LibertyDefender

I second BD91's comment - I have been beyond pumped for Star Citizen for a very long time. I have not played Nosgoth, but please PM me if you bite the bullet on it before me - I play online games every so often with a group of semi-professional Canadian gamers and they told me tonight I had to buy that title. I generally play CS : GO, League of Legends or Heroes and Generals with them if you are into any of those games (granted they aren't MMO) - would love to have you, always good to expand one's communities.

Does the lender in this situation have the power to create money as implied in the generalized example? If this power isn't explicitly referenced in the original contract, then it would constitute fraud, "slavery after the fact" I think is largely irrelevant and a game in semantics. The fact that most people are or could be ignorant to the pitfalls of contracting is a more unique question, and would likely be covered by insurance directly or absored through financial/personal advisors willing to assume certain levels of liability as a form of consideration for contracting. Sorry, missed this bit in my original post, but I understood where you were going. It is a very good conundrum to explore, but I think dsayers had an excellent point. Not trying to slam you or anything, but you may perhaps be exaggerating specialization. Sure, lots of technology and jobs are specialized now, but it doesn't mean you need a specialist to tell you whether to buy a house or not, though they may help in assessing pros and cons. Similarly (incapacitated people aside), even a doctor doesn't make the decision to operate on you or not -ultimately you make an informed decision with the help of their specialized knowledge. Sure, tons of specialty food growers, transportation specilaists, financial analysts and nurses might develop in a freeer market; but this is the point! They will all have to compete and provide better services or adivice for the lowest cost appropriate for their skill. If they abuse their customers or commit fraud, they will suffer the consequences of an economic boycott.

I think perhaps we are closer in thought than I originally thought. I agree with the above, the economy is not free, but I don't think that condition indicates that all contracts entered into in that environment equate to slavery. If you are trying to argue that the brutality of slavery varies from circumstance to circumstance, that is fine. But I also agree with many of the posters on here that "wage slavery" is a loaded and deceptive term. If the English language had a less politicized and more accurate term, I think you and I might be in agreement. Sure, many people worldwide have limited options due to obscene economic pyramids; but these are creations of the state, not the free market.

That is precisely my point. If there is a gun to your head compelling your action, it is slavery regardless fo compensation. Can you define "restricted economy" for me so I may better follow your line of thought? Please define this as well. What is: "my intellectual property nonsense"?

The gun is the operative term when discussing slavery. The presence of the gun is what is negating choice, irrespective of the among of compensation. Though a ludicrous scenario, if you had a gun pointed at your head and were forced to live in a mansion with a yacht and a six-figure salary, it would still be slavery. When dsayers draws the distinction between wages and slavery, I believe he is presenting scenarios of coercion versus free-association, not so much how subjectively preferable the compensation is. If someone was truly undercompensated, their labor can always be provided elsewhere, where the compensation reflects the realistic demand for it. I think...you are trying to draw a parallel between monopolies and the state here? If so, a true monopoly would be exceptionally rare (if even existent) in a free society. Your scenario presumes that someone who would maliciously withhold services from someone would not be boycotted once the news of such practices got out. Unless the economically victimized person was a hermit, they likely have an extended social network. Do you think their grocer, their employer, their utility provider or least of all their security provider want anything to do with a freak who uses their economic power to torture people? Even if they WERE a hermit, once the public realized this practice was occurring, do you believe it to be realistic that they would continue to do business with such a person? Would you?

Unreal. It doesn't help that technology and advances in medicine will have boatloads of people living well past the 60-something, arbitrarily set retirement age for government benefits. As MMD stated, it is going to get pretty scary!

You definitely want to take MeAT's advice seriously, investing in stocks is challenging, but can be rewarding, so long as you treat it as a long term proposition. It sounds cliché, but your friend would do well to consider a diverse portfolio, rather than simply dumping all their money into marijuana stocks. If they have done their research, fine, but going "all-in" on one or a few equities is a very risky idea. There are indeed companies involved in marijuana production and distribution who are now publicly traded (Growlife, Ticker: PHOT comes to mind), but your friend should proceed with caution. Not only is investing risky in general, but the conflict between how state governments and the federal government view the legality of canibis could make these stocks even more volatile than they naturally would be. All this being said, here are two basic books on investing I would recommend to any investing newbie: "The Little Book that Beats the Market" by Joel Greenblatt, and "Beating the Street" by Peter Lynch I think your friend should read more than just these two books before doing any serious investing, but they are a good (and quick) start. Your original post was almost two months ago now, so I don't know what your friend's situation is. Does he have a brokerage account opened up? He would need one to easily trade equities. Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, just ask.

The wikipedia description you presented implies the existence of legal, social and ethical theories on rights. I think you are focusing on one school of thought rather than a broader interpretation of rights (and morality). If you are examining legal rights (which I personally think are an oxymoron), then sure, those rights cannot exist absent a government. If we are arguing logically, I would think your first principle would go something like this: "All rights stem from government decree." If that is the case, not only are your rights arbitrary in the present, but in the absence of government, it would be perfectly normative to do whatever you wanted (acts of violence included) to anyone you wanted. Essentially, it quasi-fails the moral premise of universality, because people without governments would have no rights and people under different governments would have different rights. I think therein lies the attractiveness of the libertarian first principle that: "He who initiates force (or fraud) is always wrong." It really boils all philosophical discussion down to the base unit of interaction (two people) and assigns moral responsibility of right and wrong to both parties in a given circumstance. It matters not whether you live in a foreign land, are in a giant gathering of people, or are the last two people on Earth. In all these cases, your rights are constant. Incidentally, I think it also makes it very easy to distinguish between positive and negative rights in situations where people aren't able to do so. I suppose your idea that all rights flow from government is fine, so long as you believe humans are no better than animals and that individual life has no intrinsic worth - rather society collectively does. However, I believe both those ideas to be wrong.

It seems to me like you knew a lot more than you were giving yourself credit for! Again, good luck. Please keep me posted with a personal message now and again, I would like to know how you do.

We can argue our opinions on the likelihood, and I think I am more in your camp than you think. That being said, it is certainly not a certainty. I agree with you that having physical posession of precious metals carries the loss-risk of being robbed, but I would like to hear you elaborate on other methods of precious metal ownership that you find preferrable (certificated gold?). Additionally, while ETF and 401(k) ownership of PMs might not be preferrable in my mind, I find it curious that you would argue against physical ownership for a person who is afraid of a dollar collapse. I understand the risk of phsical theft, but if you are convinced that fiat curriencies are going to become worthless, aren't you arguing my position? Again, perhaps I am not privy to the investment methods you hinted at, which is why I requested clarification. Additionally, if it wasn't clear from my original post, I am all for PM ownership. I own a decent amount myself. Finally, while your extreme caution about the stock market is warranted, I think it is worth investigating an investment strategy that has historically paid off well.

I think the first question would be how likely do you think that a dollar collapse will be in the next 30 years? As Songbirdo pointed out, you would be responsible for taxes and fees on your early withdrawal. I think the heft of this hit is only worth it if you feel the aforementioned dollar collapse has a good chance of coming to fruition during your timetable. I think precious metals are a great investment, but (and a few people already made this point) you should only buy them if you are going to physically hold them. They are a good hedge against inflation, but typically do not outperform stocks. Their great strength is that you physically have something of value when the economy collapses and/or hyperinflation demolishes fiat currency. If you invest in precious metals through an ETF, or a 401(k), you have - in effect - destroyed that great strength because you are not the physical holder of the wealth if chaos breaks out. I think starting your own retirement fund is admirable, and would give you constant access to the funds without penalty. However, you will lose out on the tax benefit of lowering your reported income through traditional 401(k) contributions. I think all the investments you mentioned are good, but remember that you probably want a diverse portfolio to hedge against risk. Also, not to be too repetitive, but whenever the investment is a physical thing (eg: precious metals), posess it yourself whenever possible. I don't think a complete dollar collapse is likely in the next 30 years. I say likely because I definitely think it is possible, just not more-likely-than-not. I think you are right to be cautious about 401(k)s though - I believe a more likely scenario in the next decade or so is that Roth IRA contributions get banned and/or high net worth surtaxes begin to be applied to retirement accounts. The idea has already been brought up in the U.S. Congress, and they hopelessly need your wealth to satiate their need to spend.

Alright TruthLogicFreedom, I am glad I drew the distinction then! Good luck with the trading, and please keep me posted on how you do. Trading trip zeros is especially risky, but I am glad it is working out for you. I had a phase where I played around in them. I had huge success in 2013 with BMSN, but as a counterpoint, KMAG destroyed me. I am glad you have had success so far. If you do change your mind, I have to disagree with Wuzzums' assertion that there is no predictability in the stock market. If he is positing that there is no predictability in certain stocks, especially the pump-and-dump trip zero schemes you are now playing, I agree. But just because there is risk in the stock market doesn't mean it is akin to gambling in the form of a poker game. If you buy a piece of a real company with genuine profits, you are then entitled to a piece of the risk and rewards of said ownership. Since companies employ people who are incentivized to make a better life for themselves, wealth generation is typically increasing, and therefore so is the company which employs them. His caution is extremely prudent though, which is why I was trying to steer you towards low-load ETFs. I strongly recommend against financial advisors who charge anything but a flat fee for a particular service. (I would actually recommend against an advisor entirely unless you are very well personally acquainted with them) You should always do your own research, and you should collaborate with others to maximize your knowledge where possible. In the long run (10 to 20 year horizon or longer) a diversified portfolio has an unbelievable track record in the stock market. Also, you probably don't want to read any of the books I recommended in my original response. They are definitely books about investing, not trading. Likely, there are more informative books for your course of action out there. Again, sorry for my confusion! You had the verbiage down better than I gave you credit for!

I don't think it is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense (which I think is your question; if we are viewing trading through the philosophical lens of anarchy?). From a personal standpoint, I think investing in securities, be it buying stocks, bonds, options is an excellent way to preserve wealth in the face of inflation. I think many financial experts draw a distinction between "trading" stocks and investing: trading being short term flips which rely on unusual and perhaps widely unpredictable price fluctuations in a security, whereas investing would be the search for long term wealth preservation/generation. It takes an extremely savvy financial guru and likely a lot of insider knowledge to successfully be a trader in the modern world. In fact, with HFT (High Frequency Trading) and the proliferation of technology in the investment world, retail trading or flipping of stocks is a very tough prospect. Twenty years ago, when retail trading was just dipping its toes in the technology of the 90s, my guess it was easier to take advantage of market inefficiencies. All this being said, I am fairly sure you meant "trading" colloquially, and your intent is to invest in stocks, but I could be wrong! If you are looking to "flip" stocks (at least regularly), I would caution you against it, and I don't have too much advice other than that. If your goal is more along the lines of investing - buying stock in a company with the goal of long term appreciation, I am more familiar and comfortable with this topic: FIrst thing is first (and let's keep it to stocks for right now): Buying a stock (also known as a share) in a company is buying partial ownership rights in that organization. Let's say a company has 100 shares outstanding, i.e. floating around to be bought. Let's also say you buy 10 of those shares. You now own 10% of the company. In most respects, this entitles you to 10% of the earnings and value of the underlying company. You likely won't get any of the money in cash (unless the organization pays dividends), but you will see it in the long term appreciation of the price of your shares. I know we are looking at this from a personal finance perspective - so forgive me - but it is also important to note that the 10% ownership also give you a 10% say in many corporate level decisions of the company. You won't decide the day-to-day; that is the officers' jobs, but mergers, organizational changes, bylaw amendments, major contracts and board positions you will vote on. The aforementioned are fairly standard but the full list of things you are entitled to a say in would be public information through the company's published incorporation documents. If you are new to investing, I strongly urge you to look into ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). An exchange traded fund is a collective pool of invested capital (your money and mine for instance) which attempts to mirror some type of market. What the latter part means is that an "Industrial ETF" might buy 20 industrial stocks, or a "Gold ETF" may buy gold mining stocks or the underlying mining companies themselves. ETFs may even be created to mirror a certain geography: it could invest in only industrial stocks from Argentina, or agricultural products in the United States. ETFs have a ticker symbol like the stock of an individual company, and are traded on exchanges all over the world, but for the price of one share, you are gaining a portion of the appreciative power (and taking a portion of the risk) of all the underlying companies. For example, if you were to buy 10% of General Electric's outstanding stock directly, and General Electric invented a more efficient turbine engine tomorrow, you would be gaining 10% of GE's value appreciation as it relates to this product. Conversely, if tomorrow we learned that whatever company you purchased went bankrupt, you would lose all value you had in the stock. I bring this up because one of the advantages of the ETF is that it is a cheap way to spread risk. In owning a myriad of underlying companies, they make it less likely that any single bankruptcy would cause you to lose all the value you had in the investment. On the other hand, skyrocketing earnings will be similarly diluted. I think ETFs are great for two types of people: risk adverse investors (this should include almost everyone new to investing) and people who don't have the time or interest in researching individual companies. Investing isn't a science, but it is scientific. To do it well takes a decent amount of time and energy. Some people would rather learn about a large segment of the economy and pick an ETF that mirrors that environment than pick individual winning stocks. You should also be cautioned that ETFs do charge fees, regardless of whether your investment is making money or not. There is typically a management fee for AUM (Assets Under Management). This fee is generally calculated as a percentage of the value of the investment you hold. Thankfully, these fees are generally low, and the ETF market right now is competitive enough that free market forces may shopping for low-fee ETFs fairly easy. ETFs are preferable in my mind to mutual funds which usually charge higher fees for active management. Active management indicates that the fund manager is researching and attempting to pick winners and losers in the market. ETFs are passively managed, which means (as mentioned before) they are simply trying to mirror a portion of the market rather than find winning stocks. The particular stocks that an ETF buys can be found on the prospectus of an ETF before buying it. That way you know how many, in what apportionment, and to what end the fund invests. If you want to talk specific ETFs I would be very excited to mutually research. Individual stocks are bought on an exchange in the exact manner an ETF is, only you would be buying one company rather than a pool of investments. In my mind, this type of investing is both exciting and challenging. You really want to do your homework on the company. If you get good at it, it obviously beats the heck out of ETF investing as you will see greater appreciation of your investment. However, you will obviously have to swallow any huge hits the company takes. (And I have been hit hard, twice) Most of my investing right now is done buying individual stocks, and if you want to talk about research or methods, I am happy to chat. I recommend you read the following few books when you get a chance. They are all extremely fast reads: "The Little Book That Beats the Market" by Joel Greenblatt; "The Little Book That Still Beats the Market" by Joel Greenblatt; "Beating the Street" by Peter Lynch; and "Stock Investing for Dummies" You said you are just getting into it. Do you have an electronic brokerage account? If you do great, if not, I definitely have recommendations/opinions for you. I know you said you are very new, so I apologize if some of what I have written made no sense - I would be happy to clarify. Conversely, if I have somehow exaggerated your unfamiliarity with the subject, I apologize for anything that was repetitious. It is 1am here and I have to get up decently early. As such, I did not proof-read this to death. However, I hope some of this helped and I will return tomorrow with (hopefully) more lucid responses for you. Please reach out for any points of clarification or new questions. Finally, if that is you in the photo, your beard is completely bad-ass. I hope you haven't gotten rid of it.

Glad you appreciated it!

Three men are aboard a sailing ship: a deist, a statesman, and a libertarian. They are meandering around the Pacific searching for an uncharted island to stake claim over. They become trapped in a storm and shipwrecked. They quickly discover this is a blessing in disguise as the island is uncharted, and set about using their tools in an attempt to locate precious metal deposits to claim. Unfortunately, though uncharted, the island is not without inhabitants. The native people find the three travelers, tie them to stakes and inform them: "To imbue our boats with your wandering spirits, we are to kill you, skin you and use your skin to seal our boats." The foreigners are horrified and protest. The indigenous inhabitants finally declare: "Alright fine! We will give you the dignity of choosing how you die. Will that suit you?" Seeing no choice, the foreigners agree. The natives start with the deist. He requests they bring him a sword. They do so and he cries out: "FOR MY GOD!" before plunging the blade into his chest. He is promptly dragged off. The statesman requests a pistol. "FOR MY COUNTRY!" he screams before shooting himself. He is carried away as well. The libertarian scowls and says: "Bring me a fork." The natives search the wreckage of the ship for hours and finally locate a fork and bring it back. They untie the libertarian who saunters off the post, snatches the fork, and proceeds to stab himself all over his body. As the natives look on in shock and horror he says: "Try making a boat out of this you morons."

The job title would be either a CNA (Certified Nurse's Assistant) or a technician. The training isn't bad, research it online via the Red Cross and local hospitals, either one will be running courses from time to time, it will literally be a few weeks (three months tops). There is a lot of on the job training the form of experience, but most on the job actual training would be for optional specialties you would want to learn. For instance, phlebotomy (blood drawing) training or some such thing. I found my interactions with all kinds of people, the stories I heard and the ways in which I was able to help in the process of healing (albeit many times miniscle) to have been much more rewarding than anything else I have ever done. I was motivated by both a family history of working in medicine, and the fact that I graduated from college in '07 with an oh-so-useful History degree. The market collapsed, I was looking for work, blah, blah, blah; I think you get the rest. As I said, it is a great bridge job into other healthcare jobs or even a job outside of healthcare and probably would give you plenty of downtime to enjoy and better yourself. In my case, I did something entirely different and became and accountant, but I still miss the hospital. If this hasn't helped, or if you have further questions, do not hesitate to reach out. -Phil

No, as new as I am I have not watched any of his DRO model lectures. I will have to check them out this weekend. As for BoardGameGeek, I am familiar with the site and check it regularly for reviews, but do not have an account. May have to look into that.

I believe the only functions the state should serve are the administration of a justice system, and the administration (although not necessarily the equipping nor logistics) of a military. Most of it is just historical/tradition. It is what I am used to and hence what I am comfortable with. As a former historian, I found examples of limited government serving in this or a similar fashion which I found palatable. As for a more rational response, I think that all people deserve equal treatment for crimes and should be afforded the same protection of their property. For the military, democracy would offer the most level playing field for equal protection of assets, assuming such a force is not used for aggression. As for the justice system, democratically elected leaders who act as arbiters and do so professionally either without pay or through blind compensation interest me more than competitively selected judges. It isn't that te free market cannot or won't establish fair arbiters, I am just personally convinced that more frequently the aforementioned system would provide for equal justice. That being said, an actual scientific study of this would be interesting. I am typing this on my phone and finding it increasingly difficult, so perhaps I will expand on this later. But first, allow me to answer your second question: My favorite board game is either Dungeon Lords or Space Empires. However, I play dozens of board games, including: Gears of War, Ascending Empires, Shogun, Settlers (nearly all variants), Axis & Allies (again, nearly all variants), Mage Knight, Descent, Space Hulk, Betrayal at the House on the Hill, Battle Lore and Diplomacy. If you play any of those and want to discuss I would love to. Also, if you have any good suggestions for me I would be open to listening.

Obviously the marginally stabilized economy plays a factor in the catchup game to the 2007 figures, but I am genuinely curious to know what percentage of the gap-closing from the previous year was due to increases in capital gains. There is so much talk and (as far as I know) not a lot of figures out there about people selling off assets to avoid the increased taxes in 2013, particularly the excise taxes on stocks to fund the new healthcare regulations and ostensibly keep Medicare/Medicaid solvent.

Hello Everyone, I justjoined FDR yesterday, and am very excited to be a part of the community. Idiscovered Mr. Molyneux through YouTube while following videos of the economistDoug Casey. I am someone fascinated by economic theory and practice, but as aHistory major, I have a special place in my heart for the study of social and politicalinteractions and the wondrous or cataclysmic results that follow. After working in a pseudo blue collarjob for nearly three years, I went back to school for a Master's degree and nowwork in a professional environment. Not that I don't find watchingconsecutive Peter Schiff and Doug Casey videos endlessly informative and at timesamusing; but I was glad to discover someone focused on the philosophical sideof the libertarian debate. Mr. Molyneux's videos provided much needed brainfuel on a recent extended business trip. I am an admitted minarchist, a sin Iam neither proud nor ashamed of at this point in my personal evolution; I amsure members of this forum will help entrench or sway me from this position. To sumup this very brief introduction, my interests include: the study of economics,the nuances of history, libertarianism, precious metals trading, building computers,virtually any board game, and poker. The list is much longer, but even awell-punctuated sentence gives the appearance of a run on after four commas.This is a syntactical phenomenon the English language has yet to correct.Still, if you wish to discuss these or anything else, do not hesitate tocontact me! I am so excited to be here! Thanks everyone! Sincerely,Phil

Dear Alex...Stan? Alex/Stan? Ignoring the extremely important meta-physical questions you have raised and are being addressed on this thread, are you still looking for a job? If you still are, and lack a college degree, but want fulfillment (and are open to my two cents), my question is this: Does working in a hospital appeal at all to you? Think you could stomach it? I am a '07 grad who jumped into the job pool right as the economy was collapsing. I worked as a tech in a hospital for three years before going back to school for what I do now, in a completely different field. And yet, that was some of the most rewarding and meaningful work I was ever involved in. You can get your CNA license relatively cheaply and quickly. Hours, in my experience, were phenomenal; I worked three or four days a week for 12 hours and then had an extra day off. It gives you a lot of extra time for hobbies, soul-searching, or planning on going back to school if that is your eventual goal. -Phil