What are /r/Shitstatistssay's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You think a caliphate under ISIS is bad? You think being captured and burned alive while ISIS members cheer is bad?

Well get this motherfuckers, I'm a full-fledged militant motherfucking anarcho-capitalist. I'm going to drive in to your town in my pickup truck (no machinegun mounted on the back... yet) and I'm going to take the most extreme anarcho-capitalist actions possible. Man, Economy, and State in hand, I'm going to walk into your places of business and voluntarily trade with entrepreneurs

That's right, motherfucker. Rothbard willing, I'm going to commit some HEINOUS ACTS OF VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE UP IN THIS BITCH. Then I'm gonna walk out the door screaming "Mises is great!" "Mises is great!" Because, well, Mises is pretty great.

Then you know what I'm gonna do? Yeah that's right, I'm one sick, crazed, extremist anarcho-capitalist. After my voluntary exchanging I'm not even going to stop there with my insanity. You think shooting women in the back of the head for not dressing properly is bad? Get this you statist devil, I'm gonna walk straight down to an unregulated beach and I'm gonna set down my towel in a spot of my own choosing and lie back and read Economics in One Lesson. That's right motherfucker, I'm gonna participate in one of the most fundamentalist extremist actions an anarchist can commit: spontaneous order, no threats or force at all. Real hardcore, hardliner ancap stuff. What can I say, I make no apologies for my radical views. I think I might even ask some friends down to the beach without threatening them with force! holy shit I really must be have lost all ability to reason.

All I need now is a black flag, a mask, and some fellow ancap insurgents to make radical videos showing us talking about economics and freedom and philosophy. Beheading videos will have nothing on the kind of horror our discussions about the broken window fallacy will bring. Keep a barfbag handy you infidel statist pigdogs.

> Wal-Mart could easily, easily afford to pay their workers more.

But they're not. The better question is: Why aren't competitors? Why aren't they willing to lure WM's employees away? And why doesn't Google pay their programmers $10/h if WM gets away with it?

Incidentally, Costco does pay twice as much. Why don't Wal-Mart workers go there? Could it perhaps be that they're simply not worth it?

I'm guessing Hawking didn't read this book

Another expert in one particular area assuming knowledge he does not have in other fields.

​

I'll call it Neil Degrasse Tyson Syndrome. Or perhaps Bill Nye syndrome?

Actually don't need to be tech-savvy, just economic-savvy(and if you're in this sub without knowing basic economics, you get McNuked :3).

Bitcoin mining can use various types of hardware to mine(including Graphic Processing Units/GPUs, such as the GTX 1080s in the OP).

Thus, demand for GPUs has increased. What happens to prices when demand increases?

That is why OP is butthurt about Bitcoin.

^(or the shortages in case there wasn't a price increase)

>The rich pocket the money

Here's a book for them

Back in the day?

You can still get candy cigarettes.

Now you got me thinking, tho. There is still time to get a buncha of these before Halloween.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307455777/

> In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

> The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt: The Lesson Applied "The Curse of Machinery"

I find this piece, written originally in the 1940s, is useful to explaining it. That is of course if they want to learn.

Not really otherwise you would be able to tell which inputs belong to which outputs in this transaction.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/e4a789d16a24a6643dfee06e018ad27648b896daae6a3577ae0f4eddcc4d9174

Thoroughly debunked

See chapters 2-3

Actually that is no true Scotsman

What is the term for changing the definition to win an argument? Anyone can create a picture and put it in imgur or use whatever definition they decide to edit in to wikipedia.

Face it. Having to redefine something to defend it is the very definition of defeat.

That's a shame that it's bad. The author makes a fairly fun online game called NationStates, and he seems to have a very good understanding of how multiple systems of government work... even if he does occasionally parrot some bullshit about unfettered capitalism making horrible inequality. Some of his solutions are very statist, but you always have the option of dismissing a political action, which I think is kinda awesome, because other solutions have very clear libertarian choices.

You can check out The Capan Islands, my little anarcho-capitalist country. Bonus points if you catch what the name means.

(Also, I am all about your username.)

Comcast - Better to have bad internet than no internet. Plus Google Fiber is started to crowd out Comcast from the market. That only happens from competition.

Verizon - Same deal, but with T-Mobile who offered to buy out contracts and still offer lower prices.

McDonald's - I have no clue what point you're making, but I'm betting that "a great customer experience and the feeling that corporations value me as a human being" is not on the minds of McDonald's patrons.

BP - Again, not sure what this has to do with your customer care point, unless they collected all that oil from the spill and are now dumping it on top of the heads of everyone who pumps gas there.

The point is, that competition makes things better. Monopolies don't have an incentive to get better because there's no consequence for them doing a bad job.

Clearly they'll just tax the fools that continue working!

This plan recommends a 40% income tax and a 10% VAT which seems about as reasonable as pulling five or six of a persons' teeth.

They don't teach real economics in college anymore let alone public school. I am extremely tempted to make both of my kids read Economics in One Lesson so that they at least have some actual knowledge that will conflict with the BS that gets shoveled down their throats in high school.

Economics in One Lesson was a great start. You should read Animal Farm. Then, How Capitalism Saved America. The Law is also good and Hazlitt mentions Bastiat's work in Economics in One Lesson.

The holy grail of economic literature is the Road to Serfdom by Hayek. The book is super dense and difficult to grasp if you do not have a good foundation. Your understanding of economics is a marathon, not a sprint.

This is too true. We need unbiased, left-wing, government-run news, and anyone here who disagrees, you're fascists and can leave

They don't stand up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny, it's really sad how desperately the pro state faction is trying to cling to justification for its meddling.

Sowell is a good start.

Friedman's Free to Choose series and his youtube talks at Stanford.

Follow Tyler Cowen's blog/online school (marginal revolution)

James Buchanan's Calculus of... Politics? I forget the name now.

Anything by Hayek, but specifically Road to Serfdom.

Follow Bryan Caplan (econlog) and Don Boudreaux (cafe hayek)

And Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.

Hi, I'm in high school, I don't know about loans and finances like this- I've only read more general economics like I, Pencil and Economics in One Lesson. Can anyone point me in the direction of some reading so that I can learn about this?

That's unfair!

The minimum wage should be the average hourly wage of $24.57 of all Americans. It would be totally unfair if anyone was left "below average", right?

/s

I went to law school and was introduced to libertarian concepts by my property law and torts professors. I read a book called Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt and another one called The Law, by Bastiat. From there, I realized that government is essentially the mafia with good PR, and is unnecessary at its very best and generally a drain on good people and outright evil much of the time.

Because their CEOs are either leftists who refuse to question their stance or lobbying for government power. THE biggest example of this is google's co-operative stabce with the government and how Eric Schmidt basically works for the government now. It got so bad Julian Assange wrote a book about it.

"Google is not what it seems" by Julian Assange

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

the book

There's lots of infrastructure that's build today by private entities. Look at communications networks. There are private companies launching satellites into space and laying massive underwater cables at huge cost. Amazon is spending a lot of money doing this for example. They make money by using the infrastructure to provide Amazon Web Services to other organizations (if you don't work in technology you might not be aware Amazon's cloud platform runs a lot of the internet including Reddit and stuff like Netflix).

Companies can raise capital to build a road then charge user fees (i.e. tolls) to profit from it. We have the technology to easily do that automatically now. This isn't even hypothetical, there are private roads in many parts of the world.

And I think we can look at history or even the present day to see you definitely don't need a state to have a military. Not that communists are right about much, but in the Chinese revolution the Worker's and Peasants' army formed without any state support, though obviously later became part of the state once they took over. The more difficult question is how you prevent the people who control an army from using it to enforce statism like the communists.

In any case you definitely don't need anything like the size of the state we have now.

Canadian here and I'm not that stupid.

Canada has crazy hate speech bans. Heck, we even ban books and films.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Book_censorship_in_Canada http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Censorship_in_Canada

The US puts those who have speech unfavourable to the current administration in a ~~pen~~ free-speech zone.

The trouble Canadians have is any time a Libertarian Canadian says something about free speech or health care, automatically idiot Canadians decide that means they're saying the US has it right. NO! The US has neither freedom in health care, nor absolute free speech (although at least on that last point they're closer than we are).

You have a choice to pick an isp. If you don't like it, then start your own isp. oh wait... regulations. Actually, it doesn't matter because you can (start one)[https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/ ] regardless of fcc ruling.

Atlas Shrugged is overrated in my opinion. If you want the real crash course just pick up Capitalism and Freedom (Friedman), Free to Choose (Friedman), Basic Economics (Sowell), The Road to Serfdom (Hayek), or Economics in One Lesson (Hazlitt).

And how does a minimum wage help? Do you realize that any additional funds that are transferred to the unskilled worker by fiat must either be: Provided by the consumer who now has less to spend elsewhere Provided by the employer who now has less money to reinvest in the company The employer who has less money to spend on other goods Laws are a zero or negative sum game. I suggest you read "Economics in One Lesson" as it covers this very well.

No offense intended, I try to write for a broad audience.

I think parasite is a perfect word to describe governments - especially the USA. Their very existence relies on the subjugation of their 'citizens' via taxation and the services they provide are, on average worse than the free market can provide. The first part is why I'm opposed to it; the second part is why it's a bad idea.

If anything, governments are adept at redirecting resource they don't own to their own purposes (read: parasitism); this is often done with an ostensibly good purpose (as if that mattered). In the mercantilist USA those resources often concentrated with the politically well connected rather than those with a proven ability to use those resources efficiently.

Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson discusses this in detail.

Please put clickbait trash like this behind a DoNotLink or an Archive.today like /u/TexMarshfellow recommended.

Click here instead, so Slate doesn't get any revenue from us.

Government:

The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office

or

the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

>It's not a human being in the first trimester.

>A human being isn't something that magically pops up one night because the guy forgot to pull out. It has to be grown over 9 months, it needs to develop and incubate.

Wrong.

The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. source

It's the first stage in the development of a human being, just like adult is one of the last stages of development of a human being. Your opinion on this is irrelevant to the facts.

>I have a daughter, she didn't just pop up one day. She grew inside my wife slowly over 9 months.

Nobody is disputing that.

>I support eugenics

So did the Nazis. Do you support outlawing poverty, making it punishable by death, and painlessly euthanizing the poor in order to totally eliminate poverty?

>but this is not eugenics, it is just ensuring your child has the best chances in life.

By killing it?

> What I find lol is the idea that robots -> UBI.

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

In Economics in One Lesson there is a whole chapter dedicated to this idea. In the early days of the industrial revolution people were frightened that a sewing machine would put people out of jobs and ruin the economy. Even the cotton gin was accused of being anti-worker and anti-wage. And yet in every one of those instances the employment growth in the respective sector grew exponentially.

Home computers and printers killed the typewriter, but we are all better off because of it.

As you mentioned, cars killed the horse drawn carriage industry and that worked out just fine for the economy.

The population of the world is growing, manufacturing technology is just buzzing along, and yet we aren't all unemployed and waiting in line at a soup kitchen.

I know this isn't even worth responding to, but one of the cornerstones of The Wealth of Nations is

>It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. [...] If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

mises.org is a great place to start. Unfortunately, they do not really have a system by which you can easily determine the level at which you are contextualized to read and understand (some of the stuff out there is OMFGSOAMAZINGLY erudite and academic that it makes great brains strain). Some of the books are very accessible, and others necessitate having read dozens of the others before they will make any sense. I personally am quite smart, but I still had to read "Human Action" aloud to myself in order to be able to process and understand what I was reading.

Some accessible texts are "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt (mentioned by /u/Polisskolan2 elsewhere in this thread), "What has Government Done to Our Money" by Murray Rothbard, and "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. I also cannot more highly recommend the series of audio lectures by Murray Rothbard, "Economics 101," available here for a small fee:

http://store.mises.org/Economics-101-MP3-CD-P223.aspx

Anyhow, enjoy and if you ever want to correspond with anyone about it, you can PM me. Cheers.

/r/badeconomics is pretty good in my opinion. They do often belittle Austrians, but lets be honest, there are plenty of "internet austrians" out there that don't really know what they're talking about. The sub does have a lot of respect for Hayek though, and most people there lean libertarian in terms of economic policy. I'm not an economist either, and it rather bothers me that there are so many libertarians who think they can speak with authority on the subject after reading "Economics in One Lesson".

>Have you ever thought that many people completely recognize the economics of the situation, and just advocate for workers to demand greater pay?

They understand that there are going to be less jobs, less opportunity, more expensive food as a result, all of which burdens the poor?

For every one person that you see get paid the $15 there are countless other individuals who didn't get hired in the fast food industry, and money missing from other industries because it is getting diverted to fast food.

You may see a few people earning a decent wage, but you don't see new shops that didn't open, businesses that didn't hire because people were forced to spend more money on McDees, you also don't see all the people that now couldn't get started at McDees because it is prohibitively expensive, not to mention the good corporate, white collar jobs at Mc's (and other firms) that don't exist because money is being forced to the least productive in society.

You can't just make an edict that people shouldn't be poor you need actual growth otherwise you have to steal from everyone else in order to fund your edict. There is no such thing as a free lunch in economics.

You need to understand the law of unintended consequences, the most important thing to understand in econ past basic definitions.

It's ironic that you are arguing that these people understand economics when you don't even get it yourself. I recommend you read Economics in One Lesson by Hazzlit.

The point is, it would make us poorer including the poor people who it is supposed to help.

Also, fuck your left vs. right shit. I believe in free people and free markets, that doesn't fit on your spectrum.

>I mean, McDonald's workers are almost all on Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance. YOU ARE SUBSIDIZING MCDONALDS.

I can agree with you here, but that's not McDonalds fault, that's a result of this type of batshit insane economic thinking.

"Why are you getting upset? I'm only using a term often used to describe mass murder, in political contexts!"

>And accusing me of suggesting genocide means you are suggesting all conservatives are of the same race. Seems telling of how conservatives perceive themselves!

It would, if genocide was only limited to ethnicity.

Did you even read the original post? THEY made the comparison with the Wild West, not me. If they want to make a comparison, then they must accept the reality that per capita violence was lower.

But sure, I’ll respond to your request for additional data.

From 1870-1885, Homicide rate in several Wild West areas was 1 murder per 100,000 (yearly),

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Violence-Another-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195020987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234881730&sr=8-1

At that same time, NYC was 4 (and sometimes higher) per 100,000 (yearly),

Source: https://cjrc.osu.edu/sites/cjrc.osu.edu/files/AHSV-Policing.pdf

Some western cities, such as Dodge city, restricted carrying firearms, but many others didn’t. Meanwhile, other non-western states had state wide laws against brandishing and firing firearms/concealed carry.

Source: perma.cc/YEY9-KEN8

I'd recommend this book that's actually a first hand account if anyone is truly curious. In no way did Hitler's Germany have anything resembling a free market with private property rights that any small government advocate would ever want. It is much closer to the fascist states that so called "socialist" governments literally always devolve into. Hitler and the Nazis wanted to use the state to mold the economy like the central planning Young Hegelians they were and anyone trying to tell you different like the clearly uneducated u/ aeiou_sometimesy here is either wrong or lying to you.

You're probably going to have to actually read her books if you want material directly from her:

https://www.amazon.com/Drama-Commons-National-Research-Council/dp/0309082501/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

There's a lot online that references her however.

Unsolicited, off topic suggestion;

Tax-Free Wealth: How to Build... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1947588052?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

Great read on reducing your tax bill by taking advantage of write offs and credits given for investing in the right assets.

Lets not forget that some of these school districts actually REFUSED money to pay off the debts

https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-07-24-school-district-refuses-businessmans-donation-to-pay-off-lunch-debt/

I have no idea what a statist is. I came to read an interesting article on the measured decrease in poverty due to deregulation. You can find the definition for that here. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/government-regulation things like minimum wage and banning child labor are regulations. If you would like to look up the economic results and poverty rates of states that raised the minimum wage to $15 feel free, I'll give you a hint though, they decreased poverty. In fact as the regulated minimum wage lowers poverty goes up, as a general rule.

If you want to argue that many industries like oil as you mentioned get significant tax breaks and shouldn't I would potentially agree with that, but I'm definitely not qualified to talk about the U.S tax code without significant research.

I moved from one state with much higher than average taxes to another, one because I prefer to live in big cities, but two because I have no problem supporting others that need help. I believe in a minimum standard quality of life. I have known many parents receiving food support, and I dont believe their children deserve to go hungry because of their parents decisions or misfortunes.

I'm not sure why I keep letting you redirect this conversation to some new unsubstantiated claim. You've made general waves in the direction of things you think support your points three times now, I have provided articles directly contradicting those. If you can't be bothered to provide evidence to support anything you say I won't bother finding more evidence to contradict it. Without evidence you certainly won't change my opinions, and based on this conversation even with evidence I won't be able to change yours.

I disagree with your entire argument, and this book is a concise argument as to why money is an emergent phenomenon and bitcoin is the ultimate version that has yet emerged https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MIAQG8AYYR9E&keywords=bitcoin+standard&qid=1643735847&sprefix=bitcoin+standard%2Caps%2C213&sr=8-1

To summarize very briefly, all value is subjective including gold - there is no reason gold has inherent value. Then you analyze the properties of solid money and you see why gold is valued by humans. Then you analyze bitcoin the same way and it exceeds gold on many (but not all) metrics.

Other points to refute in your argument is that bitcoin also takes work to extract, and gold mining is indeed inflation, and typically mining more gold is very difficult so sudden inflation is rare, but a black swan event could conceivably occur that adds a huge amount of gold to the supply whilst bitcoin cannot have that happen. And bitcoin cannot have the 21 million coins change because then it would no longer be bitcoin, it would be a new currency - see bitcoin cash, bitcoin SV, etc. etc.

What's interesting is that dental work is actually way cheaper than any other type of medical procedure. It's also a lot easier to get an actual price for, and pay in cash/credit.

And it's also less regulated because it's not underneath the "healthcare" umbrella. Hmmm...

You can get dentist appointments on fuckin' Groupon: https://www.groupon.com/local/dental

The average price of fillings, cleanings, etc. are under a couple hundred bucks: https://memberbenefits.com/dental-costs-with-and-without-insurance/

You can't get an ice pack and a Tylenol from a doctor for that price.

~330,000,000

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

You got me on population under poverty line it's ~39,000,000

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states

Which raises my calculation to $13,179.49

Which raises your margin of error to 99.924%

I didn't realize you also couldn't read numbers. I never said $1000. I originally said $10383.83 which has another digit (number) in it, but I can see how "0" and "O" can be confusing for you with your obvious mental limitations.

Please feel free to go lick a window. We all know how that calms your autism.

>In this way, they're let off the hook and feel like now that the whole thing has blown over, nobody is going to call them out on how wrong they were before.

This reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes (because I recently watched it): "You can't blame a nigger for being a nigger... no more than you can blame a dog for being a dog." I don't agree with the original statement and its usage toward race, but I do agree with it when it's used to one's personality and political affiliations: you can't blame a statist for thinking the way they do, but don't ridiculize them over it, because they will hold grudges and will be less open for debate. Tell them now why they're wrong now with facts instead of waiting for a pleasure of showing them in 6 months why they were wrong before. If there's unintended ridiculizing in there oh well, but don't go out of your way to make that your life mission. Eventually they'll come around; if they don't, it's not a crime, but keep pushing for that "changing of minds" to the right direction.

>I really want to keep track of all these people who are making outrageous claims about the future of the Internet and calling for Pai's head on a pike so I can absolutely destroy them in a year or so.

Maybe a golden star? I don't know bout that... RES is good enough for it though.

"I'm a libertarian at heart, but I lack faith in humanity to make educated decisions. So I wind up voting like a socialist."

> PureWash

That device is only slightly more effective than plain tap water. And it seems like you don't like minute levels of chlorine in your water but you're somehow okay with having an ozone generator in your house? Weird.

> Anyway if the government put lithium carbonate in our drinking water I would not object.

No need for government. There's already naturally-occuring lithium carbonate in drinking water in certain places.

You are gauging off 'normal'

The study you are referencing is from 2011 and used 3 different test to try to evaluate IQ

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Coloured Progressive Matrices Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices

If one couldnt be done another was used. This automatically messes up the data. If you have 75 kids with varied forms of ASD and can't give each of them the exact same test you are basically comparing a verious species of dogs based on their ability to catch a rabbit.

Part of ASD can be no way to communicate. Parents who think their kid is disabled other ways because they can't get them to talk when in reality it is because the literally can't get their mind to accomplish that. That means gauging each kid off a different test may not even register with them. The answers they give could be completely different with another test.

75 is also an insanely small group to apply to all those with ASD. I understand that it is hard to get a large control group but if you want accuracy you have to try. There was a Chinese study that said they weren't intelligent too but it only studied 27 kids.

There are also studies that show many people with Autism get smarter in time

There is no simple way to test someone with ASD and to say they arent smart based on a study would be wrong. Go hang out with some of them. Many overcome challenges we will never face. Like being unable to get your mind to tell your arm and hand to pick up a fork because it has seperated your motor control from you.

Find a study that doesnt base IQ of a test made for those without autism. If it can't get an acurate base line it has said nothing.

People state living wage, without defining it. Should implies what is not being done, do what do you think of should be? Should seems correct. Morality has nothing to do with this or even economics. Wet either come to agreement on what I'm willing to pay and you're willing to sell it we don't.

should

n. Preterit of shall.

imperative - Used as an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or as a supposition of an actual fact; also, to express moral obligation (see shall); e. g.: they should have come last week; if I should go; I should think you could go.

v. - Used to form the future tense of the subjunctive mood, usually in the first pers

For clarity.

I think there's a value in knowing the market price for something. Assuming the successfully sell it at that price, you can rely on the fact that other people will likely do the research for you. However, as someone else points out, you don't need a law to do this.

Hacking? As in, making a disk image?

I somehow doubt the laptop had whole-disk encryption turned on.

Also, msnbc.com is run by nginx -- https://sitereport.netcraft.com/?url=msnbc.com

Top contributors to nginx include a lot of Russians.... https://www.openhub.net/p/nginx/contributors

I found it. It turns out that this paper was trying to define justice. We were learning modern philosopher's definitions of it. The part where I specifically talk about the Negitive/Positive distinction is on page 5. This is a Rothbardian, moral argument, so if you're in the amoralist camp, you may not find it particularly convincing.

None the less thank you for your interest!

Just a typical BreadTube tard.

"I guarantee you a whole lot of heads have been violently cocked after clicking on a video by Libertarian Socialist Rants and realising they were watching an actual Libertarian."

This is a good submission. The video is conservative FUD.

If you want to learn more about immigration and whether it's good or bad, read Bryan Caplan and check out this interview with him. https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/immigration/open-borders-a-long-read-qa-with-bryan-caplan/ or read his fantastic book https://smile.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960?sa-no-redirect=1

Not defending Japanese internment in any shape or form because it's monstrous, but let me provide some historical context.

A large number of Japanese-Americans maintained close ties to their homeland and were actively working on behalf of the Japanese empire. Many were willing to do anything up to and including violence against America. Additionally, many Japanese-American schools had the students swear an oath to the emperor every day the same way American schools say the pledge. It's hard for us to fathom the level of loyalty to the motherland that many of the Japanese-Americans at that time felt, but it was obvious to many non-Japanese-Americans that these citizens could present a serious domestic threat.

Again, not condoning. The internments were monstrous and inexcusable. Just trying to provide context.

Source

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B087KJLKCC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_JAY9BC41E5V95Y1WTPNE

I had someone I work with seriously recommend this book to me. They said "We focus on cost too much"... No - they just think we're too short sighted to see savings much later on. We're not. We cannot print infinite money and there's some fake ass global economy going on where the entire world's currencies are "backed by the dollar" lol paper backed by paper. And money printer goes brrrrrrrr

I watched the promo video for a coin called Celo, and it seems interesting. Fast transactions and the person you're sending it to doesn't have to understand it or even have a digital wallet to receive it. I'm sure there are problems with it but I was intrigued.

Pro-Tip: dont use NordVPN. I lived in China for a long time and ran through a plethora of VPNs. Not only was Nord slower than most, it was absolutely at the whim of the Chinese govenrment. I dont know all the technical details but most of the "commercialized" VPNs could be turned off and on by the Chinese Gov during hot political times. For that reason, I have always questioned their security.

I think anyone arguing with these idiots on reddit needs to read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer. He completely dismantles social contract theory and 'taxation is society' arguments, as well as fully explaining what it means to consent. Fantastic reading.

This stems from Rawls’ veil of ignorance argument in A Theory of Justice.

Hayek and Nozick already took this one to task.

Not from personal experience.. I've never had the necessity to set one up.

Ubiquity is a common brand recommendation for outside and long-range antennas.

A pair of these would be inexpensive ($63 each) and get great reviews:

https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-LBE-5AC-GEN2-US-LiteBeam-Wireless-Bridge/dp/B06Y2JH7PV/

Ubiquity has a number of options in a range of prices.

A quick search for me this promising list of other devices if Ubiquity don't work out for some reason; https://www.noflufftech.com/best-long-range-wifi-antenna/

Check out The Problem of Political Authority if you want to read something about how there's no consent in modern governments.

No, your libertarian is libertarian in name only. “One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”

― Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3194162-one-gratifying-aspect-of-our-rise-to-some-prominence-is

You are being manipulated.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

I absolutely must recommend Meltdown by Tom Woods. It's about the causes of the Financial Crisis and the recession. I think you'll enjoy it more than Economics in One Lesson. It's very easy to read, more relevant to today, and it goes over pretty much everything you'd need to know about Austrian economics. But I do think you should read Economics in One Lesson first.

Yes it is. He claims that even if you don't use public services and are paying double since you're paying taxes AND for the private alternative, you should be happy that you are helping society. In reality you're putting yourself in debt and getting nothing in return except the empty satisfaction that someone somewhere may benefit for your money. However, when you spend your money privately people also benefit. This person argues that taxation seems to be the only way to help society, and the alternative is "hoarding money all for yourself". Hazlitt talks about how statists use the BWF to push forward taxation in Economics in One Lesson.

The thread on /r/Libertarian was just a meme that offered a simplified version of obviously a more complex matter. Generally it's difficult to keep the full message and stay succinct in meme form, or else we'll end up with all of Economics in One Lesson over a picture.

I would call it the "make work fallacy", or if we want to get really esoteric, call it the "candlestick makers fallacy", all assuming you really want to use the word 'fallacy' in there.

The purpose of terms is to communicate discrete information. Unfortunately with such condensed terms, they really only make sense to people that already agree with you, thus pointing it out as evidence to someone else tends to be condecending.

Similar, ever notice that when people say, "that's a strawman!" it doesn't tend to tun into an enlightening conversation? I like to think that "fallacies" are tools for discovering weaknesses in arguments for making better arguments. Just pointing something out a weakness isn't an argument unto itself.

This whole general area I think is very well addressed in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, in my opinion a must read before trying to go too much deeper.

>Very, very few of them do.

Ford Foundation is a deep state front. It created modern feminism and promoted and backed the free market movement, which was kicked off in the chilian dictatorship and then spread to all our countries.

>Or you've been deluded into thinking that there's some massive desire for libertarianism among corporations, which there isn't.

Why wouldn't corporations want to do away with work place safety regulations, pollution limitations, labour laws and anything else that stands in the way of profits. Do they not want anti trust laws gone - like the ones the banks did away with that lead to the melt down in 2008?

Average men have been targeted and used to support tea party, right libertarianism and so on based on the lie that its grass roots and will bring them freedom.

Thats the opposite of the truth, well researched book about it here.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

> I don't think it requires math to understand that raising the minimum wage doesn't equate to job losses.

So an economist is trying to claim that supply and demand not only stops applying to some products, but actually has reverse effects? Is it only labor that supply and demand don't apply to? Or can you show me some other products where supply and demand effects are reversed?

> It's not like the minimum wage has never been raised before, is it?

And it's not like "unemployment" hasn't been redefined to suit the needs of the government before, is it? Or do you really believe that only 5.5% of Americans are actually unemployed?

And it's not like even neoclassical economists haven't studied the correlation between real wages and the unemployment rate and found them to be positively correlated, is it?

> That's a good idea, but it's important for me to take into account the audience. I could lay out a potential ideal wage model for you, but the odds of you understanding the math involved are so close to zero that it doesn't seem very productive. I'm not going to spend years trying to teach you up to the point where I can win argument that is the equivalent of 2+2=4 to educated people.

I'll bet anything that I have more math background than every "behavioral economist" in existence that didn't double major. Go ahead. Show your math. Are you afraid?

What pisses me off more is that these leftists will talk about how great Scandinavia is, how haply they are, etc. Yet, when people go and visit Europe, no one ever visits Copenhagen, they visit Paris or London. Why? Because Danes aren't the wonderful socialist the leftists think they are, they're actually quite boring. I would explain more, but I have to run, and I got this info from The Almost Nearly Perfect People.

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Almost-Nearly-Perfect-People/dp/0224089625