lyghtningrod

Well, what I said was your presentation was illogical, but I did care enough to watch 2 minutes of it. My question to you is "Why didn't you make a watchable video?" Isn't it sort of rude to throw out such an illogical piece of work and lure me into watchin it? Then you insult me after I've taken the time to explaiin what I felt was wrong. Pretty much everyone on this thread has said essentially the same thing, that you are equivocating, So, you ask for feedback, then insult the people who offer it I'd say you need to learn some manners. And you should learn to parse an English sentence. I never said I wanted to be your friend. As for income distribution, mine has certainly changed over the years, up one decade, down another. I prefered the 'up' times better than the down times.

He called me a 'dickie' and said "Oh, it doesn't matter to me if you cant digest it" I wonder if he thinks that's how you win friends and influence people. that about sums it up. Everyone else is saying "Quit equivocating" and he says NO U. Not much happening in this thread, just ambigious amphigory.

I was just reading about Irving Schiff and Larken Rose, so I wouldn't say there are no libertarian types taking a stand. The attitude I have to paying taxes is I want to avoid jail, and government has better weaponry than I do. I view taxes as tribute paid to Caesar. I don't like it, but until there are enough people willing to take that stand it is a classic prisoner's dilema. If only one stands, he is cut down. If all stand, the regime falls.

very false. Predictibly false. But considering your lack of rigor, in at least trying to know what you are replying to, you probably run into the same issues all the time. Sorry, but it's dickish that you commented based on NOT watching the whole video, so you wont get any manners from me, lol. Sir, it was me who watched a few minutes of the video. I'm the 'dickish' one. I stopped when i heard the following Equivocation is all it is, and it ain't worth any more time than 1:49 to understand that. I am sorry you couldn't hold my attention, but that is because of the content you provided. It was illogcal. Call me Spock, but that's a deal breaker, presenting logical fallacies and expecting to be taken seriously. If you want to equivocate, do it in private, out of the view of the children.

Cute. So, if you start with a logical fallacy, all that follows is illogical. Why should I address the arguments of a logical fallacy? They are by definition fallacious. It's a waste of time to address a fallacy as if it matters. Just point out the fallacy and let the chips fall where they may.

I listened to the first couple minutes of the video. Your arguments rests on equivocation. You are conflating the meaning of state as "the condition of a thing at a given time" with the meaning of state as "a nation or territory considered as an organized polititical unit"

Gives a whole new meaning to "That will go on your permanent record."

Isn't talking about a 'morally superior outcome' a direct contradiction of your claim to be a nihilist? How can there be a 'morally superior outcome' when you deny the existence of principles?

I don't see how the senses can be invalid, I think is where I'm going with this. They are the given, beyond my current state of knowledge to dissect into their component parts. For example, I accept the solidity of this table I'm working on, even though part of me is aware it is mostly space, with little tiny balls orbiting larger balls. But that is a conceptual understanding that could prove to be totally wrong in the future. But for now it is an ultimate given that matter in certain configurations is solid rather than amorphous. If we were to move beyond that understanding, it might be possible to be able to move a solid object through another solid object, ala some science fiction. Perhaps you are attempting to go beyond the given to a better understanding than what we currently know.

I was thinking of the difference between 'valid' and 'true' in the lgocial sense. A logical argument can be valid in that the form of the argument is valid, but with false premises then it is valid but false. So if I see pink unicorns I've either fallen into another world, or my senses were valid ('I' experienced pink unicorns) but still false, since in this world I can't experience unicorns, pink, grey or any other color. The term 'ultimate given' is from Mises. I have found it to be very useful. His thought is this is not necessarily an absolute limit, but a given for our level of understanding. I;m thinking all input from the senses is valid in the sense that they were indeed what we experienced, but then that experience must be run through our brain in the search for what is both true and valid.

I think of the senses more in terms of an ultimate given. The input I receive through my various senses are an ultimate given, something that I use to be aware of the external world and the internal (sense of balance, eg). All the sense input we receive is valid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. For instance, under certain drugs or illnesses, you can hallucinate, so you can have a valid but untrue experience of a pink unicorn. Just my point of view...YMMV

once back in the Commonwealth's hand, who gets to decide where the money is then allocated? Wouldn't you just be creating a new dynasty, namely, the people who get to decide where the 'returned' money goes. lol, hardly. greed is a human emotion, nothing we can do to rid ourselves of it. What we can do is create a society that channels that greed, as Smith suggested happens in a true market economy.

1964 coins are also silver. I used to be paid 50¢ to mow a lawn in the early 60s. Now that same fifty cent piece in worth about $12.5. Gold was stolen from the citizens in 1933, not 1913 As for investing, I think you should have a certain amount of gold and silver as a hedge against the insanity. Paper money can become toilet paper in a shockingly short time, so having something of value, anything at all, is good. It happens that gold and silver have easily determined weights, and can be used to facilitate exchange better than wheat, or gas or other commodity.

Is donator a real word? Neither of my unabridged dictionaries list it. I thought the word was 'donor'

The sun isn't an economic good, it would be considered a general condition. The solar panels used to collect the energy are economic goods and subject to all the usual laws of economics.