I'm So Embarrassed That I Ever Called Myself A "liberal."

[Such_Saturation]

 

[Kyle M]

This is exactly what I am saying is wrong. Economic behaviors are driven by intrinsic properties of different groups of people.



Most people are fully aware of this definition and find it a useless concept.

You're saying that the study of human action is wrong because what?

Is aggression is a useless concept, then why is rape wrong but consensual sex ok? Answer this without using the concept of aggression and it's downstream synonyms like aggressive violence, theft, non-consensual action etc.

 

[signalguy]

Is there no one on earth that appears to be healthy and eats PUFA? Not billions of them, in fact?

P.S. - I'm curious, what bet did you make about deflation that you made money on? From what I can tell, a bet that stocks/bonds/real estate/fine art would go up in price (inflation) would have been the best strategy to have employed since the 2008 crash. A deflationary bet would be to, what, hold dollars? Short commodities against the dollar? That would have only worked for gold and silver for a few years during the time from 2008 till now, and shorting oil for about 2 years during that same time period. Other than those time periods, shorting commodities against the dollar would have treaded water at best. Buying stocks and bond funds, or real estate in hot markets again, on margin would have made the most money in hind sight.

Appears to be healthy, sure? Really healthy, nope. At least not from my research. Also, I made my money by shorting gold when the Austrians had rallied its price to near 2000. Profited down to about 1350 but got scared that there were still enough right wing troglodytes to make it go back up again so I got out then.

Now here's what I'm doing now that we have a conservative moron in charge. Short term I'm keeping all my money in stocks. If Trumpcare passes, I'll favor the healthcare stocks. If Trumptax passes, I expect inflation and rising interest rates at which time I will then move to gold while keeping my eye on the next housing bust. When the bust happens, I will sell gold and buy property at deep deep discounts. Just because the country suffers with a Republican in charge, doesn't mean I have to.

 

[zztr]

The Non Aggression Principle is stupid and useless because everyone agrees you have the right not to be raped or whatever. What a lot of people want, however, is to live in a pleasant community and to preserve it for their descendants. Achieving that is almost certainly going to require aggressing against people who didn't directly aggress against you. For example, what if impoverished single women are spawning gangs of crime prone hoodlums that ruin the quality of life? Or drugged out weirdos are standing around on street corners and making everyone uncomfortable? The non-aggression principle would dictate the reproductive behavior or narcotics usage is none of my business. I say that's bull. Aggress against such people until they behave.

An agent based model is not a useful starting point for studying an economic system. The participants are not rational or even semi-rational agents. People behave as cultural and genetic units. You're going to instantly know more about a society and its economy by knowing the race and religion of the people who live in it than you will glean from any analysis starting from the individual.

 

[Kyle M]

The Non Aggression Principle is stupid and useless because everyone agrees you have the right not to be raped or whatever. What a lot of people want, however, is to live in a pleasant community and to preserve it for their descendants. Achieving that is almost certainly going to require aggressing against people who didn't directly aggress against you. For example, what if impoverished single women are spawning gangs of crime prone hoodlums that ruin the quality of life? Or drugged out weirdos are standing around on street corners and making everyone uncomfortable? The non-aggression principle would dictate the reproductive behavior or narcotics usage is none of my business. I say that's bull. Aggress against such people until they behave.

An agent based model is not a useful starting point for studying an economic system. The participants are not rational or even semi-rational agents. People behave as cultural and genetic units. You're going to instantly know more about a society and its economy by knowing the race and religion of the people who live in it than you will glean from any analysis starting from the individual.

These issues can be dealt with on property rights basis, not aggression. Hoodlums can make their own property as unpleasant as they want, your private community can have rules as to who can enter and if the hoodlums enter they can be physically removed. It's quite simple and very clearly explained in the writings of Rothbard, Hoppe, and more recently Robert Murphy.

 

[Such_Saturation]

He violated the NAP

 

[zztr]

These issues can be dealt with on property rights basis, not aggression. Hoodlums can make their own property as unpleasant as they want, your private community can have rules as to who can enter and if the hoodlums enter they can be physically removed. It's quite simple and very clearly explained in the writings of Rothbard, Hoppe, and more recently Robert Murphy.

This is exactly why people don't take libertarians seriously. No, the solution to cultural problems isn't to contract private security and throw up walls around a private community property. It's to aggressively punish the people spawning the hoodlums and creating other problems so that nobody needs walls or private security.

 

[Kyle M]

Appears to be healthy, sure? Really healthy, nope. At least not from my research. Also, I made my money by shorting gold when the Austrians had rallied its price to near 2000. Profited down to about 1350 but got scared that there were still enough right wing troglodytes to make it go back up again so I got out then.

Now here's what I'm doing now that we have a conservative moron in charge. Short term I'm keeping all my money in stocks. If Trumpcare passes, I'll favor the healthcare stocks. If Trumptax passes, I expect inflation and rising interest rates at which time I will then move to gold while keeping my eye on the next housing bust. When the bust happens, I will sell gold and buy property at deep deep discounts. Just because the country suffers with a Republican in charge, doesn't mean I have to.

What part of any of that disproves the tenets of Austrian economics, such as subjective value? It's also quite disingenuous to talk about profiting on the correction of a commodity that jumped up an order of magnitude more (percentage basis) in the previous decade more than it fell since it's near 2000 highs.

Is the huge increase in the dollar price of stocks, bonds, real estate and fine art a result of something other than inflation? Where did the demand come from, if not the injection of dollars into the system? Many many rich people decided they wanted those instruments and properties much much more than they did prior to the monetary stimulus? Those rises in valuations would have occurred the same way if the FED didn't lower interest rates to 0% and inject trillions into the monetary base? Because in order for the Austrians to be "wrong," those questions would have to be answered in the following way: 1) the increase in stock/bond/real estate/fine art prices was from demand that had nothing to do with an increase in the monetary base but was from the desire of previous wealth owners to increase their holdings of those items by drawing down their holdings of other items or of cash. 2) The increases in the price of those items would have occurred without monetary stimulus as they did with it.

 

[Kyle M]

This is exactly why people don't take libertarians seriously. No, the solution to cultural problems isn't to contract private security and throw up walls around a private community property. It's to aggressively punish the people spawning the hoodlums and creating other problems so that nobody needs walls or private security.

Why are people "spawning hoodlums" in the first place? Is it something that was happening prior to, or after, the welfare state? Do you even care, or are you just acting out emotional trauma?

P.S. - so you don't believe in private property, but do believe in violence against people that act in ways you don't like? Your system sounds like tribal communist violence based society, with no option for solving conflicts other than fighting. The kinds of people that talk about those systems on the internet tend to be ******* IRL

 

[Kyle M]

He violated the NAP

View attachment 5384

No he didn't, defending fascism as superior to and defensive against communism is a simple historical perspective. Mises fled Germanic fascism for America, does that mean nothing?

 

[zztr]

Is it something that was happening prior to, or after, the welfare state?

The role of the welfare state is totally irrelevant to the principle being illustrated. You are trying to distract from the point that the NAP is a useless concept for maintaining a healthy society. For the preservation of order the state must reserve the right to commit aggression against people doing things that cannot easily be construed as aggression. The libertarian answer always seems to be "Well everybody can find ways to deal with these social problems on their own property in their own communities and at their own expense." This is just dumb. The power of the state is by far the most efficient means.

 

[Kyle M]

The role of the welfare state is totally irrelevant to the principle being illustrated. You are trying to distract from the point that the NAP is a useless concept for maintaining a healthy society. For the preservation of order the state must reserve the right to commit aggression against people doing things that cannot easily be construed as aggression. The libertarian answer always seems to be "Well everybody can find ways to deal with these social problems on their own property in their own communities and at their own expense." This is just dumb. The power of the state is by far the most efficient means.

Have you never read about private defense or policing, which is actually how much of the world and the United States in particular is currently secured from violence and hooliganism?

 

[zztr]

private defense or policing, which is actually how much of the world and the United States in particular is currently secured from violence and hooliganism?

People resort to private security to the extent that the state is failing in its duties. It's not a good thing. Looking around internationally, private security is used in proportion to the extent a nation has collapsed into disorder.

 

[Kyle M]

People resort to private security to the extent that the state is failing in its duties. It's not a good thing. Looking around internationally, private security is used in proportion to the extent a nation has collapsed into disorder.

The United States and Europe use more private security than Somalia...what are you talking about? Think about your daily life, walking around stores and movie theaters, schools, your job in an office maybe, what is primarily responsible for the security there, the state or the private enterprise itself?

 

[zztr]

The United States and Europe use more private security than Somalia...what are you talking about? Think about your daily life, walking around stores and movie theaters, schools, your job in an office maybe, what is primarily responsible for the security there, the state or the private enterprise itself?

In my daily life I don't need very much security, because the force of law as exercised by the state keeps criminals in check. Private security has little to do with it.

The extent to which one bumps into so many mall cops and so forth in modern America is a symptom of the growing disorder of which I speak. It was not so typical for there to be a non-cop with a gun in so many places a few generations ago.

I doubt you actually have any idea how much security contracting there is in Somalia. I don't. There sure is a lot in lovely places like South Africa and Brazil, for examples.

 

[Kyle M]

In my daily life I don't need very much security, because the force of law as exercised by the state keeps criminals in check. Private security has little to do with it.

The extent to which one bumps into so many mall cops and so forth in modern America is a symptom of the growing disorder of which I speak. It was not so typical for there to be a non-cop with a gun in so many places a few generations ago.

I doubt you actually have any idea how much security contracting there is in Somalia. I don't. There sure is a lot in lovely places like South Africa and Brazil, for examples.

You don't need security because of the incentive of businesses to keep out undesirables. Where do crimes occur? In the alleys, on the roads, in the public parks of NYC, on the college campuses. All places that are policed by the state first and foremost. Where do crimes not occur, when you would expect them to? Bars, clubs, businesses where money is being exchanged. Those are all safer (statistically) than alleyways, government roadways, etc. Why?

P.S. - I do know that the dollar amount of private security contracted by Americans and American businesses is a larger number than the entire economy of Somalia, which is not difficult because the economy of one neighborhood in NYC is bigger than the economy of Somalia.

 

[zztr]

You seem to have misunderstood my point about security. You need virtually no security in highly ordered societies. The order is achieved by the state over generations. You see private security in relation to the extent people lack respect for the law. There are more and more mall cops in America because there are more and more degenerates to be dealt with.

You are incapable of debating in good faith. You just keep grasping at straws and trying to get in the last word with pointless asides. I'm thinking about continuing to deny you the last word out of boredom.

 

[Kyle M]

You seem to have misunderstood my point about security. You need virtually no security in highly ordered societies. The order is achieved by the state over generations. You see private security in relation to the extent people lack respect for the law. There are more and more mall cops in America because there are more and more degenerates to be dealt with.

You are incapable of debating in good faith. You just keep grasping at straws and trying to get in the last word with pointless asides. I'm thinking about continuing to deny you the last word out of boredom.

I would argue that you see virtually no *visible* or *overt* security in societies that have respect for property rights. A highly ordered society like the USSR had a ton of crime going on, the same way as a non-ordered society would provided they both contain large numbers of people who do not respect property rights.

It's funny that you accuse me of not debating in good faith when you continue to not answer my question as to what books you have read on the topic we are debating. The answer, as it must be, is zero, so your good faith is simply you reading a bunch of debunking articles online or watching a YouTube video trashing an idea you haven't invested the time or intellectual energy required to try and understand in the first place. I have read plenty of state-oriented literature, as well as libertarian, the same way I've been trained in establishment biology and also read Ray Peat and Gilbert Ling and made my decision as to which is superior. If you haven't done that, your opinion is worthless garbage.

 

[zztr]

A highly ordered society like the USSR had a ton of crime going on, the same way as a non-ordered society would provided they both contain large numbers of people who do not respect property rights.

I have read this sentence three times and I'm not sure I understand it. I am, however, fairly sure that it's an irrelevant aside to the thrust of the conversation.

 

[Kyle M]

I have read this sentence three times and I'm not sure I understand it. I am, however, fairly sure that it's an irrelevant aside to the thrust of the conversation.

USSR was a highly organized, totalitarian state society. It had a lot of private crime. There are places that have less statism than the USSR did, like Mexico, which also have a lot of private crime. It is not the statist beaten into people's psyches that make them more or less prone to private crime, it is a respect of lack of respect for property rights.