Nicely put...
Agreed, it's a post to save for future reference.
Jesus Christ, I felt the heat from that burn all the way over here.
A piece I finished titled Foundation of Religion. Taking influence from William James, Joseph Campbell, Mirciea Eliade, and Douglas Hofstadter. I haven't proof read it, so there may be some errors.
kim jong un is like obama, he claps for himself. and john bolton just said the only solution is elimination of the regime. so john bolton is an anarchist.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/02/21/its-not-fairytale-seattle-build-nations-first-food-forest
Seattle to build a park filled with edibles free for the taking. This will be a good social experiment with a predictable ending.
I answer Reddit questions from /r/austrian_economics here: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/articles/ask-me-anything.html
?How do I edit my sig so as to:
A) Start a new paragraph
and
B) Hyperlink some text
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
please
I had to use the HTML tags to get mine to work. There seems to be a character limit for signatures, but it's not a limit on what you see but what you type. So it's frustrating. I had to cut out my Herbert Spencer quote because of the limit and the end result is short.
can you post the text that you entered for your sig into this thread so I can see how it works?
<a href="http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/getEducated.php">LibertyHQ</a> and <a href="http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/">it's awesome forum</a>.
You'll see some garbage instead of "and it's", and I didn't write it that way. It works regardless, but wow this forum software sucks.
EDIT: I guess that garbage actually means apostrophe. Whatever, this software still sucks.
The irony is that the apostrophe is not what you want here. it's = it is. its is the possessive form of it.
thanks
do you know how I can actually move some text down?
so it's like this
77777
88888
rather than like this
77777 88888
try what's in the next line:
7777 <p> 8888</p>
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Sonofabitch I never noticed I did that. I'll have to change it later.
Random law hypothetical:
A woman who makes $100,000 a year at her job quits to raise her kids. Two years later she is killed by a negligent driver. Some economists have suggested that the appropriate damages due to the decedent's family for lost support must be at least $100K a year, since she must have considered her services at home to be worth more than $100K. The "rationale" behind this is that her services around the house must have been greater than the $100K she was making. Do you think this is an appropriate application of opportunity cost?
Wouldn't you need to subtract some amount to account for the money she consumed for herself each year, as that cost is no longer existing?
test
Willy Truth: Random law hypothetical: A woman who makes $100,000 a year at her job quits to raise her kids. Two years later she is killed by a negligent driver. Some economists have suggested that the appropriate damages due to the decedent's family for lost support must be at least $100K a year, since she must have considered her services at home to be worth more than $100K. The "rationale" behind this is that her services around the house must have been greater than the $100K she was making. Do you think this is an appropriate application of opportunity cost?
When the woman is employed, we know that she prefers to work X job in order to earn $100,000 per year. We know that her employer values her services at $100,000 per year. When she quits, all we know is that she no longer values working job X for $100,000 per year for whatever her reasons are. We have no idea if anyone else values her working around the house at $100,000 or not. In fact, as far as we know, nobody does, as she is not getting paid $100,000 per year for it.
Mediaite.com sticks up for libertarianism...
During his HBO show last Friday, Bill Maher dedicated four minutes to bashing libertarians for having “ruined libertarianism.” The comedian lamented that even though he himself once identified as a libertarian, the movement has “morphed into this creepy obsession with free-market capitalism based on an Ayn Rand novel called Atlas Shrugged.”
“I didn’t go nuts; this movement did,” he concluded before launching into a series of cartoonishly reductive descriptions of what he thinks are the ultimate libertarian ends.
All in all, Maher’s rant was actually pretty funny. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, we libertarians do love a good send-up — from Parks and Recreation‘s parodic anti-government hero Ron Swanson to a mock tourism advertisement for Somalia, the “libertarian paradise.” But throughout all the libertarian bashing, Maher showed his hand a bit: Despite once calling himself a libertarian, he revealed that he really does not have a grasp on what the movement/ideology actually represents.
For starters, the fact that he somehow believes libertarianism was ever a movement not predicated on a belief in free market economics is astonishing. The ideology never “morphed” into a free-market “obsession,” as he believes. In fact, the study of markets has always been a fundamental part of the movement, from the Austrian school of economics (F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises) to the Chicago school (Milton Friedman, Gary Becker).
When Maher declared himself a “libertarian” back in 2001, Salon declared it a “joke,” noting that only a handful of his beliefs (specifically in the social issues realm) overlapped with libertarian ideology. His staunch support for the expansion of government over guns, education, business, etc., were all in direct opposition to what libertarians generally believe — and yet, somehow, he bizarrely believes to this day that the movement left him.
[continued]
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone milk a metaphor like this guy. And on multiple levels. This is kind of a work of art...
Charitably check out my blog please
/selfpromotion
Too many bitcoin threads, so I'll just post yesterday's daily here. I don't care if this is a repost.
Bitcoin: Money of the Future or Old-Fashioned Bubble?
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/anarchist.htm
thought you guys might want to see what actual Christianity is, in light of all the hoopla about reconstructuralism or whatever.
You probably view the phrase "Christian Anarchist" with incredulity. A person who claims to be an "anarchist" cannot possibly be a Christian, you think. The "Vine & Fig Tree" brand of Christian Anarchism is a rigorously Biblical anarchism. We believe in the historic views of the Inerrancy of Scripture. We are six-day creationists and 5-point Calvinists. We strongly and enthusiastically hold to the first 20 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). And yet we believe the Bible nowhere commands men to form "the State," and everything the State does is a violation of God's Law. And as "Theonomists," we take Biblical Law very, very seriously. Your first question is likely to be: "But what about Romans 13?" Romans 13 is the most disastrously misinterpreted Biblical text in the history of Western Civilization. Romans 13 says "the powers" are "ordained" by God. As Calvinists we believe everything is "ordained" by God, including the demonic "powers," of whom the Apostle Paul says we are to "wrestleagainst" (Eph. 6:12). God "ordains" evil, and the State is the institutionalization of evil. Christians are not to resist evil by fighting evil with evil. This is the message of Romans 12. Not only are Christians not to resist evil in the form of an isolated bully, Christians are not to return evil to the greatest form of evil in the world: The State. This is the message of Romans 13. Here might be the first place for you to begin:
And yet we believe the Bible nowhere commands men to form "the State," and everything the State does is a violation of God's Law. And as "Theonomists," we take Biblical Law very, very seriously.
Your first question is likely to be: "But what about Romans 13?"
Romans 13 is the most disastrously misinterpreted Biblical text in the history of Western Civilization. Romans 13 says "the powers" are "ordained" by God. As Calvinists we believe everything is "ordained" by God, including the demonic "powers," of whom the Apostle Paul says we are to "wrestleagainst" (Eph. 6:12). God "ordains" evil, and the State is the institutionalization of evil. Christians are not to resist evil by fighting evil with evil. This is the message of Romans 12. Not only are Christians not to resist evil in the form of an isolated bully, Christians are not to return evil to the greatest form of evil in the world: The State. This is the message of Romans 13. Here might be the first place for you to begin:
You probably view the phrase "Christian Anarchist" with incredulity. A person who claims to be an "anarchist" cannot possibly be a Christian, you think. The "Vine & Fig Tree" brand of Christian Anarchism is a rigorously Biblical anarchism.
Vermin supreme is fucking awesome.
I love poneys :3
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Figured it was worth dredging this back up:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis108.html
Hey, if there are any fellow Tennesseans out there, apparently we're living in Ayn Rand's "mean spirited" paradise that "kicks the poor when they're down"! Hooray!
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/tennessee_ayn_rands_vision_of_paradise_partner/
If you are, I'm moving there tomorrow.
I also don't buy that maximum family welfare is capped at $185 as the article states. Jon Stewart also echoed this statistic. I suppose this only takes into account TANF? What other programs should properly be taken into account?
WHAT IS WITH ALL THE CURRENCY THREADS THIS MONTH????
WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy ceased to function this week after unexpected existential remarks by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke shocked Americans into realizing that money is, in fact, just a meaningless and intangible social construct. What began as a routine report before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday ended with Bernanke passionately disavowing the entire concept of currency, and negating in an instant the very foundation of the world's largest economy...
WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy ceased to function this week after unexpected existential remarks by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke shocked Americans into realizing that money is, in fact, just a meaningless and intangible social construct.
What began as a routine report before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday ended with Bernanke passionately disavowing the entire concept of currency, and negating in an instant the very foundation of the world's largest economy...
What's a good book/online resource that lays out a comprehensive chronology of the US's imperialist intervention in the Global South/Mid-East?
The most authoritative-looking source I could find for that is this article. It looks to be where that factoid came from (you can find the factoid repeated throughout the Internetz, but with little to no supporting evidence. This one at least fleshes out a story, and does end up remarking that exact same dollar amount. I have to assume this is where it was lifted from.)
From a preliminary skim it doesn't seem the article provides any real support for that number either. First of all, the article specifically says "let's leave out the high cost of benefits". Second, all they do is take a median American wage at $42,270 per year and work that out to a $15.57/hour cost to employers. (The average number of hours worked is not provided, so there's no way to even check the arithmetic.)
From there it just jumps to the retail price of a low-end iPad at $499, and makes the claim of "If it were built by Americans, it would have to cost $14,970."
The author gives absolutely no data whatsoever as to what went into that calculation. He doesn't even give the number of man-hours he is assuming it takes to manufacture an iPad. And what's more, when he says "have to cost"...is he talking about the actual cost of manufacturing the product, or is he factoring in profit margin and saying that would be the retail price? If the latter, who says profit margin has to be anything? If the former, how the hell is he getting from a retail price in one manufacturing scheme to a wholesale cost in another?
I find it odd that with so many hyperlinks throughout that story, the most interesting fact of all, the one that essentially is supposed to encapsulate his point...offers no sources at all.
Attacked By Ferrari Owner - Pee Prank
I love his justification:
You're in a handicap spot
It's a FERRARI!
Dude, it's a joke. It's water.
Who cares? I could buy your whole fucking family motherfucker!
Nothing brings you down into reality quite like the host of the interview.
On campus they're running an "anti-rape" campaign. The posters say things like "got consent?" and "The absence of a 'no' doesn't mean 'yes'"
And then a thought runs through my mind as I make my way back to my dorm room
"The people putting up these posters probably support rape every day of the year"