Tyler H
-
Posts
743 -
Joined
-
Days Won
14
Everything posted by Tyler H
-
In fact, isn't this the essence of trade?
-
Do you think they knew the future prior to those inventions? I doubt it. I don't doubt there were people "arguing" the same stance you're taking now.
-
So kidnapping someone for possessing a plant is not a problem? Kidnapping for lying, conducting business without paying off the thugs, creating your own currency, using an unapproved currency, trading the wrong things with the wrong people, moving an animal from one area to another, paying for sex (unless it's on camera), etc, etc, etc.... not a problem? The idea and concept of a police force that responds after a crime has been committed, profits from the existence and not the extinction of crime, and isn't bound in any way to actually protect you (Warren v. District of Columba) is a good one? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant....
-
It could be that was the intention. Propaganda is what people respond to because propaganda is what they are taught.
- 6 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- hillary clinton
- bill clinton
- (and 3 more)
-
They will inevitably be violating the NAP. If you want the good without the bad there are other options. Check out this podcast from the Tom Woods show with Dale Brown, a threat management specialist. Google some of the other options and present them to your friend - you may even think of something new yourself and create an amazing entrepreneurial opportunity.
-
Which laws violate the Constitution?
Tyler H replied to AncapFTW's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Psh, it's as if they have like, no standards. (valley girl accent) lol -
Just watched this today. Here's my reaction.
-
Lol, Milton god damned Friedman.
-
This guy looks like a great role model for young boys, I'm glad this video has a million views. As an aside, I hate the fact that it has to be said that they'll face struggles as black men. It reminds me of the Morgan Freeman interview with Mike Wallace. -Edited to show videos in post-
-
Which laws violate the Constitution?
Tyler H replied to AncapFTW's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Yeah they use that commerce clause to justify pretty much whatever they want. -
Wow! Glad you made it out friend!
-
Good question. It may very well be just my opinion. If it is freedom from coercion we are talking about then the way I see it is that any amount of coercion transfers you from a state of freedom to a state of subjugation. Depending on how the master treats you while you are under his control would be the varying degrees of subjugation and with the degrees come preferences. So like there is no degree of death but degrees of health with preferences, there is no degree of freedom but degrees of subjugation with preferences; however, I concede that the term freedom isn't as well defined as the term death so it's certainly not an airtight case. What do you think?
-
I suppose it's reliant on the definition. I agree with much of what you said of course, I was just clarifying my position.
-
You are either not being punished or are in some degree of punishment. These statements do not exclude a preference toward the degrees inside that spectrum. I was under the understanding we were talking about freedom from coercion.
-
You are either free or in some degree of slavery. You are either dead or in some degree of health. There are no degrees of death and there are no degrees of freedom.
-
Right, I'm not so much concerned with the decisions people make in the absence of coercion as I am in the absence of coercion itself. Other than the moral argument, coercion in an economy incurs added expenses that are a net negative to society as a whole.
-
Nothing. He's conflating degrees of slavery with degrees of freedom. There are no degrees of freedom, only degrees to which we are not free.
-
I would say you can't know that with any reasonable amount of certainty in order to justify self defense, especially a "self defense" that will undoubtedly cause the death of innocent children. Now I think you could argue that no matter what you do the same murders and crimes will most likely still be committed, but like I said why take any part whatsoever? Why be at all responsible for giving criminals power? Are we tabling the topic of how taxes are different than voting?
-
I really connected with your experience, thank you for sharing and I am so, sooo sorry. My deepest sympathies.
-
Wow, is that really Michael Moore? What happened?
-
To be fair, he didn't say "totally". With taxes there is far less choice, and far more knowledge of the consequences, than there is with voting. Should this not be taken into account when determining the justification for self defense?
-
-
Yeah on that zeitgeist movie there were a couple of ex-IRS agents who after finding out there wasn't actually a valid law to uphold the income tax quit and stopped paying - not sure how feasible that is if it's true. Do some googling you'll find some stuff, but keep in mind they don't give a shit and will still throw you in prison.
-
The Mises Institute is a wonderful resource for information regarding the Austrian school of economics. They run courses every summer (today's the last day this year) in Auburn, Alabama. Aside from that they run online courses and have tons of free content. Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Robert Higgs - these are all great Austrian economic minds involved with the institute today. Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt - these guys laid the groundwork. Bastiat is one of my favorites to read. That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen is a fantastic essay. It is likely that you were taught Keynesian economics since that is the school that is widely taught today; probably because it supports government control over the economy. Ironically enough by today's standards John Maynard Keynes isn't even a "Keynesian". They have manipulated his ideas to suit their agenda. Henry Hazlitt wrote a line by line refutation of Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money called The Failure of the New Economics. The negative aspect of tariffs is the cost of enforcement, so not only are you paying more for a product that could be made more efficiently somewhere else, you are paying (in taxes, currency inflation, or debt) for the enforcement of the law - all of the people involved in making sure no one is bypassing the tariffs. The result is an unseen loss in misallocated resources that could have been more productively put to use in some other fashion. Also the country where these goods are being made will most likely institute tariffs of their own negating any positive result at here at home and doubling the damage to capital on a global scale. Here's an article on tariffs from the Foundation for Economic Education you may find useful, another great source.
