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

Current economics divorced from physics, unscientific.

This post has 179 Replies | 9 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:
Mises didn't realize that logic is NOT apriori to observation,

Yes, it is.

Econophysics:
that logic is a function, that is the act of functioning, period.

What does this even mean?

Econophysics:
That is where mises went wrong, logic is both and object AND a function at the same time.

Logic is not an object. What are you talking about?

Econophysics:
Do we exist?  The only way we could answer that question (yes or no) is if  logic was self-recursive (it feeds back into itself, it is both an object and a function) so any act of observation (which is a function) is by definition pure logic.

Meaningless jibberish.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
Every act of thinking and observing is a logical function, you can't have as much as a single thought, seeing is looking, looking is detecting, and detecting is knowing, and knowing is understanding.

More jibberish.

Demonstrate it's gibberish, which words and which statements are incorrect, else you have no valid claim.  A claim to know the error, is a claim to show it, now cough it up.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 867
Points 17,790
Sphairon replied on Wed, Aug 13 2008 5:39 PM

That sure promises to get interesting.

Econophysics:

 "Boole's system (detailed in his 'An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities', 1854) was based on a binary approach, processing only two objects - the yes-no, true-false, on-off, zero-one approach.



What is it precisely you're against? Subjective valuing? Why cannot every individual "pile of particles" make his zero-one approach towards what he needs and desires?

And how can one formula account for the needs and desires of every "pile of particles" since, as I pointed out two posts earlier, even if free will was  non-existent, determination would also occur through personal experience and we'd therefore have many individualized "piles of particles"?

That wasn't my point, my point was to show economics is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions and fallacies.  If you read my other posts, you know that I suggested we do experiments and do more research into how monetary flow behaves.


As to how "monetary flow behaves", I have a guess: Either it is being exchanged in mutually beneficial transactions or being voluntarily donated (free market, persuasion) or it is being taken by force (crime, government, coercion).

I guess, however, we have a more fundamental disagreement here; the contradictions and fallacies you talk about are probably connected with the way we treat property and property rights.

Most of it is being derived from the principle of self-ownership. You apparently don't accept this premise since for you, we are all made of particles that nobody can own because they have always been there, so we cannot own ourselves either. But if we do not own ourselves, who does? At the time you have written your arguments, you have obviously made use of "your" brain, "your" fingers, "your" eyes and maybe other parts of the "pile of particles" that is "your" body. But if you do not own yourself, who granted you the right to use these particles in the way you did? Maybe some alligator would have liked to digest these particles that belong to "your" body. Who should decide how to use "your" body if you do not own it, and nobody else can own it either? A catch-22.

If I'm wrong and you do accept self-ownership but no property rights, that'd be another story.

It's not a strawman. Austrian principles still borrow and use the lockean notion of property rights, i.e. I produce an item I own said item and I can exchange or charge other people said item a monetary value.  I assert that the invention of money and austrian conceptions of property as moral value are imperfect, and that we can demonstrate by thought experiments that they are, usiung logic and geometry.



You're doing exactly what you have criticized others for: you do not point out actual flaws, but merely refer to outside sources as explanations of your views.

Of course but people would be totally energy independent (i.e. no one no longer has to work for anyone else, a form of domination that comes from scarcity and the laws of geometry over a finite resource.



Sure, scarcity implies measures to distribute resources. Without scarcity, these measures would likely disappear. Until then, we need a system which closely resembles the fairest possible distribution of scarce resources. Right now, it is "self-ownership and its consequences" versus "formulae".


I don't need to define merit, consider the thought experiment:  We have a group of 30 people, a man who charges x or y for a widget he produces, gains profit not based entirely on merit but on population size.  Denying this leads us to contradiction, do you agree, yes or no?



Yes. But I don't see what's wrong with the guy in your thought experiment. If he sells 10 or 1000 or 100000 widgets for 1$, it's still the same widget; why is it "immoral" when he sells it a 100000 times, but not when he sells it only 10 times?

I assert that a productive person meeting demand, and gaining monetary value from that demand is flawed because of population geometry.  He can abuse the price mechanism to extract illegal value from the population, the concept of cosent is flawed, and starts to break down down because of geometry.


Now it's getting confusing. "Illegal value"? Why is it illegal as long as you have a mutually beneficial transaction? Why does consent break down with population geometry? If there are only 10 people, why is consent more "true" than with 10000 people around?

Nowhere did I advocate socialism, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up,


Socialism advocates the abolition of private property and so do you.


I said the invention of money as a store of value and a price mechanism is flawed, not that it is not useful or rational.  But as a store of value, their are two-way feedback effects that someone cannot avoid because of the nature of geometric exchange and movement of products between agents and actors.


What precisely do you consider flawed? Interest?

The problem here is schools with the most money would attract the best teachers, and the schools with the least money would have reduced quality, and no child chooses which school to go to, all of us remember being forced to go to school by our parents because it is required by law (at least it is here where I live)


Alternatively one could say that free market schools would be more likely to meet the demands of their customers and therefore, offer better learning and studying opportunities at the same price for their attendees than public schools which are getting more money by producing big problems that need to be fixed (with monetary aid, of course).

And yes, I also had the delightful experience of compulsory public schooling. That alone makes at least me believe in freedom of learning.

 

No it is not entirely meritorious, it is partially meritorious, consider AMD, AMD makes CPU's now if their competition makes better ones, they don't sell those CPU's, so the fact that people demand CPU's leaves AMD holding inventory they can't sell, and all of that productive value was wasted (market failure).


And because AMD wants to lose as little money as possible, they will try to reuse or sell the ingredients of their CPUs to build something which is actually being demanded (compare Rockefeller and byproducts of oil refining). All the while, customers paid a lower price because competition spurred creativity. I wouldn't call that a failure.


So yes population geometry proves that we have to try to siphon off exces profit and disperse it due to demand geometry.


As you always bring up your population geometry argument:

Would you consider it moral if person A, who has built a widget that sells fantastically, had to give lots of "excess profit money" to be redistributed to person B who does nothing all day? By force?

You may not like to hear it, but you basically advocate egalitarian social democracy in mathematical clothes.

Because every individuals action is two-way, it is not one way, each individual is an authoritarian, a dictator, when you set a price for a good or a service, you are dictating the terms of contract,


Of course you do, because if it wasn't for your labor, this specific good or service would not be available at all. And no availability is even worse than a high price.


and because human beings have short lives and asymmetric time constraints, they do not always have rational choices.


And because human beings have a lack of information and only very rough imaginations of what their fellow men desire, they do very rarely have rational choices as planners as well (even with formulae).

They are not analogies, they are facts, when you make a sandcastle, did you not reshape the sand?  Yes of course you did.


I rearranged it in a way that I find more desirable. That's what producing things is about.

But no man created matter and energy, so what gives man the right to own something he did not create, but rather only reshapes?  Why is ownership not flawed here?


Because the "creator", if there is one, has obviously left all this land to be settled. If he came back with the proof of being the creator and reclaimed it, that'd be fine. But just so long, we might take care of it.

On the rationality of ownership, or rather the irrationality of non-ownership, I wrote a few sentences above.

When we subjectively determine a value of money, we allow our thoughts to control our behavioural outputs, which are physical, so our thoughts, exist, and if they exist, and we can detect them, then they are made of energy, or would you like to deny this?



By itself, everything is energy, of course. But how does that damage the assumption that energy can and should be valued subjectively?

Profit is a form of private taxation, we're just exchanging taxes by force of government, by taxes through force of commodity (where the commodity is used as a mechanism of taxing other popualtions).


Profits are the result of voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. If person A hires a hooker, you may not consider that to be a good deal or beneficial, but since you allegedly don't even own yourself, who are you to make judgements about someone else's evaluations?

Taxation, to the contrary, is taken by force.



The price mechanism is a doubled edged sword, just like the government can co-erce you via force to pay taxes, you can use commodities as a weapon.


And just like that, customers can use their spending power as a weapon against me. So I guess we'll have to find a mutually beneficial agreement?

We move from allowing any man to acquire infinite value, to basing how much one can profit over a given period of ones lifetime, i.e. we fix how much any one individual can own in terms of property and money from the moment they are born, and everything else is dispersed equally among the population.


Apart from the really bad incentive structure that would create:

If nobody can possible own anything because we are all made of particles, how can you demand particles to be redistributed in one way or another? You don't own them, leave the particles alone !

The people here have the false idea, that just because you produce something, you are entitled to earn infinite value, I assert that most people make decisions non-rationally and that just because someone chooses to buy your product, does not mean they are being rational.


Right, you assert. I assert that different individuals value things differently and thus, their decisions seem irrational to you.

By the way, you're not entitled to infinite value because you produce something. You're entitled to the goods (including money) and services others are willing to pay for it. If people are willing to pay infinite goods for yours, so be it.

No a tyrant is someone who takes more wealth then they need, and then uses that as a club against other people.


Most people here adhere to the non-aggression principle.

What is the free market, if not the most extreme form of democracy?  That can only lead to one place: Economic tyranny.  Plato realized this long ago.


Plato, mhhm. Wasn't that the guy who accused "the mob" of being gluttonous like cattle, and who therefore proposed a 1984-style caste society with no upwards mobility and a philosopher (like, uh, Plato) at the top? Oh, and didn't he assume you needed specific mathematical procedures to calculate the "right breeding"?

Yes, Plato sure has an unbiased view on personal liberty.

No man deserves to own the planet, no matter how productive he perceives he is,


That's an assertion of yours. It furthermore depends on whether existing property owners want to sell to him which is indeed not directly connected to how productive and wealthy he is.

Liberty is a two way street, if we choose freedom and non-interference as the core values of economy, then that will only lead to tyranny, plato recognized this long ago.


Your proposals: egalitarian redistribution schemes, price controls, tinkering with formulae. Maybe we'll see where this had led Europe's legendary social democracies in a few decades.


  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 18,905
JCFolsom replied on Wed, Aug 13 2008 5:45 PM

No, we invented mathematics to help us count things. Then, we expanded the uses from there. Of course, the more we tried to describe the universe, the more we approximated things. For instance, there are no perfect circles, so far as we can tell, nor squares nor even truly, absolutely straight lines. It's all just a simplified ideal of the universe. Squares don't actually exist. Even so simple a discipline as geometry describes something that isn't really there.

Eventually (particularly in physics) we started to try to figure things out we couldn't observe directly. So, we extrapolated from the math of the things we already knew. Of course, this only exacerbated the fact that math described things only in an ideal, rather than a real way. As time progressed, we developed new equipment that could perceive things (to some degree) we couldn't when we came up with our models. In many cases, these observations did not match the predictions of the models. Did we then discard the models? No, by then, mathematicians had taken over science, and so they demanded that our theories of the universe conformed to extant mathematical models. Thus, compensating BS like dark matter.

In any case, "spacetime" is just such a part of the error-laden extrapolation of mathematical "physics". As is the "curve of space" (what a hill of dung that is; it doesn't even make any sense). Your entire thesis rests in the deep-seated fear of humans (and the rest of the world, but particularly humans) as unpredictable and dangerous beings. You want to impose an easily comprehended theory on reality, particularly human behavior, because you feel out of control in your own life. How much easier it would be, if the minds of your fellow men could be revealed by a few physics equations. Alas, it is not so. The world is chaotic, and unpredictable, and none moreso, at least to an outside observer, than the self-willed human being.

So, wrap yourself in the security blanket of your little theory if you like, but you're not convincing anyone here, and you likely won't anywhere else either.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
Every act of thinking and observing is a logical function, you can't have as much as a single thought, seeing is looking, looking is detecting, and detecting is knowing, and knowing is understanding.

More jibberish.

Demonstrate it's gibberish, which words and which statements are incorrect, else you have no valid claim.  A claim to know the error, is a claim to show it, now cough it up.

It's jibberish because it doesn't make any sense.

 

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

So let's see, the *** who was jabbering on about logic being universal etc. now claims it isn't prior to empirical observations? Well then, could you explain how empirical observations mean anything without causality, which must be assumed, without the law of non-contradiction, again which must be assumed and so on? Or are you just a loud moron who is clueless as to what a priori means in this context? Methinks you're the latter, econocrank.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

You can't even respond to him you stupid whelp. Why do you bother? To waste our time? Again, you'd be better off sticking to one-liners. Even that is a bit too much given the amount of real information you have to convey. Which is to say, none.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 53
Points 800

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

He can't honestly be ignorant enough not to realize that the lawyer would be justified in charging him $500 for one hour's worth of work that he could only do in days (at best), so long as it was a voluntary transaction? I don't know. It's possible he's this economically ignorant. It's possible he doesn't see the value in the lawyer's years of training and experience, in the amount of time the lawyer can save him if he purchases the guy's services. Perhaps he's an ignorant socialist who believes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." :D

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 53
Points 800

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

He can't honestly be ignorant enough not to realize that the lawyer would be justified in charging him $500 for one hour's worth of work that he could only do in days (at best), so long as it was a voluntary transaction? I don't know. It's possible he's this economically ignorant. It's possible he doesn't see the value in the lawyer's years of training and experience, in the amount of time the lawyer can save him if he purchases the guy's services. Perhaps he's an ignorant socialist who believes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." :D

I was thinking along the lines of his using an example that he has to know is heavily distorted by the force of the state rather than any supposed flaw in money itself.  The nature of the legal system and the sheer volume of arcane and arbitrary laws decreed by the state artificially increase the demand for legal expertise, while the state simultaneously constricts its supply by restricting who may practice.  He fails even as an empirical scientist, because he has deliberately chosen an example in which factors other than the one he wishes to prove quite obviously play a major role.  He might as well put a glass of iced tea in a blast furnace and then triumphantly declare that ice cubes don't cool beverages.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

waywardwayfarer:
I was thinking along the lines of his using an example that he has to know is heavily distorted by the force of the state rather than any supposed flaw in money itself.  The nature of the legal system and the sheer volume of arcane and arbitrary laws decreed by the state artificially increase the demand for legal expertise, while the state simultaneously constricts its supply by restricting who may practice.  He fails even as an empirical scientist, because he has deliberately chosen an example in which factors other than the one he wishes to prove quite obviously play a major role.  He might as well put a glass of iced tea in a blast furnace and then triumphantly declare that ice cubes don't cool beverages.

Yes. There's that too. The profession of law is a coercive guild supported by the state. Artificial scarcity in legal services results in prices that are higher than would otherwise be the case in a free market. There's also that artificial increase in demand you mention.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 40
Points 500

Econophysics,

I think you have read too many books on quantum physics and not enough on economics. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 946
Points 15,410
MacFall replied on Wed, Aug 13 2008 8:43 PM

Econophysics = Ellsworth Toohey without the subtlety and cleverness.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 56
Points 925
Stanislaw replied on Wed, Aug 13 2008 8:46 PM

Jon Irenicus:

Well then, could you explain how empirical observations mean anything without causality, which must be assumed, without the law of non-contradiction, again which must be assumed and so on?

-Jon

That's as straightforward as you can explain it, I guess.

On the other hand, I know a whole lot of people, that would get into self contradictory rubbish, that causality, the law of non-contradiction etc. are actually empirically proven:D Thats just to show how physics can seduce the mind, when you start having fun with it without enough philosophical background (or even simple - non philosophical - reflection)

Polish Ludwig von Mises Institute

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

No, we invented mathematics to help us count things

And things are objects, and objects are geometric shapes, so yes we invented mathematics to count distinct geometric objects that exist in the universe, also known as "things".  Here's the definition of thing for you.

thing (plural: things; diminutives: thingy / thingie, thingo [Aus])

  1. That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.

Now answer these questions, a thing has existence, now things in order to exist must have structure by definition, and if it has structure, by the necessity of it existing, it has distinct geometric pattern by necessity.

Or would you care to deny that existents have structure in a partial or whole manner?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

waywardwayfarer:

There's really no point debating this guy.  He's not just deluded; he's intellectually dishonest, as I realized when he tried to use the example of a lawyer's bill as evidence of a problem with the concept of money.

That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices, I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.  there is no guarantee that someone won't abuse the price mechanism and use it as a weapon against others who have less economic power and hence bargaining power then they do.  Google "financial warfare" and see how the monetary system can be abused if you don't believe me.

If I owned the world, and I charged you all the money you have so that you break even and never profit (just enough to exist), then technically I already own you even though it was a "Free" transaction.  The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.  Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources.  I exposed this flaw with one person owning the earth and charging everyone else.  Don't claim things I did not say.  I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.  Otherwise we're just fascists in sheeps clothing, i.e. we obscure  define the concept of liberty to mean something else that is not fascism when we talk about it, but in practice we'd be fascists in a different set of clothes.  Fascism doesn't require a government as we know it today.  Since all institutions are in their own right a governing body. Since businesses and corporations would become governments, if the government was they would be competitive defacto governments in their own right by definition having their own legal systems and having their own private armies/police forces.

My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Let's look at some snippets so we can all see some of the serious problems:

 

Econophysics:
That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices

There's such a thing as an infallible individual? What does this troll suggest, then?

 

Econophysics:
 I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.

And here the troll creates a strawman.

 

Econophysics:
If I owned the world

One wonders how the troll could even accomplish that.

 

Econophysics:
The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.

Conflation of economic and political power.

 

Econophysics:
Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and reources.

This has been debunked so many times that it's a wonder it's still brought up. It's like the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument against evolution: refuted to death.

 

Econophysics:
  I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.

And how does the troll suggest doing that without violating anyone's rights?

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:
My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

You're not being singled out. I checked and you don't appear to be on moderation. It's just that the spam filters delay posts sometimes. It can happen to anyone.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Inquisitor replied on Thu, Aug 14 2008 12:04 AM

Do you not realize the evil corporations will dominate us all without the government that enables and subsidizes them protects us from them? Obviously you lack the unique insight into the nature of things econocrank has, and therefore cannot possibly see that we're all just a bunch of fascists and that he, in spite of over 2000 years of philosophy on the matter, has established the true nature of "freedom".

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Econophysics:
Mises didn't realize that logic is NOT apriori to observation,

Yes, it is.

No it isn't  because logic IS the act of measurement AND comparison at the same time. Logic is an existence measuring function. i.e. when you see these words, you do ONE function that has all the operations embedded in the one function... Yes these words exist, and yes it is true these words exist, and yes these words are match a coherent pattern.  That is how complex logic is, Mises didn't realize that.  Mises didn't bother with the advancements in logic that have been going on for over a century when he wrote is works.  When you think a thought you are seeing and modifying your own thoughts (observing, detecting, and chaining your own thinking and modifying them).  

Econophysics:
that logic is a function, that is the act of functioning, period.

What does this even mean?

Logic cannot be apriori to observation because logic is the action of measurement and comparison. The action of observing (detecting and determining the existence of) and comparing,  Observation is the ability to detect and make comparisons, you can observe your own ideas if I tell you to visualize the number one: You are observing  your own thought!  The only way you could observe your own thought, is if logic IS an object-function.  It is both an object and a function at the same time, it exists in functional ring.

How do you create ideas?  The only way you could create new concepts is if logic itself is activity.  You can't do comparisons detect whether something exists and do comparisons, if logic is not a function. Is this different from that, etc.

Econophysics:
That is where mises went wrong, logic is both and object AND a function at the same time.

Logic is not an object. What are you talking about?

Does logic exist? Yes or no?  If yes then, then answer the question, if logic exists, then by definition it must belong to the set of existents, and existents are objects, but objects can also be both objects and functions, or simply object-functions.

Econophysics:
Do we exist?  The only way we could answer that question (yes or no) is if  logic was self-recursive (it feeds back into itself, it is both an object and a function) so any act of observation (which is a function) is by definition pure logic.

Meaningless jibberish.


Demonstrate which word or which statement contains an error please, otherwise you're claim to knowledge of it being "gibberish" is invalid.  Just answer the question: Is the act of observation the act of measurement?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Inquisitor:

Do you not realize the evil corporations will dominate us all without the government that enables and subsidizes them protects us from them? Obviously you lack the unique insight into the nature of things econocrank has, and therefore cannot possibly see that we're all just a bunch of fascists and that he, in spite of over 2000 years of philosophy on the matter, has established the true nature of "freedom".

How long have creationists been around?  Whole entire worlds have existed in total darkness.  Max planck for instance (wiki):

"As the political climate in Germany gradually became more hostile, Johannes Stark, prominent exponent of Deutsche Physik ("German Physics", also called "Aryan Physics") attacked Planck, Sommerfeld and Heisenberg for continuing to teach the theories of Einstein, calling them "white Jews." The "Hauptamt Wissenschaft" (Nazi government office for science) started an investigation of Planck's ancestry, but all they could find out was that he was "1/16 Jewish."

Next, George boole was totally ignored and criticized in his time, yet history bore out long after he had died, that he was correct.  Just because you think I am wrong doesnt' mean you have the intellectual power to know that I am, many great men have failed to be able to distinguish who is rational and who is not, and you would not be the first.  The only way you can claim to know this is if you demonstrate where the errors are and point them out.

Just remember: We still have plenty of creationists.  Just like galileo upset the former theory of physics and understanding of the universe, so can one man upset and change the understnading of something we thought we fully understood, but only understood it partially, vaguely or not at all.  Darwin did the same thing to christianity. If you ask the wrong questions, if you conceive concepts incorrectly you will get the wrong answers.  Concepts are the lenses by which we see and interpret the world, if you misconceive a concept, then you're in trouble from the beginning.  Just like the religionists of this world.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

You're not being singled out. I checked and you don't appear to be on moderation. It's just that the spam filters delay posts sometimes. It can happen to anyone.

Well the message said "this post is under moderation", so I could only assume that's what it meant.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I am sure creationists have been around as long as cranks like you have. Was there a point to your rant? No, as usual there was not.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:
Demonstrate which word or which statement contains an error please

All of them. You don't even know what logic is. It's a tool, one we cannot do without. See Aristotle's Organon. See Roderick Long's Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
My posts are being moderated and as long as they are being blocked so if I don't get to respond to your replies it's because someone has moderated that's why.  So if this is my last post you'll know why I haven't replied.

You're not being singled out. I checked and you don't appear to be on moderation. It's just that the spam filters delay posts sometimes. It can happen to anyone.

Well the message said "this post is under moderation", so I could only assume that's what it meant.

It was in the sense that all messages tagged by the spam filters have to be released from moderation by moderators. But you are not under specific moderation.

Things like too many links, too frequent posts, etc., set it off.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 53
Points 800

Econophysics:

That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices, I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.  there is no guarantee that someone won't abuse the price mechanism and use it as a weapon against others who have less economic power and hence bargaining power then they do.  Google "financial warfare" and see how the monetary system can be abused if you don't believe me.

Too funny.  You're like a practice dummy for training to spot logical fallacies.  I'll agree with you on the point that the current form of money (specifically, fiat currency) is a flawed store of value, but your analysis from that point and your proposed "solutions" are just one gigantic string of non-sequiturs and outright asininities.  If fallible individuals shouldn't be allowed to set their own prices, who should?  Are there some infallible people out there of whom I'm not aware?  How does one even determine what the "correct" price level of anything should be?  

The price mechanism itself is not susceptible of abuse.  If you jack up your price to a level that does not represent the true market conditions for that commodity, you'll lose my business to a competitor.  The price system does not give you the power to jack up your competitor's price, nor the power to compel me to buy from you.  You might suppress competition by force, or enlist the state to do so, but that has nothing to do with the price system as such.  I did google "financial warfare," and every page it turned up described states using coercive force to affect the movement of financial assets.  That is not a defect in money itself, any more than it would be a defect in wheat per se if states used their power to affect the movement of that commodity.

 

If I owned the world, and I charged you all the money you have so that you break even and never profit (just enough to exist), then technically I already own you even though it was a "Free" transaction.  The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.  Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources.  I exposed this flaw with one person owning the earth and charging everyone else.

How exactly does one person acquire the entire world?  He can't possibly homestead a whole planet, even if he were presented with a wholly unowned world to begin.  In our world, in which land is already owned by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people, it's doubly problematic.  The would be Owner of the Earth can produce something of great value and trade it with other land owners for their land, but the more land he acquires, the less its marginal value to him; and conversely, the less land everyone else has, the greater its marginal value to them.  Thus, every piece of land he acquires makes the next piece simultaneously less valuable but more costly to him.  Since you like physics so much, perhaps I should explain it in an analogy of accelerating a body to a speed approaching that of light.

I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.
 

Who is "we" and how are "we" to determine how much is the "right" amount of property and/or money for an individual to be allowed to possess?  There is no possible mathematical formula that can resolve that question.

Otherwise we're just fascists in sheeps clothing, i.e. we obscure  define the concept of liberty to mean something else that is not fascism when we talk about it, but in practice we'd be fascists in a different set of clothes.  Fascism doesn't require a government as we know it today.  Since all institutions are in their own right a governing body. Since businesses and corporations would become governments, if the government was they would be competitive defacto governments in their own right by definition having their own legal systems and having their own private armies/police forces.

Fascism does require a state, or at least physical coercion.  Nobody in this thread but you had advocated that. 

You're also conflating "governing body" with "state," and the freedom to do something with the power to do it.  So, is it intellectual dishonesty you're practicing, or just extremely sloppy thinking?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Econophysics:
That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices

There's such a thing as an infallible individual? What does this troll suggest, then?

I suggest we figure out how to prevent the abuse of the price mechanism as a form of private government and private taxation, by individuals and institutions using commodities and financial instruments as a weapon.

Econophysics:
 I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.

And here the troll creates a strawman.

How is this a straw man? Demonstrate that it is please, I submit that the concept of rationality breaks down when setting prices, since our current form of money is a flawed store of value.

Econophysics:
The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.

Conflation of economic and political power.

They are the same thing in the real world where we actually live, or should I point you in the direction of the lobbyists in washington for a serious dose of reality?  Milton friedman told us to be weary of wordsmiths and the idea that political power and economic power are seperate is fallacious, because in the real world they are one and the same thing, I could bring up numerous examples.

So we can accept that all economic transactions are political transactions because they are actions by agents who act.  Hence the phrase "Vote with your dollars", and that the idea that they are seperate is intellectual gymnastics to avoid the double edged nature of economic power.

Econophysics:
Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources.

This has been debunked so many times that it's a wonder it's still brought up. It's like the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument against evolution: refuted to death.

No it hasn't been debunked, we can demonstrate that it hasn't using real world examples of water shortages, those who have water (i.e. goods you need to survive) have power over those who don't have water, therefore the people that have water have more bargaining power then the people who don't have water.  And if they don't have anything to trade that the owners want in exchange for water, then they can't get water.  Here is where freedom meets tyranny... if they have nothing to trade, they are dependent on your charity and you have power over whether they starve and suffer or not.

That's all we need to show the fallacious idea that power and freedom are seperate.  Power and freedom are expressions of the same thing, freeom of action, is the POWER to act, to dictate, to dictate an action:  Power gives you means to reshape reality.  If I only have $10,000 I can't afford to build a modern jumbo jet for instance.  That means I have less means in the real sense of the term.

Econophysics:
  I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.

And how does the troll suggest doing that without violating anyone's rights?

Ok well let us take a look at what rights are (individual rights -- wikipedia) just so we don't get off track.

"In the jurisprudence and the law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups (for example, if one has a right to life, others cannot have the liberty to kill)."

What rights do we give people, and how do we determine that our rules are not conceptually flawed?  I submit that certain rights are conceptually flawed from the outset because of bounded rationality.  Because one persons right in one context can be annulled in another context.

Consider the right to self defense, depending on the society you exist in, what is considered self defense will be different from place to place.  Not to mention the fact that someones rights can be expanded  or contracted based on circumstances... we already do this in the real world.  So it shows us we dont universally apply our rights consistently (in every situation) anyway.  i.e. we are inconsistent in our application of rights.

Don't believe this? Then why am I not allowed to own my children?  By my right I created them and invested my money and wealth in them, if we say they own themselves, but they didn't create themselves, I produced them.  Now because I produced these children why can't they be bought and sold as commodity? Oh that's right because we INCONSISTENTLY apply our rights depending on the context.  i.e. we never universally apply our rights, we pick and choose willy nilly depending on the circumstances to grant them or annul them as the situations we find ourselves in dictates.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 18,905
JCFolsom replied on Thu, Aug 14 2008 1:03 AM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Let's look at some snippets so we can all see some of the serious problems:

Look at THAT! Even the formerly biggest jackass on these boards can see that the new kid in town is a jackass. Econolodge, you should be proud. Sort of.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Well there we have it, the whole debate settled by quotes from Friedman and wikipedia, and the musings of econocrank!

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:
Ok well let us take a look at what rights are (individual rights -- wikipedia) just so we don't get off track.

Sigh. Please don't cite Wikipedia on rights again. You're in a libertarian forum. You'll have to address OUR conception of rights.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 18,905
JCFolsom replied on Thu, Aug 14 2008 1:10 AM

Econophysics:
How long have creationists been around?  Whole entire worlds have existed in total darkness.  Max planck for instance (wiki):

Wait, wait, WHOLE ENTIRE worlds?!? WOW!!! Whole entire. Not even the mercy of only a fractionally entire world, or even a whole partial world. Horrible.

Thank God you're here to represent for the atheist religion. Guys, I really do think he's representative of your mindset and dizzying logic. Dizzying.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
Ok well let us take a look at what rights are (individual rights -- wikipedia) just so we don't get off track.

Sigh. Please don't cite Wikipedia on rights again. You're in a libertarian forum. You'll have to address OUR conception of rights.

Then define what a right is, in your own words, right now.  Because if you're not using the standard definition then you've just made up your own legal system of rights that we do not use currently. Give me your definition of what a right is.  That should be very simple, keep it simple.  All I need to know is the general definition of how you define the term right.  What in your opinion is a right?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Yes Geoffrey, RIGHT NOW, because the troll said so.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Econophysics:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
Ok well let us take a look at what rights are (individual rights -- wikipedia) just so we don't get off track.

Sigh. Please don't cite Wikipedia on rights again. You're in a libertarian forum. You'll have to address OUR conception of rights.

Then define what a right is, in your own words, right now.

Go educate yourself, you lazy bum.

Econophysics:
Because if you're not using the standard definition

We use the right definition.

Econophysics:
then you've just made up your own legal system of rights that we do not use currently. Give me your definition of what a right is.

No. Not just made up. What are you, a positivist? Whatever currently exists must be right?

Econophysics:
That should be very simple, keep it simple.  All I need to know is the general definition of how you define the term right.  What in your opinion is a right?

Read Ethics of Liberty for starters. You're too uninformed about libertarianism to carry on a discussion in this forum. Learn the basics first. Then come back for discussion.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 698
Points 12,045
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Jon Irenicus:

Yes Geoffrey, RIGHT NOW, because the troll said so.

-Jon

Oh yes, well, since he said so, I guess I better drop my dissertation (and risk my wife divorcing me) to tutor this dolt fulltime for the next few years.

Yours in liberty,
Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.
Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista University
Webmaster, LibertarianStandard.com
Founder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

waywardwayfarer:

Econophysics:

That's not what I said, I said our current form of money is flawed as a store of value.  That's different from what you are claiming.  A butter knife can be used to butter bread but it can also be used to hurt someone.  i.e. it's a doubled edged sword.  The flaw is in allowing fallible indivduals to set their own prices, I don't disagree with people setting prices, I claim that no price can be completely rational.  there is no guarantee that someone won't abuse the price mechanism and use it as a weapon against others who have less economic power and hence bargaining power then they do.  Google "financial warfare" and see how the monetary system can be abused if you don't believe me.

Too funny.  You're like a practice dummy for training to spot logical fallacies.  I'll agree with you on the point that the current form of money (specifically, fiat currency) is a flawed store of value,

but your analysis from that point and your proposed "solutions" are just one gigantic string of non-sequiturs and outright asininities.  If fallible individuals shouldn't be allowed to set their own prices, who should?  Are there some infallible people out there of whom I'm not aware?  How does one even determine what the "correct" price level of anything should be?

I didn't say we can't let people set prices, note that I qulaified my statement and I'll quote myself "I don't disagree with people setting prices..", I qualified that statement by the following: How do we prevent abuse of the price mechanism?  The abuse of the price mechanism is the point where freedom meets fascism.

The price mechanism itself is not susceptible of abuse.  If you jack up your price to a level that does not represent the true market conditions for that commodity, you'll lose my business to a competitor.

This assumes competitors won't form cartels or monopolies, how do we prevent secret agreements and cartels?  Again the idea that some businesses won't do this if we dissolve government is living in a fantasy world.  They are going to form cartels and agree to fix prices, wal-mart was caught selling knock off goods link --  WAL-MART TO PAY HILFIGER $6.4M FOR SELLING COUNTERFEIT GOODS.(Brief Article)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4298/is_199907/ai_n14980710

If I owned the world, and I charged you all the money you have so that you break even and never profit (just enough to exist), then technically I already own you even though it was a "Free" transaction.  The more actual land and resources one has, the more power one has, the more power, the more freedom.  Those who have less monetary / economic power (in terms of land, etc) by definition have less freedom because they literally, have less power and resources.  I exposed this flaw with one person owning the earth and charging everyone else.

How exactly does one person acquire the entire world?  He can't possibly homestead a whole planet, even if he were presented with a wholly unowned world to begin.  In our world, in which land is already owned by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people, it's doubly problematic.  The would be Owner of the Earth can produce something of great value and trade it with other land owners for their land, but the more land he acquires, the less its marginal value to him; and conversely, the less land everyone else has, the greater its marginal value to them.  Thus, every piece of land he acquires makes the next piece simultaneously less valuable but more costly to him.  Since you like physics so much, perhaps I should explain it in an analogy of accelerating a body to a speed approaching that of light.

The point was to demonstrate the principle that the price mechanism can be abused by actors, you've missed the point.  That businesses can and do collude for economic gain and there is no way this could be effectively checked in a society without a government, corporations would quickly become the new governing institutions, with many of the same problems of real governments.

I said we have to put limits on how much an individual can acquire in terms of property and the money supply.
 

Who is "we" and how are "we" to determine how much is the "right" amount of property and/or money for an individual to be allowed to possess?  There is no possible mathematical formula that can resolve that question.

You assume that the problem is not solvable, I don't assume such things.  No one "we" (i.e. human beings) have never attempted to seriously look at the issue.

Otherwise we're just fascists in sheeps clothing, i.e. we obscure  define the concept of liberty to mean something else that is not fascism when we talk about it, but in practice we'd be fascists in a different set of clothes.  Fascism doesn't require a government as we know it today.  Since all institutions are in their own right a governing body. Since businesses and corporations would become governments, if the government was they would be competitive defacto governments in their own right by definition having their own legal systems and having their own private armies/police forces.

Fascism does require a state, or at least physical coercion.  Nobody in this thread but you had advocated that. 

You're also conflating "governing body" with "state," and the freedom to do something with the power to do it.  So, is it intellectual dishonesty you're practicing, or just extremely sloppy thinking?

But businesses are states in the miniature (or not so minature if you look at corporate profits when compared to GDP of other less developed countries), i.e. they are instutitons and organizations of people and property that submit to laws, rules of conduct, contracts, etc, authority, police, etc.

Whoever has authority to enforce violence and contracts is a government by definition, who are going to run the police?  And what if one needs an army, and prisons, etc?  Who the hell is going to be invested with the authority and power to do this?  And whomever is doing this is by definition a government de facto.  Period.  Whoever is doing this becomes a government by definition of being able to enforce these laws and rights.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Econophysics:
Ok well let us take a look at what rights are (individual rights -- wikipedia) just so we don't get off track.

Sigh. Please don't cite Wikipedia on rights again. You're in a libertarian forum. You'll have to address OUR conception of rights.

Then define what a right is, in your own words, right now.

Go educate yourself, you lazy bum.

You claimed that I didn't understand the concept of rights, you said yours were different so it's up to YOU to explain them to ME because in our current world we do not use your conception of rights so therefore because your rights are not the standard, therefore the burden is on you to inform me.  Not vice versa, you are not being intellectually gracious here

We use the right definition.

Can you demonstrate this for me please?  State the definition, summarize it, don't refer me to a work, that's not what you do in a discussion, you summarize it's main points and demonstrate it.

Econophysics:
then you've just made up your own legal system of rights that we do not use currently. Give me your definition of what a right is.

No. Not just made up. What are you, a positivist? Whatever currently exists must be right?

You said that the definition of rights in an encyclopedia was wrong, so that tells me, you are not using the current definitions of rights as we use them today in modern society, so the burden naturally, falls upon the one who's conception of rights and rules are not being practiced in society.  You can't claim that I am lazy when I live in a society that uses a different definition of rights then the people here.  You claimed that your conception of rights (or rather reconception of rights) were different from the current definition, so are they different or not?

Econophysics:
That should be very simple, keep it simple.  All I need to know is the general definition of how you define the term right.  What in your opinion is a right?

Read Ethics of Liberty for starters. You're too uninformed about libertarianism to carry on a discussion in this forum. Learn the basics first. Then come back for discussion.

Uninformed I am not, ignorant of your definition of rights I may be.  If you have read and understood the ethics of liberty then just summarize it's main points, tell me in your own words what it says, and summarize it in a paragraph.  I've got enough on my plate and you are the people making the claims here that I don't understand, so just demonstrate it by summarizing it's main points.   It's dishonest for you to refer me to some intellectual work, when you should just be summarizing the main points of what it says,  That's all I'm asking here so I have something to work with.  I will go read it on my own time, but in argumentation it's bad form all around.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

1) Wikipedia is not "society". There is no one definition of rights used by philosophers. So no, the burden is on you to educate yourself on this matter, if you're going to post here. You're challenging the Austrian paradigm, so the burden is all on you to familiarize yourself with it, which you have not done.

2) No one has an obligation to be "intellectually gracious" to you. This isn't a charity, especially since you rant. So yes, you are a lazy bum, too lazy to do the basic groundwork reading necessary to debate these topics. Hence, if anyone responds to you it is out of pure good will, not because you deserve to be answered.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 59
Points 1,870

Jon Irenicus:

1) Wikipedia is not "society". There is no one definition of rights used by philosophers. So no, the burden is on you to educate yourself on this matter.

Oh I suppose ALL the people who contributed to that article are non-experts and non-scholars in their respective fields, I really really doubt that you stupid ass, now stop being a troll.   I can go to any lawyer and legalist and ask him if they are valid.

2) No one has an obligation to be "intellectually gracious" to you.

Dumbass, you didn't get the implication, YOU GUYS claimed I was wrong, it is up to YOU to demonstrate your position on an issue, because you're saying "Book xyz says you are wrong",  no one would ever accept that bullshit at the upcoming conference and you can be certain of that,  You people can get away with this *** on the internet because it's the internet but you would never do such a thing in front of an audience, in a public debate.  It's not too much to expect people to summarize their positions and their opinions when they make a claim  to my error, in order to demonstrate using their own concepts and values that I am wrong.  So the only answer is:  You guys have no valid claims.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 18,905
JCFolsom replied on Thu, Aug 14 2008 2:12 AM

OK, I say kill the thread and ban his ass.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 4 of 5 (180 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS