Current Events

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:38:32 GMT

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:36:57 GMT

This was posted in another thread, but I thought it needed emphasizing:

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Maynard — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:50:48 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

gotlucky — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 01:57:57 GMT

I just read the following paper on libertarianpapers.org: Norms and the NAP. It's quite good overall. It might be a good introductory paper for some newbie libertarians or just people interested in understanding libertarianism. The only thing I strongly disagree with is the following passage:

Suppose that two men from different parts of the world, A and B, are both simultaneously stranded on the same island. A is from a place where holding out a hand indicates the desire to shake hands, while B is from a place where the same act indicates a desire not to be touched. When they first meet, B holds out his hand as a warning for A to keep his distance. A grasps B’s hand to shake it. There is now conflict, but who is responsible?

If they had been in A’s hometown, then B would have caused the conflict, because he tried to use his native norm in a place where it has a different meaning. If they had both been in B’s hometown, then A would have been responsible. A would have had no reason to believe that B was not operating under local norms.

Now, on a deserted island, neither can apply their native norms. There is effectively no communication via norms. In this case, A is violating the NAP by grabbing B’s hand when B does not want him to. In this way, we can see how the same act can convey different meaning, and thus have different ethical implications, depending on the circumstances.

I don't think it's clear that A is violating the NAP in this scenario. Certainly there is conflict between the two should A shake B's hand, but A has not violated B's rights. This is the case because the two stranded men have yet to determine what the relevant rights are between the two of them. We can have our own opinions as to who was acting rightly, but the NAP states nothing about scenarios where the rights have yet to be determined. This is where mutual respect enters. It is not predicated upon previously determined rights. If A and B desire to share mutual respect, then they will attempt to resolve their dispute without further violence. There could be a case where two people who share respect for each other wish to duel instead, but this changes nothing. So long as the method of resolution was decided equally, it does not matter how they wish to resolve it.

Mutual respect precedes rights, so I think the author of that paper is wrong about that particular issue. Nevertheless, it's a worthwhile read, and I think a lot of beginner libertarians could get something out of it.

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

ThatOldGuy — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:30:16 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:41:42 GMT

@Graham: Outstanding! Five-stars, two-thumbs up!

Clayton -

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

grant.w.underwood — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:08:15 GMT

Watching a hit piece on wal-mart on netflix. You can instant stream it if you would like to watch it.

"Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" - its pretty crazy how far the stretch their propaganda. Its just one big pro union and anti corporation hit piece.

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Wheylous — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:29:11 GMT

Oh, wow, thanks for pointing that article out

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Graham Wright — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:13:04 GMT

Ten Reasons Not To Abolish Slavery (by Robert Higgs)

I decided to make an audio version of this article:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Malachi — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 09:02:06 GMT

The real robinson crusoe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Selkirk

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

ThatOldGuy — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:51:00 GMT

Happy Birthday Ludwig von Mises!!!

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:49:30 GMT

AWESOME Lew Rockwell speech

Clayton -

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

TheFinest — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:53:01 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

lol

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Gero — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:16:58 GMT

Statism Is Finished

A "Foreign Policy Exception" to the First Amendment?

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Facts

Iraqi-American is imprisoned by US for saving his family from US sanctions

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for 'communicating with the enemy'

Put Your Hands Up or I’ll Offer to Sell You Some Low-Priced Kitchenware!

Mises Circle in Manhattan Speeches

AP Interview: Iran opposition chief sees rebirth

Obama blocks Chinese purchase of US wind farms

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Clayton — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:08:31 GMT

@myhumangetsme: Nice quote! (Archive it in the low-content quote thread)

This is why I suspect that natural order* society would be a kind of "religious feudalism", that is, fuedal order based not on territory and martial might but on ideological/cultural containerization.

The key problem here is that the newborn babe enters the world wide-eyed and his brain is not naturally wired for the hostile, subversive environment he is entering. His brain is rapidly configuring itself for an environment that requires an altogether different kind of cunning. Sure, he is wired for social cunning, natural cunning, mechanical cunning, but he is not wired for the systematic subversion of human nature itself. For this, he must get "run through the wringer" and then come to realize that the world is very, very different than he believed it to be. He must deconvert if he is to tackle the world-as-it-is. He must stop believing in Santa Claus, so to speak. Either that, or he will remain blissfully unaware of the "Desert of the Real" where he will be unwittingly exploited and cuckolded his entire life.

But not all people are equally suited to this task. In fact, I think that the vast majority of people find occupation with this kind of thing so distasteful that they would rather just pretend that Santa Claus exists than have to deal with the ugly reality. But division-of-labor is the answer to this sort of problem, where people who are disinclined to this kind of cynicism without losing their sanity can offload the task onto others more willing and able. But doing this is kind of psychologically "turning yourself over" to someone else's stewardship in the hopes that they will not violate your trust. You get to keep believing in Santa and they take care of the cynical work of identifying and defending against exploitative threats.

The only remaining question is that of remuneration. I've thought about this, too, and I think the only correct answer is donations. If it's done for payment, then there is too much room for conflict-of-interest and abuse of authority. In many ways, I think this is, in fact, one of the roles that religions (perhaps most notably, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe) has played in human society and I think it's not a coincidence that most religions are voluntarily funded out of charitable donations.

Clayton -

*I'm uneasy with this term, it's just a way to denote "a world where systematic, large-scale coercion is less kindly accepted by the public at large"

Current Events

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: *** September 2012 low content thread ***

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *

Re: * September 2012 low content thread *