Autolykos's Comments

I wouldn't say it is out of character. I make it a point to always learn more, to apply as objectively as possible what I learn from any theory or particular theorist, and that is shown in that comment. I've read a lot of material from the Austrian School since my first post, and have learned quite a bit. However, I've also learned a lot from others in other schools of thought, and my heart leans toward a more socialized society even if my mind hesitates based on what it has been taught by Hazlitt, Mises, and others. I want to dedicate myself to continued learning, and try to apply that knowledge to potentially solve the problems that are believed to cripple most socialist systems. It is not trolling. I simply wanted to clarify, for any who may look me up, that I no longer associate, in any sense other than (possibly) an ideological one, with the the Austrian School of Economics or with libertarian political theory. Just damage control for the future, trying to reduce potential confusion. Take care.

Yeah, finally got down to his last post, lol, what the hell was that?

I commend thee, thou art a Polemic Gold Metallist!

Hey thanks!  I do poke around this forum, and only have contributed a tiny bit.  I'm not really qualified to contribute much, as you can see.  I didn't notice your comment right away because I've turned off those notifications due to having as much Viagra around as I can manage...

As you see I'm still working my way around the Ethics questions, probably no closer to understanding than I was initially.

Your comment I never responded to revealed in me a significant weakness involving my conception of autarchy--namely that I don't understand the philosophy of law well enough to come to cogent answers on that front. Thus I'm going to delve into a few relevant works, starting with Bastiat's "The Law." Do you have any others to recommend?

Thanks for the friend invite. I have read your various posts on these boards and they are very well thought out and logical, keep it up! I have learned a lot from you already.

Sorry, I accidentally deleted your reply to one of my posts.  

Please forgive me.  Pleas repost it because I am keen on replying to it.  

 

didnt think the comment would end up in one big chunk... i still don't know how to send a message like you did to me. =)

although i've been reading about all sorts of economics, i haven't been writing them out in my own words... so i keep having to re-check what i wrote in the post. i thought i did an gd job on that reply, but in light of your reply, i didnt articulate it very well, even though that was what i meant; banks cant claim limited liability on 10% of their assets and then go on to accept all the profits from the rest of the 90%, unless of course this is explicity stated and agreed by all parties. besides, i also never considered the fact of how it might be considered 'socialist', especially about "implied promises", which i think encompasses too wide a category for any business, so i think that point deserves some merit, which i failed to address... so i thought it prudent to cede some ground. as an aside, im just extremely curious to see how all these debt will get resolved. if indeed we are going to move to a new monetary system as a result (its just a matter of time isnt it), i think its prudent to consider other forms of monetary systems; MMT, gold standard, free banking, metacurrency etc. im just really curious about what might lead the people to choose X over Y, which is why i did the other post "why gold" and currently reading up on financial history- i'm trying to understand the interactions in the society for the selection of gold back then and why it continued... the same could be thought about FRB. like hayek said, in effect, "you won't know how a system might break down if you dont know how it came to be accepted and how it could continue to work well". cheers and once again, thanks for the encouragement. oh, happy new year =)

Hello Jean-Luc.