Byzantine: wilderness:So should I sleep with gold bars upon my pillow or what to get that god-like IQ? Step one, have high IQ parents.
wilderness:So should I sleep with gold bars upon my pillow or what to get that god-like IQ?
Step one, have high IQ parents.
Thank you. Now I see what you're saying wasn't created in a vacuum. I agree. Other factors involved of course, including those high IQ parents having high IQ parents as well. I would include a decent neighborhood with other higher IQ parents. And when I say parent, I mean somebody that is there for you, but also they encourage a way out (a role-model or somethin') I say all this if violence is to be reduced. I've tried to reason with some of these violent youth and no can do. They don't reason very well. Ended up being a physical restraint or something. And don't separate the one from the crowd in front of the crowd unless you have other people to help you. They gotta look real big in front of their friends so it tends to escalate even more if you do that. And their friends get emboldened by the lone person standing up against 5 people. It says to the group if one person is standing up to 5 people, imagine what will happen if we all join in and help that one person. They begin to think they can take you all down. That lone person standing up to the 5 people makes the threat by those 5 people seem tiny. Can get ugly after that.
It's fascinating how you throw around a word that can't be measured.Also about open borders. The problem is that you are looking at "it" backwards.
I don't consider black markets "criminal," though criminals (i.e., sociopathic individuals) are more likely to be in it.
It has nothing to do with what you consider criminal - the point is that many people are commiting violence in the black market because it pays well. Especially if you're smart enough to do organization, smuggling, distribution coordination. The people who do this are often quite violent, intelligent people may be less violent typically because they have more options and a longer-term outlook. But smart people also tend to be attracted to high returns, and think they can minimize their own risk. The masses of criminals are stupid, but so are the masses of Proles.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna
Vichy: Most liberals are not nearly, nearly as anti-market as you people seem to think. The Obamatards are not a good model to base your ideas of philosophical liberalism on.
Most liberals are not nearly, nearly as anti-market as you people seem to think. The Obamatards are not a good model to base your ideas of philosophical liberalism on.
I used to share the same view, until somewhat recently. Latley however, the anti market sentiment seems to be growing somewhat rapidly, particularly in the pseudo-intellectual hipster yuppie type groups. While that may seem funny and a big "so what", these people tend to be very influential on mainstream thought or at the very least control propaganda better than most.
Vichy: Juan: Oh ? Everybody knows that crackpot marx created his theories using copy and paste. He pasted some wrong value theory from Ricardo and Smith, pasted french socialism, pasted deranged hegelian 'philosophy' and came up with his 'system'. It's not so nefarious as you make it sound, but yes, he was kind of a crackpot.
Juan: Oh ? Everybody knows that crackpot marx created his theories using copy and paste. He pasted some wrong value theory from Ricardo and Smith, pasted french socialism, pasted deranged hegelian 'philosophy' and came up with his 'system'.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Curius Dentatus: It's fascinating how you throw around a word that can't be measured.Also about open borders. The problem is that you are looking at "it" backwards.
I agree IQ isn't the end all on somebody's rational. I'm not an expert, but I know threat is a serious factor in how people handle a situation whether they are supposedly higher or lower in IQ. Throw a bunch of threats down ones path and that person will handle those threats as best they can. I feel for the soldiers that are in war zones for prolonged periods of time. I was talking with a lady the other day and she discussed with me a little about her son who finished a tour in Iraq in the army, so 15 months straight, and is now in Germany. He's going back to Iraq soon. He came back home while stationed in Germany to visit. She mentioned how while they were eating dinner she bumped the chair and her son jumped and looked around with "warrior eyes" so to speak. Luckily he quickly realized he wasn't getting a grenade thrown at him or shot at and he was back home eating dinner at the table. I don't think he has a low IQ.
Byzantine:Step one, have high IQ parents.
That helps, but IQ isn't a strictly biological measurement.
It's true that they are related to it, but as fraudsters that misrepresent classical liberalism for their own purposes, by means of twisting the meaning of words like "freedom" , "rights" etc.
Again, essentialist nonsense (there is no ONE TRUE LIBERALIZM); and a demonstrated ignorance of liberal theory - both classical and modern. You don't have some a priori claim on the word 'freedom', and 'rights' are just bad translation of legal terminology into moralism, it's nonsense.
It's not like I'm taking favourites - I think all liberalism is basically vacuous due to the contradictory and cotton-ball fuzz of slogans like 'liberty', 'equality', 'citizenship', 'the law', 'freedom', etc. And libertarianism by no means escapes this fate, since it's really Propertarianism and has nothing to do with 'liberty' except as it is considered a desired consequence.
Vichy:People are either to be free from, or free to, do things in various proportions.
Positive liberty is just an appalling concept, really.
(a) It cannot be maximised(b) It leads to ridiculous conclusions
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Vichy:Again, essentialist nonsense (there is no ONE TRUE LIBERALIZM); and a demonstrated ignorance of liberal theory - both classical and modern.
You don't have some a priori claim on the word 'freedom', and 'rights' are just bad translation of legal terminology into moralism, it's nonsense.
Isn't it funny how so many arguments online devolve to, "You don't know what you are talking about!"
I think it is funny.
If we're starting to argue if there are different ways to achieve freedom, then sure there are. All those people that voted for Obama cried for joy watching "democracy" at work in the land of the free and the brave.
And more particularly, some people think that gradualistic ways to rid the government are better than "pushing the button now" and just end it.
So different methods of freedom... sure why not? Do they all lead to freedom? Of course not.
Juan:I think it is mildly annoying.
You don't know what you are talking about.
liberty student: Isn't it funny how so many arguments online devolve to, "You don't know what you are talking about!" I think it is funny.
I know you are but what am I... I know you are but what am I...lol been there, done that, and I'll probably will do it again.. who knows...lol
Libertarianism is the defense of "negative" liberty, eg. of non-intervention, laissez-faire, etc. I believe this to be the classical liberal position as well (although of course this is always open to interpretation: some people classify Rousseau as a liberal, for example).
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering ‘no’ and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering ‘yes’ and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.
Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering ‘no’ and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering ‘yes’ and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.
Byzantine: Vichy:It has nothing to do with what you consider criminal - the point is that many people are commiting violence in the black market because it pays well. Especially if you're smart enough to do organization, smuggling, distribution coordination. If that were really the case, then once Prohibition was repealed the Mafia would have segued right in to the now-legal market. They didn't because their skills at being ruthless bad-asses didn't count for shit in the business world, where you have to establish market dominance thru sound financial management and sales rather than just beating people up.
Vichy:It has nothing to do with what you consider criminal - the point is that many people are commiting violence in the black market because it pays well. Especially if you're smart enough to do organization, smuggling, distribution coordination.
If that were really the case, then once Prohibition was repealed the Mafia would have segued right in to the now-legal market. They didn't because their skills at being ruthless bad-asses didn't count for shit in the business world, where you have to establish market dominance thru sound financial management and sales rather than just beating people up.
liberty student: Juan:I think it is mildly annoying. You don't know what you are talking about.
Curius Dentatus:That just means they have a preference. How does that equal idiotacy? If anything it relates to sadism.
Before rushing into to provide your critique, try reading.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Curius Dentatus:That just means they have a preference. How does that equal idiotacy? If anything it relates to sadism. Before rushing into to provide your critique, try reading.
I've read and I'm not impressed.
Curius Dentatus: GilesStratton: Curius Dentatus:That just means they have a preference. How does that equal idiotacy? If anything it relates to sadism. Before rushing into to provide your critique, try reading. I've read and I'm not impressed.
Given your answer, you misread. Now, go back and give it another read.
GilesStratton: Curius Dentatus: GilesStratton: Curius Dentatus:That just means they have a preference. How does that equal idiotacy? If anything it relates to sadism. Before rushing into to provide your critique, try reading. I've read and I'm not impressed. Given your answer, you misread. Now, go back and give it another read.
How about you tell me "how I misread." I'm still not convinced that Low IQ[I wonder how he measures it] equals higher crimes. All of his positions are problems caused by "government."Should I go as far as quoting Bastiat to destroy his Low IQ correlates to higher crimes?
Government polict affects everybody, so that doesn't help you. IQ on the other hand...
Byzantine:Correlation is evidence of causation.
GilesStratton: Government polict affects everybody, so that doesn't help you. IQ on the other hand...
IQ,IQ,IQ. What is IQ? I'll reiterate, how is IQ measured? Lets just say that eventuall you found out how government "rapes" everyone. Being more intelligent is not going to impede the process of reaching you.
Juan:Are you playing dumb...or are you really...
Check his IQ if you want an objective answer.
Byzantine:Not at all. In determining causation, correlation is an important factor, though not an exclusive one.
Dondoolee: Vichy: Most liberals are not nearly, nearly as anti-market as you people seem to think. The Obamatards are not a good model to base your ideas of philosophical liberalism on. I used to share the same view, until somewhat recently. Latley however, the anti market sentiment seems to be growing somewhat rapidly, particularly in the pseudo-intellectual hipster yuppie type groups. While that may seem funny and a big "so what", these people tend to be very influential on mainstream thought or at the very least control propaganda better than most.
Actually scratch that. Comming from owning a business and property in an already leftist union rust belt town, that went more leftist every year running the business and making personal choices that would benefit me became more limited every year. (this came from the 6 yrs of me owning a small business) To the point where 4 months ago I actually move and sell off whatever assets I had and go to college. Leftist may not have the extreme thought process most libertarians attribute to them, but the consequences of their actions still leaves a bad leftist taste in my mouth.
Also, one reason why I find libertarianism so useful is the fact that it ,so far, has been the best way to battle most leftists on their own grounds.
Byzantine: Curius Dentatus:IQ,IQ,IQ. What is IQ? I'll reiterate, how is IQ measured? The ability to manipulate abstract concepts and follow a chain of reasoning to a logically supported conclusion, among other things. A college degree is basically a four-year IQ test that convinces employers you can accomplish tasks of a certain level of complexity. Curius Dentatus:Being more intelligent is not going to impede the process of reaching you. Not everybody is on welfare or being locked up for drug law violations. Nor does everybody require government action to get them a job or college admittance. Intelligence is an important factor in life, though admittedly not the only one.
Curius Dentatus:IQ,IQ,IQ. What is IQ? I'll reiterate, how is IQ measured?
The ability to manipulate abstract concepts and follow a chain of reasoning to a logically supported conclusion, among other things. A college degree is basically a four-year IQ test that convinces employers you can accomplish tasks of a certain level of complexity.
Curius Dentatus:Being more intelligent is not going to impede the process of reaching you.
Not everybody is on welfare or being locked up for drug law violations. Nor does everybody require government action to get them a job or college admittance. Intelligence is an important factor in life, though admittedly not the only one.
How does a specialized field "correlate" to the ability of adaptability or survival? It's the same as saying A+B=C, B+C=A. You could keep your empirical views.And who supports welfare? Why do we have drug laws?
Hmm. . . this thread started with a Bastiat quote. Did you read all of Bastiat's books?
Thedesolateone: Positive liberty is just an appalling concept, really. (a) It cannot be maximised(b) It leads to ridiculous conclusions
Property is a positive liberty, insofar as you can interfere with people who attempt to take it from you or use it against your will. It is the right to preempt some defined set of 'interferers'. I must point out again that there is no supra-human bond between a person and what are deemed is 'possessions'. Whatever standards we use, they are our standards - we're inventing, not finding, things.
Negative liberty leads to ridiculous conclusions. Be free from lies, from social restrictions, free from arbitrary opinions of your culture, free from addiction etc.
Freedom is vacuous. It can mean everything or nothing at all, it's just an ideological cloak for other values that are actually being promoted.
Positive freedom is also more obviously valuable than negative liberty. To be free from things is nothing, to be free to do things - that is power. And to do anything, one must have power.
Vichy:Positive freedom is also more obviously valuable than negative liberty. To be free from things is nothing, to be free to do things - that is power.
fail.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Vichy:Freedom is vacuous. It can mean everything or nothing at all, it's just an ideological cloak for other values that are actually being promoted.
Vichy: Positive freedom is also more obviously valuable than negative liberty. To be free from things is nothing, to be free to do things - that is power. And to do anything, one must have power.
Of course to be free to do anything is powerful. I mean you can kill and rape anybody cause laws are a mere convention of human reason. And morality isn't going to self-restrain the person from committing these acts cause morality doesn't exist either. It's all a fabrication of our fantasies these laws and morals. Silly humans. (sarcasm intended)
The weakness of libertarianism is the same weakness that quantum mechanics shares: it's counterintuitive. What I mean by that is the fact that one has to consider more than just static quantities when considering the basics of libertarianism. In this case, one also has to consider time and also consider that each person isn't some static quantity either (physically and mentally).
It's a similar problem when trying to teach the basics of QM to people without getting too technical, thus it requires an approach that bests leverages a person's ability to see time through other processes. And that is where it becomes important to show people the whole idea of libertarianism, from whatever other process related to time that the person can conceive. Any other "frontal attack" on the aspects of teaching libertarianism to non-libertarians I think is doomed to fail just on the counterintuitive quality alone.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: The weakness of libertarianism is the same weakness that quantum mechanics shares: it's counterintuitive. What I mean by that is the fact that one has to consider more than just static quantities when considering the basics of libertarianism. In this case, one also has to consider time and also consider that each person isn't some static quantity either (physically and mentally). It's a similar problem when trying to teach the basics of QM to people without getting too technical, thus it requires an approach that bests leverages a person's ability to see time through other processes. And that is where it becomes important to show people the whole idea of libertarianism, from whatever other process related to time that the person can conceive. Any other "frontal attack" on the aspects of teaching libertarianism to non-libertarians I think is doomed to fail just on the counterintuitive quality alone.
Maybe you could share an example of, "...an approach that bests leverages a person's ability to see time through other processes... from whatever other process related to time that the person can conceive." Are you talking about a history lesson?