-
And if you want to see what these things mean for the protesters in Wisconsin here is a great photoblog put together by a libertarian with some pictures of the worst of the signs http://politicalmeansinwi.wordpress.com/
-
Just posted this to my blog . Obviously Krugman is wrong, just wanted to see what people here thought about my rational as to why. Paul Krugman just posted an argument on his blog in a post titled “Who’s Unemployed?” that the problem with unemployment isn’t structural at all because increases in unemployment were uniform across
-
There are a couple of good chapters in Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard about the criminal justic system. He discusses why imprisoning people makes very little sense as a form of punishment and discusses alternative punishments.
-
I second both whoever said the average American college and the person above him who complained about UW's ethnic studies requirement. The list of classes you can take to fufill that requirement is even worse. A piece of advice to all of you who have yet to go to college: unless you want to become a professor or something similar, get a degree in
-
If you suscribe to a Rothbardian definition of criminal then it would be someone who agresses against you or your property. Under that definition I would argue that shooting at someone constitutes an act of agression against them whether you hit them or not. If you hit someone unintentionally then you would be liable for the damages that you have caused
-
The answer is in your Rockwell quote: "The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is an action. Having alcohol in your bloodstream is not.
-
Also, see Rothbard "The Ethics of Liberty" pages 45 and 46 or the first two pages of chapter 8.
-
I'm sure you can find a more complex definition, but the basic rule that I go by is that property would be anything that only one person can own. So to answer your specific questions no, no, they wouldn't and no. No one can own a sound or words. That includes any combination of sounds as in music or combinations of words as in speeches and books
-
That's how a free market currency would work. The value of coin has to have more value than the weight of the metal in the coin otherwise there would be no incentive to mint the coins and ensure their quality while in circulation. The coin is worth more than the value of the metal in it for the same reason that jewlry is worth more. The shape it
-
I'm having no troubles with firefox running on ubuntu linux