well, I saw it on some website, but then I also saw it on the DP

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

I thought you might have seen it here  wink

 

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

No, I think it was on the Examiner

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

Did you catch the h/t at that link?  That's why I thought it would have been cool if that's where you saw it.

---------------------

This guy used to be a typical "conservative".  Evidently he's got a thinking head on his shoulders and eyes that can see...

(not to mention, 45,000 subscribers smiley )

 

 

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

"for economists, they lok at a problem and they ask who can get rich by solving this problem? And if you have a decent answer, they say good, we don't need to worry about solving this problem. On the other hand, noneconomists will say look there are people getting rich off of this, and that's the problem!"

 

XD

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,305
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

The video I posted above is quite nice. The guy's an amazing speaker.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 4:37 PM

I read Caplan's paper on this some time back. It's good but it seems to me to be over-analysis of something that could be stated in much fewer words. Also, I object to the idea of treating "irrationality" as a good and quantifying it, even though I think the general gist of what he's saying is correct. The correct tools for this line of investigation probably come from biology (the evolutionary roots of xenophobia, for example) rather than from applied economics.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:37 PM

Ron Paul wins highest ACLU ratings:

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:54 PM

Scumbag RP:

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:58 PM

Hehe:

 

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

If you happened to catch Rand Paul on Face the Nation you might have heard him throw a zinger about Santorum getting booed for interrupting a restaurant crowd trying to watch a football game...hehehe

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 132
Points 1,890

It is from the end of Back to the Future. The "who will build the roads" is a common objection to a voluntary society. 

Even though roads could be build without coercion, the post is implying that a voluntary society will be so awesome and technologically advanced  that we won't need roads. 

FLYING CARS FTW. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Tue, Jan 3 2012 12:23 AM

Too funny not to post

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Tue, Jan 3 2012 10:31 AM

Haha, someone mentioned that to see which is closer to "money" (gold, or dollar), you should use Google's ngram statistics. Well, this is what they show:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dollar%2C+gold%2C+money&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Tue, Jan 3 2012 11:56 AM

Alex Jones And Evolution

 

Whoops!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jan 3 2012 12:24 PM

The hardest part of evolution to accept - from an emotional perspective - is that human beings are animals. But nothing could be more obvious. Not only are human beings animals, we are a specific type of animal... we are mammals. And we're not just any mammal, we are primate mammals. We share many phenotypical (physical form) features with chimpanzees (our closest surviving relative), apes and other primates. We share phenotypical features with other mammals such as bears and even whales, though fewer than we share with primates. And we share the blueprint of life itself - DNA - with all living things on this planet... plants, animals... even viruses.

So, if you can move past the emotional "ick factor" of thinking of the human body as an animal body and the human brain as animal brain, then you have overcome the motivational impediments to looking at the facts of biological history on this planet (called "evolution") dispassionately. And once you look at the biological history of this planet dispassionately, you realize that Darwin was right. And Darwin was not the first to bat around these ideas, he was simply the first to present a powerful scientific case based on careful observation of the physical world combined with detailed arguments informed by his state-of-the-art understanding of biological science.

Not only do individuals follow the pattern of trait heredity within a species, all species are evidence of a very, very long history of common heredity (commonly known as common descent) which traces back to very early life forms, which probably arose on this planet a couple billion years ago.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Don't you know? Even the universe is only 4000 years old wink

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 9 (322 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS