Libertus

Quantum Physics Fallacy Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Thank you for jumping in. I totally agree with your response.

No, really, you were trolling. You're not a newbie to economics, and you're not asking a question. That's two lies. So, how about, instead of pretending to ask a question, and acting unsatisfied when you don't like the answer, you go ahead and clearly state a position, and support arguments to support the position? So we can have an actual discussion.

He misunderstands scarcity. In day-to-day language, it means, "non-abundance". So everything that doesn't exist in super-abundance, is scarce. His argument is, that the fact that scarcity exists, combined with the natural incentives in the market system (which he doesn't seem to understand, neither in theory nor in practice - his own business for example) creates the structurally violent outcomes we call a "state". Here's why this is all a bunch of nonsense. In economics, scarcity simply means rivalrousness. A resource is rivalrous, when its usage by one person conflicts with usage by another person. It has nothing to do with the total amount of how much of a resource is available. In other words, even if I can have as much chicken wings as I would possibly want, chicken wings are super-abundant, the chicken on my plate, the one I'm eating right now, remains mine, not yours. The car I'm using to drive north can not at the same time be used by you to drive south.That means, you still need property rights even if goods are abundant, because you still need to be able to tell who gets to eat a specific chicken wing at a specific time, who the rightful owner is. Even if organs can be replicated for next to no money, the kidney I'm using right now, is mine. To deny the necessity of all property rights implies denial of ownership of the body. In an economic sense of the word - there is no post-scarcity scenario. Except when people are fundamentally changed at their core - I think Peter would agree. I only disagree that it is possible to change human nature. Humans react to incentives. The end.

She's your daughter. Take a long, good look in the mirror. What do you see?

About systemic violence... yes, there is such a thing. remember when you were growing up, and although everybody you come in contact with, is super friendly, non-aggressive towards you, but you still grow up in poverty, because the system steals money, from your parents, that they would otherwise spend on other things, maybe invest it in your future... and calls it 'taxation'. The fact of the matter is, this system is not a free market. It's a system based on violence, that violently coerces almost everybody in one way or the other, and there we have it systemic violence. And all the statistics he read about how terrible systemic violence is, I totally agree with those. Yeah, he can bring a hundred of those and still has not shown how this violence is anything but a result of government, and corporatism. Yes, it's bad. No, it's not the free market. I also think the word inequality is used as an argument, and wrongly so. Sure, a lot of today's factual inequality in wealth is very unnatural, and unnecessary. I would whole-heartedly agree with Joseph. But, Equality Of Opportunity And Equality Of Outcome are not the same! If there was an ideal government, it would treat every person as equals. But it doesn't. And there isn't. I think equal rights for everyone is a good idea though. But that would mean very inequal outcomes, and I'm OK with that. He correctly attacks corporatism, but conflates it with capitalism and the free market.Therefore, everything that's wrong in the world, is the fault of capitalism and the free market. I don't know, man. I don't know. PJ doesn't seem to understand the most basic libertarian arguments. Either that, or he is so many levels above us that he can't even be bothered to define a term in two sentences, or answer a yes/no question with yes or no, without being reminded, twice... I mean, how many people are openly critical towards his ideas? How many libertarians has he debated? I'm guessing, not so many. He has NO CLUE what their position is.

I don't know - how often do you lift weights?

'Scarce' in property rights means 'rivalrous'. If you use my car, it means you're interfering with my usage of it. A piece of information can be known by an unlimited amount of people. In that sense, ideas, concepts, plans are not scarce, and therefore cannot be property (which is all about scarce resources).

I'd consider answering your questions, but you have chosen not to answer the question I asked you directly.

No. The belief must also be true, and my belief must be connected to, or caused by the the truth somehow - philosophers are still debating how, to this day. However, I'm wondering what your point is. You were just asking a question? I'm saying belief and knowledge are not the same, they are separate concepts, do you agree or disagree with that statement, before we take this any further?

Agnosticism is not the middle ground between theism and atheism. Theism / atheism is about what you believe. Gnosticism / agnosticism is about what you know, claim to know, or what is knowable. Belief and knowledge are separate concepts.

A-theism means "non-theism". That's why that is the first definition even in Merriam Webster. If I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist. That's how it works. The second definition is the less precise. It neglects the difference between "not accepting a premise" and "negating a premise". It's an important difference. So, again, an atheist doesn't have to prove anything. Well then let's deal with (basic?) atheism first, thereby giving the theist no leg to stand on. It's the more defensible position.

Hold on. Atheism is based on lack of evidence, mine at least. Atheists don't need any evidence for not believeing, that is not how it works.

People are not property.

Phillip, is it a fair characterization to say you're a moral relativist? Meaning, 'there is no universal right or wrong', or 'your rights are whatever you can enforce'? Something similar to that?

Statist: Corporations are greedy. They always pay their workers less than the profit they make off of them.You: Well, you can always leave, and get another job.Statist: *gets really mad* ... So, apparently, the 'you can always leave' argument only applies to some people, sometimes.

Minarchism - the belief that the free market is best protected by a coercive, socialist monopoly. Really, what could go wrong?

Interesting case. I would say, the only people who owe the couple any damages are the idiot 'authorities' who believed the ramblings of a psy-chick, and, most of all, the judge, who, apparently signed a warrant based on no evidence. The psychic is not a fault here. She may be delusional, but it seems clear that she 'had reason to believe and did believe' that there was a 'mass grave' on the property. However, those believes were based on illusions, but SHE didn't know that! And about those newspapers, nobody should believe anything these hacks write. If they still do, it's nobody's fault, really.

Excerpt from the video description: "This video was recorded on Sunday, May 26, 2013. It is completely unedited. I (Caleb Leverett) uploaded the video to YouTube the very same day, but kept it set to private until June 6, 2013. I am Parker's dad, father, biological father, Daddy and guy who cut his umbilical cord. [...] I am a subscriber to the non-aggression principle (NAP) which basically says that the initiation of force is always immoral. I raise all four of my children in a non-violent manner, i.e., I never spank my kids... EVER. All four of my kids are very familiar with the NAP are extremely well behaved; anyone who knows them personally will testify that this is true. Until today (Saturday, June 8, 2013) there was no description to the video. I am adding it to help others understand the broader picture. Parker has lived with me full time since the day this was filmed. I picked up my other three kids from their mom and step-dad's house yesterday for my first week of summer vacation with them. The pick up was text book perfect and without incident, of which I am thankful. [...] I thank many of you for your kind, encouraging words. I even thank the critics, for your words are teaching Parker and I to hone our skills, and yes, Parker and I read every single word. Have a peaceful day and remember, you own yourself. No one else owns you." I think both, the father and the son, would make excellent guests on your show, Stef. They both seem to be well spoken and very straight shooters, from what I understand

I love it! Cybernanke ftw!

People should stop complaining and start filing criminal complaints.

... the black market.

"Someone might be able to make an elaborate case that it isn't immoral to grab a movie, a video game, photoshop, etc., but it is certainlly douchey." In a free (that is a not-totally-screwed up totalitarian nightmare) society, you wouldn't have to make a case that an action isn't immoral, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser to show that an action IS immoral. Whose right, and which one (property? contract?) is being violated by said action of making a copy? Can't answer that, evade the question, try to switch the burden of proof - no crime. Yes, it is that simple.

Philosophy is a written discipline, because all the great philosophers are DEAD, and therefore, we can't talk to them anymore.

TheRobin, I think the term you're looking for is 'rivalrous resource', or 'rivalrous good', which is a scarce good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers. A car is a rivalrous resouce, because if you're using it, I can't use it (well, we could car pool, but, side issue). The purpose of property rights are to determine who gets to use a rivalrous good. A song / film / idea is not such a thing, the fact that you're listening to it takes away nothing from my experience of the same thing. Therefore, you don't have property rights in songs / films / ideas.