lowkey

Recently I had a friend explain the differences in agnostic and atheist this way to me. Atheism and Theism are about beliefs. Gnostism and Agnostism are about knowledge. So it is possible to be a Gnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Atheist. Its just saying your lack of belief in a god or gods is based on knowledge or not. It seeems that most atheists would be agnostic atheists simply because an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It may lead you to that belief but it isn't logically conclusive. And the same is true for Theists. They can be agnostic theists (who believe but have no evidence) or gnostic theists (who believe and claim to have knowledge or evidence). Similar to atheists, I would assume that the majority of theists are actually agnostic theists who choose to believe even through they have no direct or conclusive evidence. It may just come down to the fact that practicing their faith allows them to participate in their community in a way that feels inclusive. Seems to me that the idea that there are three different groups results in the confusion. Of course I could be wrong. I've never been atheist or theist enough to be accepted by either group without questions.

Reddit can be fun but only in moderation. Some people take their freedom to comment there way too far and get fairly annoying quickly. For an example of the impassioned, you might want to duck into the anarchism or anarchist threads and just wait for anything anarcho-capitalist to pop up. Within a few minutes, you will get someone attacking. It's almost guaranteed. And not all the cases are rational or well thought out. So I'm not sure I would expect much different for their opinions of Molyneux, Free Domain Radio or his videos on Youtube. Some like them, some don't. That's how it goes.

Sounds almost reminiscent of some of the ideas expressed by Samual E. Konkin in his papers about Agorism. We are only trapped by the state to the extent that we allow ourselves to be trapped. The state can never have enough enforcers to keep everyone in line all of the time. For its dominance to work, it requires that we accept the status quo without resistence. But we can choose to resist by embracing counter-economics through black and gray markets as alternatives to the legal (white) markets the state prefers. And every counter-economic exchange reduces the control the state has and the taxes collected. http://agorism.info/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Agorism

Also worth considering: The Economics of Prohibition by Mark Thornton (Free eBook or PDF at Mises.org or buy a paper copy for $10)

To quote Lysander Spooner, vices are not crimes. It may be a misguided choice but it is nothing more.

When you've grown to believe that you have the right to kill anyone you want without a review or trial...........well simply hitting someone might seem a joke. Now joking about killing them seems to reveal the damaged mind that it takes to pursue and weld that kind of power.

Second, I would ask the author which form of capitalism he was critiquing. Is he referring to Mercantilism, Free-Market Capitalism, Social-Market Capitalism, State Capitalism, Corporate Capitalism or a mixed economy? For each is a distinct form with their strengths and weaknesses. Many have been created to address the weaknesses in others. Weaknesses that can be seen in the "rules". And if the author is unprepared to discuss the various types of capitalism or tries to claim that they're all the same.....well there isn't much point for further discussion because any opinions he has will be influenced by his lack of knowledge rather than any real substantive issues.

At first impression, these "rules" seem to be more a critique of "Crony Capitalism" rather than of simple "Capitalism". When you add the power of the state to the decision making process, it is almost inevitable that some people will attempt to use their influence to gain a favorable position. Greater wealth does come with greater influence simply because with it you can afford to dedicate more of your resources to those purposes. So it isn't unusual that people use their influence to protect and extend their status in the community. Rather it's almost to be expected. This highlights the problems with state involvement in the capitalist process. Not those with private ownership, capital accumulation or competitive markets.

Also you might want to check out R.J. Rummel's page on democide at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM