Noooooo shiiiitttt…..
It’s always been the end goal of “Climate Change” bullshit.
This shit wasn’t just drummed up, half thought plan. I highly suggest everyone reads:
The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin
We would never have found out about all the freaky illegal shit the NSA has been doing "without encrypted apps." So there's that.
Obligatory free market self promotion link
6 Hour post analysis
608 karma
5 total Shirts sold
2 of photo $39.68 Revenue to Amazon + Theft to The Government $10.24 paid to me the creator which will be taxed at what ever rate can be calculated.
2 of new shirt suggested from comments $39.68 revenue to amazon $10.24 paid to me - taxes on all income
1 from old shirt eluded to in comments $12.99 to amazon $0.00 to me + taxes to the government
18 hour update
741 Karma
11 total shirts sold
Crime: Here's a short introduction by David Friedman you might find useful. Justice in an ancap society would more than likely be based on restitution rather than punitive measures like jail.
Poor people: Many welfare state functions were previously performed by mutual aid societies. In addition to that, if we abolished the state then many special interests (like bankers, the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical companies) would lose privileges that enrich them at the expense of the public. State-enforced barriers to opportunity would also be eradicated, which would allow lower-income people to start their own businesses and do other jobs.
LGBT: If you have an open, competitive marketplace, there would be plenty of businesses that would be more than happy to serve lgbt individuals. Why would an lgbt person want to do business with someone that doesn't want to do business with them? Why should we force someone to do business with someone they don't want to serve?
> The real issue here is that the NAP focuses only on the symptoms, not the disease
Here's a conflict of viewpoints. You must realize, we see the violence as the disease.
And I'd like to add that many anarcho-capitalists don't see the NAP as "absolutely objective", many ancaps forget, but David Friedman has time and time again rejected the NAP as a basis for his beliefs, and he wrote The Machinery of Freedom (one of the big works within ancapism)
I don't have much else to say about the article. It's what you'd expect from a person who believes that private property is immoral.
I would like to recommend you read Economics in One Lesson: http://www.fee.org/library/detail/economics-in-one-lesson-pdf-doc-audio
I hope that will help you gain an understanding of how we view a free market, why we think it would be effective, and why we don't think there's anything immoral with private property, prices, employers and employees, and so on.
I really do think that we are similar in many ways. We both see our current situation as terrible. But we have obviously come up with very different solutions. It might sound mean, but to me all that separates us is the knowledge of economics. It sounds crass, I know, but I don't know if I can put it differently.
Click on the tag icon (to the right of the troll's user name)
Ignore --> X/mute button
Ignore --> Settings/cogwheel icon --> hardIgnore on
4chan autists went through the trial video and found a blip of ADA Kraus' computer showing a copy of the video-encoding software Handbrake in a folder. It's exactly what one would use to do what Kraus said he didn't know how to do - generate a lower-quality copy of a video. The court should've taken his laptop as evidence.
>Finally, you have no way of slaying your immortal enemy, religion.
What? Religion is, in most senses, a peaceful belief by individuals that has no bearing on others. There are many anarcho-capitalists that are religious. Jeff Tucker, Robert Murphy, Tom Woods, this blogger here, myself, and so forth.
And you have articles like this.
As a Christian and an anarcho-capitalist, I see no contradiction between the two. I also believe that I accept Christ as a leader, not a "ruler" in the common sense, as my personal conception of Hell (and I could be wrong, but I think the "lake of fire" is a separate punishment for actual aggression against God) is that it is just "not Heaven", and thus "nothingness" - Heaven being the private property of God (everything He created and did not give Man dominion over). So, in essence, the punishment of Hell is basically, "if you don't follow my rules, you aren't allowed on the premises".
The abuse of religion through religiously-motivated law that is encouraged by the concept of a state that plans out society is not religion itself. In many instances, it is a push back against an attempt by others to use the state to minimize religion or even eliminate it. It's basically a Hegelian dialectic without the synthesis.
>All it takes is one bad religion to destroy an an-cap society.
I assume you mean one that accepts "conversion by the sword". That belief is an utterly anachronistic fallacy exploded by religious believers many centuries ago, and is not even prevalent in mainstream Islam, despite its scripture having the most that could be interpreted as a call to such a belief.
I almost want to start a collection to help pay for some of those guys' meals for the next few days since they've given their whole paychecks to the cause.
Send out box lunches with a copy of "Economics in One Lesson," might be good PR.
Sexual Sabotage by Judith Reissman discusses this. Turns out a fellow by the name of Alfred Kinsey and his cadre of child molesting assistants used a sample of felons and prostitutes to extrapolate the sexual behavior of the "average" American man and woman, then propagandized that information to kick off the sexual revolution, absolutely destroying all sexual mores in the country and creating the rising tide of degeneracy which threatens to drown us all.
EDIT: Words and stuff
No, not really. After 60 years of communism and 20 years of "capitalism" all you have is: hardcore socialists, socialists and socialists with slightly libertarian leanings.
Some chapters of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" were translated last year and published in a book.
Go read the comments on this story on hacker news:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7233730
So much rationalizing. My favorite was:
> I actually see a silver lining in this story. The worst thing an officer of the was able to do was inconvenience you for a day. Compare that to pretty much another other time in recorded history, and indeed still many places today, and you could have been locked up for far longer for pissing off someone in an authority position.
>Now obviously this is a ridiculous situation and the officer was on a powertrip, but you did break the law and technically she was within her privileges to bring you down to holding. Still, the fact that you encountered pretty much the worst scenario possible and were only held up for a few hours from start to finish is, to me, a sign that the system is working pretty damn well.
You are probably remembering an exchange I had with him after a talk, where he argued that Reagan wasn't really for smaller goverment, because government expenditure had gone up under him. The numbers he used were nominal, not real (might be true for real, but that wasn't his claim). I objected that the relevant comparsion would be real expenditure. Rothbard's reply was that the inflation was Reagan's fault, so it was legitimate to use it to make him look bad (not a quote).
Or in other words, it was legitimate to misrepresent the evidence to a libertarian audience as long as it resulted in their thinking badly of someone they should think badly of.
You can find an extended discussion of what I regard as deliberate dishonesty in his treatment of Smith and his contemporaries in an old Usenet thread much of which is at:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/bX_OYVHVPfw
Also some discussion of that on my web site.
There were other examples, but those should suffice. The nice thing about the historical one is you can check my claims for yourself, since both Rothbard's Economic Thought Before Adam Smith and Smith's Wealth of Nations are webbed.
> I ~~am~~ want to be an AnCap now.
FTFY. Not trying to dampen your enthusiasm, but rather focus it. If you came from the Trump camp and liked some of his policies you've got a lot to learn. Sometimes we hear people claim they've left anarcho-capitalism behind and when we ask why it's obvious they never understood the fundamentals.
You've got the most important part down already - Love liberty, F the State. The next step is to get to reading the materials listed on the side bar, or do search for "recommended reading" within the AnCap sub. Try The Pretense of Knowledge and The Use of Knowledge in Society by Hayek, Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt, The Machinery of Freedom by Friedman, and The Problem of Political Authority by Huemer. When you've got some time, For a New Liberty by Rothbard (if you read Friedman first you'll easily spot the flaws, but it's still excellent), maybe Socialism by Mises, and throw in something by Hoppe for good measure. Edit: maybe I, Pencil for a short read at the beginning as well.
I think the article should mention that the rape statistics in Sweden lie a bit. You should keep in mind the following: >There have been several international comparisons made, placing Sweden at the top end of the number of reported rapes. However, police procedures and legal definitions vary widely across countries, which makes it difficult to compare rape statistics.[7][8][9][10] For example, Sweden reformed its sex crime legislation and made the legal definition of rape much wider in 2005,[2][3][7][11] which largely explains a significant increase in the number of reported rapes in the ten-year period of 2004-2013.[12][13] The Swedish police also record each instance of sexual violence in every case separately, leading to an inflated number of cases compared to other countries. Rape in Sweden
It's amazing how much things have changed. Then it was the "robber baron"-types accusing free trade proponents of...I don't even know how to characterize this...a stubborn dogmatism? But roll the clock forward a hundred years and the very same set of beliefs are claimed to result in robber barony!
Here's the book, if anyone's interested: https://books.google.com/books?id=QjU9AAAAYAAJ
It's written by Cyrus Elder, who was a member (along with Henry Clay Frick & co.) of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, a name people might recognize as the owners of the infamous dam that burst causing the Johnstown Flood that killed over 2000 people.
Columbia was formed as a constitutional minarchist state near the start of Civcraft. As it has grown it faced challenges from many attackers and the justice system provided by the Columbian state has proven to be inadequate or nonexistent. As the problem worsened AnCaps stepped in to fill the demand for fair trials and legal resolution where the state failed to provide.
Today the state was deemed unnecessary and abolished. Which leaves us in the unfortunate position of not having any states to ridicule and undermine in Civcraft, this will be addressed with a advertisement post to /r/politics as soon as we finish making a video.
Okay! Android users! If you don't already have it you should download F-Droid it's an app "store" (or rather an app for accessing repositories for opensource apps) full of free opensource apps.
Search for an app called Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD). AIMSICD is an app to detect IMSI-Catchers. IMSI-Catchers are false mobile towers (base stations) acting between the target mobile phone(s) and the real towers of service providers. As such they are considered a Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) attack. In the USA the IMSI-Catcher technology is known under the name "StingRay".
The Mozilla founder who was fired is now working on the browser Brave.
I've replaced Firefox with Brave and haven't looked back. I keep chrome around just in case some website is broken in Brave.
Molyneux believes that he is a 'first principles' philosopher, and that the rest of his ideas follow from it, and that thusly he is entirely correct.
Once he has made these 'truth' videos, it has become impossible for him to revisit any part of his philosophy (such as his 'first principles', see one of my critiques here).
Yeah, someone should write a book or make a movie about how the government defends ownership of property.
"Capitalism and Freedom" is the main book most people read and quite a famous book, definitely worth reading.
"Free to Choose: A Personal Statement" is my favourite read, very powerful. It was also accompanied by a TV series and is more distilled and understandable for the general population.
To be as succinct as I can be: Nothing is free. The money to build public works will have to be taxed. Those taxes do not come out of thin air, they are taken from people's incomes, their investments, and their productivity. Thus, you lose real capital in order to gain temporary employment. Of course in our crazy world, in reality we would pay for it with debt and then we let future generations figure out how to pay for it while racking up higher and higher interest payments.
If your only goal is employment, you've already made your first mistake.
However, I am neither more qualified or better spoken than Henry Hazlitt, so I suggest you read the chapter in his book: Economics in One Lesson.
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L5
I don't know if you would qualify Jeffrey Tucker as a serious thinker, but he had this to say in an AMA when someone asked him who he thought the most important libertarian of our time was.
"Stefan is the most single influential libertarian thinker of our times..."
"Stefan Molyneux, he owns this time"
I have spilt way more fuel worth the new versions than I ever did with older ones. I recently threw away all my gas cans and ordered a few of these. https://www.amazon.com/Eagle-UI-50-FS-Galvanized-Gasoline-Capacity/dp/B00004Y75M/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?keywords=gas%2Bcan&qid=1567700539&s=gateway&sr=8-6&th=1&psc=1
It’s pretty much a tea kettle without all the safety crap. Haven’t spilled a drop.
Depends on how much you are willing to pay and how important privacy is to you. You can look up comparisons of different VPN services. I chose NordVPN because it has the best price/performance ratio and it has a strict no-log policy (that means they can't give your data to Interpol / FBI etc.). I think ExpressVPN offers more features but is also more expensive.
>Some chapters of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" were translated last year and published in a book.
:'( Just some chapters? Bro we need to get some Milton Friedman Free to Choose in your country. The book and the TV show. Probably the best thing that could happen to your country honestly.
COol man. OMG I SAID MAN TRIGGER WARNING.
seriously though, I would recommend other youtube channels/podcasts as well like
Part of the Problem with Dave Smith (podcast)
Michael Malice
Why Didn't They Laugh? with Owen Benjamin
TL;DR (aka Teal Deer)
ThatGuyT
Tom Woods Show (on youtube but also itunes)
Other notable mentions:
Thomas Sowell
Murray Rothbard
Milton Friedman
David Friedman
Camille Paglia
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
I, Pencil by Leonard Read
Bryan Caplan (he has a good interview on Dave Rubin)
Stephan Kinsella
Walter Block
A Non-Libertarian book about radical individualism - my personal favorite: "Might is Right"
Intro to free market economics, designed to cure anyone of any Socialist views: "Economics in One Lesson"
What is money, why does it have any value, and how did our current money system come into existence: "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray Rothbard
Anarcho-Capitalists view on the Government: "Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard
Why central planning leads to tyranny: "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich von Hayek
On the failures of democracy: "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
On the abstract idea of law, and why law enforcers are not equal to 'citizens' (before the law): "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.
I cannot recommend Economics in One Lesson enough. Hazlitt isn't an anarchist of any variety (he's a minarchist libertarian), but the principles he teaches are easy to grasp and sound. He starts by just drawing your attention to things everyone ignores when it comes to economics and government involvement -- things that you'll feel stupid for not realizing on your own, which seem obvious in retrospect, but which everyone seems to miss. It's a great introduction.
Austrians have some better microfoundations, I believe. You won't get too much of the relevant Austrian details from Economics in One Lesson.
Long story short is that Austrians do not believe uncontrolled experiments can be used to come up with economic laws, while most other schools believe that if you control enough variables (how do we know which?), you can derive economic laws (or at least find support for ones you've already derived theoretically).
One of the things I like about Austrian economics is that in very short order they expose people to very important concepts like the importance of the price system, markets as decentralized information-gatherers, the importance of mutually beneficial exchange, the problems with socialist calculation, subjective marginal utility, and a few others.
This being said, I am not sure that Austrians have all the answers. They might - who knows - I just haven't read enough to be able to honestly say they have. I like very much of what I've read.
Nope, I was a socialist (the kind that doesn't even understand their own position) and learned about libertarianism through my dad who had attended a seminar based on Economics in One Lesson in the 90's. He told me the basics while we were at Disney World. It spiraled from there and now I want to be an economist for a living. Also I'm an an-cap now but I think he's still lingering in minarchism. I think I pretty much convinced him with Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy though.
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot. There were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019
Between mid-December 2020 and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination, or about 30 per day
In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years
As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed
In the European Union, the EudraVigilance system had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines, including 7,766 deaths
Update: July 16, 2021. 11,000 Americans Dead, 48,000 Seriously Injured as of July 9. The death toll averaged nearly 100 persons per day for the period from April 23 until July 9, 2021. https://wordpress.com/post/undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2113
And they want to force this crap on people. Its a bridge too far.
He could be mentally ill. That completely explains his increasingly strange comics, and his new belief that all of his backers are rich white men out to get him. I don't think it's accurate to say he's bought it entirely on himself, as he did seek help at one point:
Gotta love those self-righteous assholes who call you "part of the problem" for not voting, when, as the above cartoon illustrates, it is they who give the whole pathetic circus legitimacy.
Edit: Here's another good one.
I would especially recommend The Market for Liberty and The Machinery of Freedom for the topics you mentioned in your opening post.
> NYSE invokes Rule 48 in effort to smooth market open
> The New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday invoked Rule 48, a measure designed to smooth the opening of the market amid potentially volatile conditions. The rule allows the exchange's designated market-makers to refrain from disseminating price indications ahead of the opening bell, making it easier and faster to open stocks on days when trading could be volatile. Stock-index futures point to a sharply lower open for stocks.
How nervous is Janet Yellen right now.
Click on the tag icon (to the right of the troll's user name)
Ignore --> X/mute button
Ignore --> Settings/cogwheel icon --> hardIgnore on
> Coming from someone who isn't all that knowledgeable on this issue, what are the downsides of increasing the minimum wage?
You're in for a surprise.
Yes there's downsides. Everyone would be better off with no minimum wage. Everyone. Even those it's intended to help, and especially the poor. Do your research.
The reason the government doesn't use that policy is because the vast majority of the public do not understand economics and vote with their hearts. You can easily sell raising the minimum wage as a boon to the poor--even though it actually hurts them. And thus you can gain political power by lying about it. Or perhaps some politicians simply don't understand the facts themselves and are just propagating a lie.
Suggest going through "Economics in One Lesson."
The vast majority of people will never read a book on economics.
> During the 1980s and ’90s only one new medical school was established.
> n 1963, there were only 135 law schools in the U.S. (data here), and now there are 200, which is almost a 50% increase over the last 45 years in the number of U.S. law schools. Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed exactly the opposite trend in the number of medical schools. There are 130 medical schools in the U.S. (data here), which is 22% fewer than the number of medical schools 100 years ago (166 medical schools, source),
> In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians.
Unfortunately, Marx was not alone. Even his manifesto has a co-author, Friedrich Engels. They did not originate statism, either, merely repackaged it for the millionth time. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, Utopia by Thomas More, and The Republic by Plato are earlier iterations of the same backwards theories. There is a certain part of the human population that believes that men are inherently destructive, and must be controlled by force or we will all be doomed. These people inevitably believe that absolute government is the only answer. They are innumerable, and can never be defeated by destroying one mans description of their collective consciousness.
> http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mises.org
> This is an EPIC collapse; vanilla Libertarianism as a movement is dying not a slow, but rapid death. Many of its ideas, however, are flourishing among those in the alt-right who will lead the next revolution.
This is an absurdly strong conclusion to reach from Alexa page rankings of a libertarian website, of all things. I would be surprised if interest in libertarianism wasn't waning in the wake on Ron Paul's runs, but this doesn't say much about long-term trends.
I for one would love mises.org to be replaced by saner media.
I like posting this whenever he comes up.
>"I am a practitioner of the Dark Arts."
http://i.imgur.com/Ln0FXwC.jpg
He's famous for gaming Jeopardy! and isn't adept at doing much else.
>You need to understand that the only way to be "rational" in this world is to be irrational--
He should really pick up "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". See how that turned out for Phaedrus.
Raving Democratic Idiot => Anyone But Bush => Wow, Who's this Ron Paul guy? => I... just... agreed with ... everything he just said => ... what's this "Austrian Economics" he keeps talking about> => Economics in One Lesson => Roller Coaster ride through Mises.org => today
Elapsed time: ~10 years.
From Ron Paul to An-Cap: a year, if even.
Political philosophy aside, understanding Ancapism first requires understanding classical liberalism and classical liberal economics. So my absolute 1st book recommendation is 'Economics in One Lesson' by Hazlitt. There will no progress, if you still hold onto Communist definition of capitalism, while trying to understand Ancapism, so the above primer on laissez faire economics is mandatory.
You mentioned you're a commie, but not sure if you're ancom. The above book will explain the problems that arise with State intervention in the economy and ultimately in all walks of life. Jumping from that anti-state mentality into no-state then requires understanding how law, justice and security can be produced as a private good.
What about the new USB C-type connector coming out? It's reversible now. No more USB superposition problems! :D
http://www.cnet.com/news/usb-type-c-one-cable-to-connect-them-all/
So now what about this retarded ass EU law?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/opinion/paul-krugman-liberals-and-wages.html
He has since decided that Card and Kruger shows that basic economic truths are no longer valid. He used to be a good economist, near as I can tell, but now that he's a pundit he's deep into the progressive nonsense.
> So why is it OK for you to use that as a defence, but not is Marxists?
Because ancaps don't preach that we have to implement Somalian-style government as a necessary transition to ancapistan. See : dictatorship of the proletariat.
Edit: link.
Hi both, /u/AnarquistaLibre (OP) and /u/PotatoBadger,
I really would like to hear from you about an intriguing point (at least, for me).
As OP mentioned Lessig, he seems to believe that intellectual property is necessary for us to even conceive free software (if you know what I'm talking about, just skip this long quote, it's from the conclusions of his book Free Culture):
> More important for our purposes, to support ‘open source and free software’ is not to oppose copyright. ‘Open source and free software’ is not software in public domain. Instead, like Microsoft’s software, the copyright owners of free and open source software insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respect by adopters of free and open source software. The terms that license are no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license. Free software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example, requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements on its adopters. It thus depend upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
Thus, how do you both face this idea? Do you really believe we need copyright to be able to enforce free software? Or maybe this is just a transition for a different horizon? How this horizon would look like?
Many thanks for your thoughts (in advance)!
Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed are actively fighting back against the State. They deserve all the help they can get. I urge you to donate along with me to help them reach their goal of $400,000 raised. From now until the end of the campaign, I will donate $10 in bch. I do this because my donation is matched 1:1 by bitcoin.com.
I know there is a rift among btc/bch users, but I think it is worth it in this case to donate using bch. Their goal is high, and I want to see them reach it. But if you can’t donate using bch or are unwilling to, they also accept usd and btc. Your donation is tax deductible.
Mods if this is considered spam, let me know. But this is a campaign I think we should all support fervently.
Well... 1 VEF = 186,204.95 VES
And if I am remembering it correctly, you can only exchange to USD via the black market. This means the official exchange rates aren't actually the rates to use.
Anarcho-syndicalism makes perfect sense when you've been raised on keynesianism/LTV and only look at the short run effects of your policies. I say that as someone who has been a card carrying anarcho-syndicalist (an IWW member). Economics in One Lesson changed my life.
Yeah, David Friedman has brought up the concept of Conflict Resolution Agencies in his 73 book The Machinery of Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom). I'm not sure if he was the first to come up with it though. David elaborates in this talk (1 of 3) on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXWFWIM8OCI.
Or you could donate through an anoncoin like Dash/Darkcoin, but that's dependent upon Snowden accepting it. Oh wait no it isn't!
The left generally doesn't have much of value to argue, so they result to different kinds of fallacies and lies.
This particular bit is just the left trying to redefine terminology so that it fits into their narrative/web of deceit.
This may be of value:
> 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
> 'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
> 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
From "Through the Looking Glass".
They do the same with "capitalism" and pretty much every other word in the dictionary, e.g. "left" means "all that is good in the world" and "right" means "all that is evil".
Ignore them and do something productive, e.g. anything that you'd never expect one of them to do, like have a job or shovel snow. :)
Oh they really do want to fix the market.
It's just that you have to remember this is English you are dealing with here. There are many ways to use the same word. It makes a lot more sense when you look at the many definitions of 'fix'.
such as:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/fix
> transitive v. To spay or castrate (an animal).
> transitive v. Informal To take revenge upon; get even with.
> transitive v. To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means: fix a prizefight; fix a jury.
Another great reason to use Tails :D. Seriously, we should all be doing this on a regular basis for normal traffic so it doesn't look weird if you suddenly need to start using it.
Actually methods of hosting material without centralized services is available. One is to use a Tor hidden service or I2P.
In the case of Tor (I've not messed with I2P) you give out a generated .onion address that users use to access your service. There are also other groups working on distributed DNS (one of which proposes to use the BitTorrent network).
Nextdoor's an older, freer, and better rated app with similar functionality as well as a larger scope.
As for "better" or not, I have no idea. Installed it but nobody else in my neighborhood had it.
I agree with this. Economics in One Lesson is the most straight forward to understand, and Huemer and Friedman's books actually complement each other very well. The former makes a strong moral case for anarcho-capitalism, while admitting that consequentialist reasons could still justify a State, and then the latter takes care of those arguments.
You are correct because necessity is the mother of invention, or something.
Anyway, from libertarian recommended reading "Economics in One Lesson" on fee.org:
"The belief that machines cause unemployment, when held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he made to save himself from needless toil and sweat."
Also see my post from earlier on The Moral Case for Sweatshop Goods from William MacAskill's new book Doing Good Better.
I think Samuel's speech was the epigraph in the beginning of the Hebrew printing of Capitalism and Freedom.
The Talmud has some interesting arbitration rulings and judicial system. It was definitely a somewhat decentralized non-government legal system that functioned voluntarily (you could exit).
As an aside, in your arguments regarding consumer protection and certification/labeling, don't forget that various kosher labels have functioned privately for over a hundred years, and informally before that.
These are my usually replies to the beef that "classical anarchists" have with ancaps:
Anarchy literally means "without ruler(s)" and does not, in and of itself, refer to any economic system.
Removal of government will not remove the convention of private property. The archeological record indicates that humans have had a concept of property since very early in our development (way before the development of governments) and aside from a lack of medical care and the need for defense from roaming bandits (proto-government), it seems to have worked pretty well.
The need for a medium of exchange will exist without government.
Issues that "real anarchists" like to criticize in relation to capitalism like "absentee ownership", massive wealth gaps, world hunger, and the working class' lack of the ownership of means of production can all be addressed through free market mechanisms. The world produces 2X the food everyone in the world needs to eat- the issues are infrastructure, distribution and war (both solved by ridding ourselves of government and "allowing" people to own property- check out H. Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson").*
*for a good example of an "anarcho-socialist" who believes that these things are achievable via "anarcho-capitalist" ends- pick up "Organization Theory" by Kevin Carson.
The whole thing is pretty silly- both sides agree that the government needs to go. Too bad we cant just work together toward those ends and go our separate ways when the job is done.
We should also note that the policies followed by Regan and Bush were not representative of the ideas put forward in Capitalism and Freedom, and Free to Choose. Reaganomics and Trickle-Down economics are protectionist and involve handouts to the rich at the expense of the poor, prevent income mobility, and perpetuate poverty.
Here I thought Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson chapter about machines putting people out of work was outdated. I recall reading it thinking "who in their right mind would think machines destroy jobs?"
"And then there's this asshole."
Ha! Economics in One Lesson? I don't know. I thought about suggesting that Schiff pdf, but one could see how someone might take offense to being handed a comic book. Then again, you could always buy the updated version by his sons Peter and Andrew. It's got more text and fewer pictures.
> They use the phrase 'direct access' three times, I for one think there is some legalese trickery going on there.
I think you're right – and it's not only Microsoft.
The participating companies have probably been coached by government lawyers on how to best formulate their denials. We had a similar thing happen with James Clapper.
^^Emphasis ^^mine. ^^Source: ^^http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/
Great liberty lover, wrong in his strategy. Economics is one of the most important aspects of liberty and those who reject it are doomed to fail.
Still, I admire his passion for liberty.
To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.
It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed.
Then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
Here is a quick summary of his thoughts:
> information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda
It fits. Your mistake, I think, is assuming that propaganda must be misleading. Only some definitions mention that aspect, propaganda need not be misleading.
It's pretty retarded to create a bunch of soft targets then clamor for disarmament of the populace when those soft targets are attacked by people who've been radicalized, in no small part due to our foreign policy.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/retarded
I didn't figure senseless PC would rear its head in this subreddit.
I strongly second your recommendation of Taleb's Antifragile.
I just read it last month. It's one of the required books for Exosphere, an incredible, innovative 8-week educational/entrepreneurship boot camp I am doing right now in Chile.
If you're a critic of the existing educational system, you'll love the critique that the concept of antifragility provides (highly recommended 5 minute read).
Antifragility is a big topic here at Exosphere. I am currently working on applying Taleb's "barbell strategy" to my career and life.
> Kickstarter projects are at no obligation
I had thought this as well, but then I looked it up https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project? Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
It's name for sure. Darkcoin will only ever be used by hackers and those who would seek out privacy, and I can never seeing it being the #1 coin.
This means problems with merchants accepting it, but that's also a business opportunity too. Check these people out: https://shapeshift.io/ They seem to fix that problem nicely.
So yeah, darkcoin is a great name if you get the litecoin/darkcoin dialectic and think dark means hidden, clouded, obscured, etc.
But it's the worst name if you want your grandma, your old hockey coach, or your typical 90 IQ adult who think dark means scary, illegal, forbidden, etc.
I love it, like many great things in life it ignores the average to embrace the gifted.
Linux? Embraced enthusiasts and now is embedded in more devices than ever thought possible. Arduino? Doing the same thing. Darkcoin?
Let's just say that as a crypto-ancap who also happens to be a web developer, I'm extremely impressed by the talent the project attracts, even when assessing the crypto space as a whole.
Darkcoin was created to fix Bitcoin's problems, by a man who loved Bitcoin. I think it makes a lot of sense. Bitcoin or something like it will be #1. That's for sure. But for those who DON'T want to be tracked, pay taxes, or use something because its popular over using something because its better, there will be darkcoin.
>Misallocation of resources isn't the same as the nonexistence of scarcity.
That isn't the argument.
> It just makes scarcity worse
This is the argument. Artificial scarcity.
In any case, if you have 18 million unoccupied homes and 3 million homeless, then you ONLY have artificial scarcity if you're going by this definition (number 1 definition). Unfortunately, in a monetary based economy "demand" is only relevant when it comes to purchasing power. So a poor person that actually needs shelter, water or food isn't part of that equation.
If you have more than enough resources to meet human need (non monetary based demand) but the market prevents that demand from being met because of the nature of money and purchasing power, then you have artificial scarcity.
One problem today is that someone will come along and give a two sentence answer to your question and people will see it and think they know what fascism is even though it is nowhere near a full explanation of a 20th century political and economic movement. for someone TRULY interested in understanding it pays to read something like "Fascism: The Career of a Concept" by Paul Gottfried. He is the authority on fascism.
https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Career-Concept-Paul-Gottfried/dp/0875804934
The accumulation of capital and the division of labor, mostly.
Capital increases human productivity as a multiplier of human effort. Consider farming with and without tractors and other machinery.
The division of labor allows people to specialize in specific areas which they would never have time to learn if they had to manage the whole production chain. Consider if everyone had to grow their own food -- no one would ever have time to figure out how to make a processor.
Capitalism is great because it maximizes the accumulation of capital and maximizes the efficiency with which it is used.
I suggest you read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Any self respecting libertarian should be familiar with basic economic theory.
Look at the totally not ancap cis scum up-voting the username mocking Leelah Alcorn who was recently deceased due to her fucking conservative christian parents who put her through reparative therapy and social isolation.
Nice job guise, u showed me.
I am actually legitimately pissed off by these, since none of the are a hard policy prescription, and all of them leave her room to wiggle later without going back on her 'word.'
>"We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."
OH, 'equal' means 'equal?' HOW ENLIGHTENING. But since you're not bothering to define equal you're left a massive open question as to what you actually mean. Equal under the law? Equal opportunity? Equal outcome? Equal in every way like in Harrison Bergeron? Are you telling us that you're the Handicapper, Mrs. Warren?
And this means she can alter her intended meaning to suit her purposes.
My best hope is that someday she has to debate a competent person who will pin her down on her meaning and call her out.
>You can do whatever you want as a jury member and you can ignore any law (i.e. jury nullification).
Under certain circumstances, a judge can ignore a jury.
Also...
>By going to trial, you are placing your fate in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
-American folk saying
As /u/Priscilla3 said, using 'gun homicide rates' is simply wrong.
It's like that chart where they show you that America is the country with more guns per capita and also the country with more gun homicides per capita. No shit theres more gun homicides, but the actual homicide rate is no higher than that of Norway, Sweden or countries such as Venezuela, where guns are illegal but the homicide rate is 50x times higher.
EDIT: Found some charts (made by the Obama's department of Justice and the FBI)
What do you mean, different meaning?
>dictator late 14c., from L. dictator, agent noun from dictare (see dictate). Transf. sense of "one who has absolute power or authority" in any sphere is from c.1600. In Latin use, a dictator was a judge in the Roman republic temporarily invested with absolute power.
How not to come off as a cultist:
Show that your project is part of a larger and much older tradition.
Ideas exhibit evolutionary patterns.
Point people to other current authors and resources.
Reaching your own ideology has involved a lot of learning and evaluating.
Different people understand the same words to mean different things; and that is the only place where meaning lives.
If you claim in one way or the other that you are the bearer of truth, then you are claiming to be infallible.
In order to demonstrate that you understand that the world of ideas is evolutionary and a collaborative effort, it is important to free-license your content (allowing others to copy and remix without restrictions).
> Yeah well, if ancaps really cared about a free market, they would provide people market options to things so that people could start seeing that they do have the ability to do these things seperately.
I've been peripherally involved with OpenBazaar for a few months. OB aims to provide a decentralized protocol for commerce. First public release is happening soon.
I'm not a developer, but I might be able to start a hosting company for such. Not a purely altruistic move - I hope to make a living with it.
Move to BSD and feel like a real man. And enjoy using a real Ancap operating system licensed in a way that doesn't use intellectual property laws to restrict how you can use it.
Not too hard of a transition for a linux user: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/article.html
There's nothing wrong with private companies as long as they stay away from government. Facebook can do whatever it likes -- if it weren't in bed with government.
There's also nothing wrong with walking away from it. I went through the effort to delete my account almost a year ago. My life has been nothing but better without it.
The appropriate thing to do is when Facebook does what it does with no sign of stopping is to walk away.
There's a reason I'm on MeWe instead. They're not doing what Facebook is.
Delete your Facebook account and do not look back. I assure you that your life will be the better without the incessant droning in your brain.
Not to mention that you won't be constantly exposed to nothing but socialist/communist indoctrination.
Are you familiar with what I call the Mengerian critique of Bitcoin?
It relies on a different conception of money, one separate from Mises and Rothbard.
Instead of concerning ourselves with Bitcoin's satisfaction of Mises' Regression theorem, we see speculation of money prices as being forward looking.
Because Bitcoin has no terminal consumers, it has no basis for a speculative price and will be forever unstable. It's not that Bitcoin needed consumers at one point in the past; it always needs them for stable pricing.
Sure! If you're interested in a teleological defense of classical liberalism, then I would recommend Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order (book) by Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl. As foundational works, read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemian Ethics, and Politics, as well as John Locke's Second Treatise of Government.
If you're interested in a Kantian theory of property and defense of classical liberalism (this is my own view), then I would recommend The Kantian Case for Classical Liberalism (article available online as PDF) by Fernando R. Tesón and Bas van der Vossen and Kant on Property Rights and the State (article available online as PDF ) by Louis-Philippe Hodgson. As foundational works, read Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason, and the Doctrine of Right (the first part of Kant's Metaphysic of Morals).
Economics in One Lesson is very out of date, as you would expect from a book that is 80 years old. It is not relevant to understanding modern economics.
I haven't read Basic Economics, but I have heard it is alright from reliable people. However, I would not recommend it as a substitute for engaging with a textbook. Sowell is not a bad economist, but he is pushing an agenda, and tends to minimize or misrepresent counter arguments in his opeds.
> Can you explain why, please?
Your comment implies that profit and need are opposed. They are not. It also implies that resources can be rationally allocated in a way that efficiently satisfies needs in a modern society without profit signals. They cannot.
> Which school of economics do I need to understand in order to understand an anarcho-capitalist society?
It's not a matter of a specific school. It's a matter of understanding signals and systems in relation to markets. Actually, even that's not necessary; I'm probably getting ahead of myself unless you have an engineering background. From the way you've discussed profit it's clear you hold the same recurring millennia-old prejudices and fallacies as millions before you regarding economic activity. They are well-documented. They are products of the evolutionary forces that shaped our brains. They are also well-refuted. It might be enough for you to read a basic primer; libertarians usually recommend Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Then read Hayek's essay "The Pretense of Knowledge" that he delivered upon receipt of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Or maybe read that first, it's only about 15 pages.
Yes, there are a number of good books for a new libertarian learner to read as an introduction to the philosophy of liberty.
Many of us started with "For a New Liberty" by Rothbard.
Another more modern book is "The Problem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer.
And your learning will be incomplete unless you educate yourself in the principles of economics, of which libertarian thought is essentially an outgrowth.
A good book for this is "Man, Economy, and State" again by Rothbard, or perhaps "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt.
Most of us here have moved on from what's called minarchism--which means the belief that at least a marginal state is necessary for a stable society. For this reason we don't have much hope that political change will arise from engagement with the political process, and are pursuing more radical means of change, agorist strategies and the like.
Instead we are ancaps because we have abandoned the last vestiges of statism by investigating the question of whether the state is necessary and the inevitable conclusion that it is not.
We realize that society needs law, police, and courts are necessary for a stable society, but in applying the lessons of economics to politics, we see that these things are simply services that a group of human beings do, and there's absolutely no need for a central government to monopolize these things. They could be served by the market in a competitive environment, and they would likely be much better in that case as well.
It is not easy to become an ancap, aka: a consistent libertarian. It takes at least 6 months of reading, thought, and reflection. But it is the truth, and I'm, confident that if you seek the truth, you will find it, just as we did.
Most people will never undertake this journey of discovery from first principles. Many more still are looking but not with enough intensity to find it.
I wish you luck.
Do the first two have to be textbooks? If not, then Predictably Irrational and The Creature from Jekyll Island (yeah I know that is still explicitly libertarian but it's not LvMI!). I also read part of Black Swan, Intellectuals and Society, Das Capital, and Hidden Order (David Friedman).
Social sciences: The Signal and the Noise and Dreams from My Father, if that counts.
I used Khan Academy for my intro to micro and macro, and no textbook was used in my intermediate micro class.
I'll be honest, when you are not majoring in any of these subjects, continually reading literature in the field has some sharp diminishing returns. It takes a while to read a book and only a few subfields of econ are even remotely relevant to me.
Hey I came here through that sub, from what I see it's not just a spam sink as /r/Libertarian and there are many discussions (self-posts) here, it's great and I'm looking forward to staying here
As a Christmas gift I got "Economics in One Lesson" by Hazlitt :D
But that is assuming that I trust ttk2 with access to my potential bitcoins, which may not be the case.
The reason I ~~don't~~ didn't want credit was because I didn't make the joke, I didn't make the symbol, I didn't make the font, I didn't choose the colors, I didn't choose the proportions, I didn't make or pay for the program or the computer I used to produce it. The only contribution I made was the two minutes it took to find the joke funny and put all the stuff together in inkscape. Claiming credit would have seemed dishonest, frankly.
However, just because I mind credit doesn't mean I mind free money. if that two minutes of effort was really that valuable to you, than have at it. My bitcoin address is 19voysLTimg5igXLJY4Nctw98VmA2R8xU2, though if you are printing stickers, I would rather have one of those. I don't particularly trust cafe press either.
It's supposed to be 3"x10" at 300ppi. Here's the SVG if you want to make any changes.
Fucking bipartisan NPR economists agree that removing (or at least lowering) the corporate tax rate is a no brainer. When it's the same tax across the board, corporations just pass the tax directly on to consumers because, hey, everyone's gotta pay it so no one is at a disadvantage.
You've been around here along time and I have observed your stances to be pretty nuanced and often unpopular but an ancap complaining about an across the board tax cut for companies is pretty bizarre to me (assuming that is what you are talking about).
>Why is the ancap movement so consumed with bourgeois values?
Because bourgeois values are superior.
Bourgeois values allowed the rise of capitalism which lifted much of humanity out of poverty and coincides with a downward trend in violence.
See The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce By Deirdre N. McCloskey
and The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined By Steven Pinker
The US Government was the original sponsor of Tor:
>DARPA and ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (2001-2006)
However, I haven't seen Tor itself being broken. Most of the ways that people have been arrested have been due to poor implementation/usage, using outdated software, or the Government spending an obscene amount of money for investigation and finding other ways to find their victims.
There are atheists that are pro-life. I think it all depends on how you define a person. I don't know of a convincing proof of a fetus being a person or not a person. There is no absolute libertarian or atheist position on this issue. In an ANCAP society this issue will be decided on the individual level. It should not divide ANCAPs.