ribuck

There is no contradiction in their thoughts, because they don't start with the postulate that every valid moral theory must be universalisable. UPB does not prove that all moral theories must be universalisable. It just takes that as a given, then uses it as a way to test the validity of moral theories. Their moral rule ("It is moral for a tax collector to collect taxes") is not universal. Based on UPB, the strongest statement I can make to these people is: "If you agree that every moral theory must be universalisable, then your moral theory about taxation would not be not valid".

Outside of voluntaryists, most people judge moral validity other than by universality. For example, some people support government taxation on the basis that it's moral to take money from the richest people but not moral to take money from the poorest. Some people believe that "might is right". Some people believe that actions gain legitimacy from historical precedent. There are many candidate alternatives to universality. If a person accepts UPB, it's not helpful for that person to say to a statist "By my moral system, taxation is not morally valid". The statist will simply reply "By my moral system, taxation is morally valid". UPB doesn't prove that every valid moral theory must be universal. UPB takes that postulate as given. Therefore, UPB is irrelevant to every person who does not accept that postulate. Well yes, that's what happens. UPB doesn't stop those people from "making up literally anything". UPB is not useful, because it only makes sense to those who already accept it, and offers no argument that makes sense to those who don't already accept UPB.

Suppose someone proposes the moral theory that "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women". As I understand it, you can't use UPB to validate or invalidate that moral theory, because it's too specific. It doesn't apply to all people at all times. UPB is only useful to people who already accept the postulate that the only testable moral theories are those which are expressed as universals (for example "All involuntary interactions are moral", although the UPB book also accommodates slightly less universal forms on the level of "All rape is moral" but somehow not "All war-rape is moral"). When you're debating with an invading General about the morality of his troops raping the conquered women, you can't use UPB because UPB doesn't consider the proposed moral theory to be universal enough for evaluation. And the General doesn't think that moral theories need to be any more universal than "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women" to be evaluated. So UPB is not useful in this case. It's only useful to those who already accept that all involuntary interactions are immoral, and those are the very people who don't have any need for UPB.

I liked this young voluntaryist:

Doesn't it all just boil down to "Involuntary interactions are not universally preferred"? That's self-evident, but not very helpful when formulating moral theories. It can only become useful if everyone already accepts that moral principles must be universalisable.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. The market generally loves government-guaranteed repayments, so a bond issue by a government utility is generally well-subscribed. Most western countries have at one time or another financed large government infrastructure projects by issuing bonds. The primary economic advantage from selling a state-owned company is due to the funds raised by the sale. This enables the government to either reduce taxation or to reduce its debt (and therefore the interest that it must pay on its debt). The reduction of the burden on the taxpayer enables all of the businesses in the productive sector to prosper more. "More efficiency and more competition" should be a benefit of the sale of a state-owned company. However, it rarely works that way. In order to get the highest price for the state-owned company, the government generally makes sure that, even in private hands, the company will have the same kind of monopoly or part-monopoly position that it experienced as a state-owned company.

Good luck with your "Challenge", but a lot of people here wouldn't recognise "economic growth" as being intrinsically desirable, or even to be a meaningful statistic. Nor would we consider floating 49% of the shares to be a "sale", being instead a "part-corporatisation".

When I shared a house in that situation, we did make the rent a little cheaper for the couple who were sharing a room. Can you accommodate their rent being a little cheaper (with "little" being the key word) without feeling like you're being a pushover? It sounds like a win-win situation, since having an extra person should still make it possible to reduce your share of the rent.

The lifespan of a lightbulb can be as long as you want to make it, but longer-lasting bulbs are less efficient (i.e. use more electricity for the same amount of light) so they are not worthwhile. The relevant patents expired decades ago, so there has been plenty of opportunity for the market to supply these bulbs. In fact you can buy a variation called "rough service" bulbs that are interchangeable with regular bulbs but have a lifetime ten times as long. Beyond that, it's too energy-inefficient to be worth considering.

I'm sure Stef did many things a year ago, not just eating less meat. Statistically, a vegetarian diet is associated with above-average lifespan.

Good luck, buddy! I went through something similar - a dermatofibrosarcoma grew on my hand. After delays and futzing about in the UK's National Health Service the lump was removed. They messed it up and I had to have a second operation. I found out later that the technique the NHS used is relatively primitive and has a 5% chance of recurrence, usually fatal. In the US, one can have cancers like these removed with Moh's technique (where the surgeon uses a microscope while excising), which has only a 0.2% chance of recurrence. If I had known, I would have found a way to raise the funds. Anyway, so far so good, no sign of recurrence. I wish you the best too.

It's inconsistent to tell your daughter to choose whatever she likes, provided she discusses it, when you are not discussing your own conversion to rationality with your wife and daughter. So you could start with that. Why not join a local sports club, or hobbyist group, for some activity that you really enjoy? It may take a while to build up new friends that way, but in my experience friends that share a common interest make better friends than those who share nothing more than a dogma. Clubs and societies are normally neither religious nor non-religious, so they'll help you to get away from that whole cult thing.

In a free market, ads demonstrate the value of the video to the advertiser. Donations demonstrate the value of the video to the listener.

Very good point, Hugh.

You may find the discussion at the following page interesting: "Why the dearth of conservative comedians?" The discussion brings out some specific reasons for the dominance of left-wing comedians. Obviously you're not interested in being a "conservative" comedian, but there are some points discussed which you may be able to turn to your advantage as an ancap comedian.

Alcohol is half the price in Spain compared to the UK, yet Spain doesn't have so many paralytically drunk people staggering around the streets on a Saturday night vomiting and collapsing. So no, raising the price won't "solve" anything.

Thanks Jake for your great post. I wanted to say similar things, but I couldn't find a way to express them eloquently. I think this is why there were so many great Soviet mathematicians during the communist area. It was one of the few fields of work where the Communist Party didn't (and couldn't) really interfere, and that would have attracted great minds.

Thanks for this video! I'm sure the property price crash will come, but not quite yet. The Reserve Bank of Australia (the central bank) currently has interest rates at 3%. No doubt they will continue to drop them, as the US and UK did, to perpetuate the illusion that property prices are stable. There will come a time, of course, when the illusion can no longer be sustained.

If you will consider fiction, you may enjoy "Homeland" by Cory Doctorow. The story weaves together all the current "hot buttons" such as Wikileaks, DHS, TSA, quadrocopters, cryptoanarchism, crony capitalism, bankster gangsters, etc.

I think they forgot the part about how his government starved the population with extreme and unnecessary food rationing. For example, they rationed eggs. Eggs! A hen lays almost one egg every day. And it can eat just about anything in a suburban garden (it loves slugs!). And if you have a rooster you will get fertile eggs and very soon have lots of hens. So there is never a need to impose an egg shortage. Of course, food rationing generally comes with price control (and eggs were no exception). It's to stop speculators making money, don't you know? If you legislate away the profit that would come from keeping the population well fed, you should not be surprised that it's in no-one's interests to build up their hen stocks to overcome the shortage, and you should not be surprised that the population goes hungry. Rationing of various types lasted a decade and a half*. When it finally faded away, and when compulsory military service for young people was abolished, the United Kingdom experienced a decade of rapid growth. Britain in the 1960s was one of the coolest places in the world, and one of the most prosperous. Hard to believe now. (*Actually, health rationing continues to this day.)

Find out the law in your country regarding campaign donations. There's nothing a politician likes more than to be re-elected.

If you re-read the posts, you'll see that I said "It's pretty clear that her reading skills are limited" which is not the same as "this girl can't read". And CapitalistDog said "none of Dana's kids appeared to be able to read the 'cycle' label on the dishwasher", which is not the same as "this girl can't read". So, as you suspected, you are jumping to conclusions.

I was also wondering about this, as you can see from my posts earlier in this thread. Dayna talked about this when she appeared on Stef's Sunday Call-in Show on 11 March (starting around 1:01:55). Dayna feels that "reading readiness" ranges from between 5 to 15 years, depending on the child. (I had internalised a single figure of "7 years" for reading readiness, but when I think about some of the slower readers at my school I now think they just weren't ready for it until their early teens.) Dayna says the peak "natural reading age" for a child is 11 or 12, so she wouldn't be bothered if some of her children aren't reading the dishwasher cycles yet. However, Dayna also says that her husband "hates books" and speculates that this may be because he was given a hard time about his reading ability at school. So maybe some of that rubbed off onto the children. One of the strongest motivators for a child wanting to read is when the child sees that their parents enjoy reading.

After reading the Martin Family's blog, it's clear to me that my speculation about Joe (the father) is groundless, so please ignore that part of my earlier post. The blog is wonderful. She addresses so many topics! Here's the School Sucks interview with Dayna Martin about the Wife Swap show. She's happy with the Wife Swap show, and says it was fairly accurate. Apparently there were twelve film crew following them around all the time!

Sure it's possible, but reading and writing are mighty powerful tools.