jughead

^ So well said RoseCodex.

I don't think anyone here would suggest that you can't make extraordinary claims, with or without evidence. I don't think the NAP is at issue here. My view is that belief in extraordinary claims in the absence of evidence, or contrary to reason and evidence, may not violate the NAP but it says a lot about the person who holds these beliefs. In assessing people with limited time and information, as we all must do on a daily basis, such irrational belief is a significant piece of information that can't be denied.

I've heard it suggested somewhere that voting can be a form of self defense. Putting aside for the moment the statistical reality that a single vote doesn't affect the outcome, I have some sympathy for this point of view, insofar as the candidate who promises to take less of my wealth, or the slave master who promises to beat me less, can have a real tangible impact on the quality of my life. I don't imagine of course that voting can ever change the fundamental nature of society or bring about true freedom.

I accept the idea that if one starts with the assumption that human beings are inherently aggressive and uncooperative, that having a strong centralized force such as a government could theoretically result in a more peaceful, ordered society. Variations of this type of claim are frequently advanced by statists. However none of this is guaranteed, even if we accept the initial premise, which I do not, and ultimately it is an argument from effect, not from morality.

The "deflation" you are describing is not a monetary phenomenon, it is a result of productivity increases. In theory this could also occur with fiat money if the central bank maintained a constant money supply. Under this scenario I don't believe that debtors would suffer as you have described, but if they did then the capital markets would find a way to deal with it, much like how in an inflationary environment lenders require a higher interest rate to compensate for the decline in value of the currency.

My own experience is that the young are much more likely to support socialist parties and policies. I myself would have considered myself to be a socialist in my early teens before i understood economics, philosophy and ethics. My theory is that the young are often net beneficiaries of government services, due to most not earning significant wages to pay taxes, and often attending subsizied colleges/universities, so there is a self-interest component at play. I also believe it is partly due to the lifelong barrage of pro-statist (socialist) propaganda they have endured, which usually takes several years at least of critical thinking, education and discovery to overcome.

My thinking is that this article will change nothing. There are enough shallow sensation and melodrama seekers out there to keep the Kardashians in the green for a long time.

@Kaz I read your post three times and still have no idea what you are trying to say. The important aspect of this is that minimum wage laws of all kinds are incompatible with the principles of freedom of association, private property and self-ownership. The effects of such laws are invariably harmful but this is of secondary importance.

As you are most likely aware, this is a community made up of mostly anarcho-capitalists. As such, the whole concept of trade deals negotiated between governments is anathema. One can certainly discuss the pros and cons to each party of a particular agreement, but conceptually we are against all forms of state violence, including those that restrict trade between individuals, regardless of geography. In general, free trade benefits all parties, particularly consumers, but special interests (usually producer groups) can and do benefit from trade restrictions such as import tariffs.

The same way that the market provides affordable food and clothing. The technical aspects of their solution aren't important and aren't for us to speculate on. The role of freedom and the desire of men to maximize their outcomes are sufficient.

I don't agree with your analysis of the effects of a free trade nation vs a protectionist nation. Milton Friedman, while he certainly had his faults, said it best:

I myself don't feel it is immoral in and of itself for the reasons you mentioned. Some libertarians (including Stefan I believe) have even suggested that the sooner the government becomes insolvent the better since real change will never happen through normal political channels. Thus by taking benefits you may actually be hastening the demise of the immoral system. Where I would have a problem is if it leads to you becoming dependent on handouts or corrupting your views or developing a sense of entitlement.

I think anybody who is paying attention and has some knowledge of economics is predicting another crash. The million dollar question of course is when and how severe. The amount of monetary expansion the US has engaged in for the last 10-15 years should have resulted in massive price inflation, however most of this seems to have been taken up in asset prices rather than consumer prices, hence the stock market and real estate bubbles. Another factor that seems to be delaying the inevitable currency crisis is the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, which means any potential inflation is spread around the world and the full effect on the domestic market is greatly reduced. Fortunately for me I bought my house right before the market started surging. My advice to anyone considering buying at the moment is to make sure you can afford the payments, and also make sure you can afford the higher payments if interest rates come back to rational levels. Beyond that, nobody can time the market so don't even go there.

Thanks for that, it's a good case to the economically unsophisticated. Btw isn't Scottish libertarian a contradiction in terms?

Economic Left/Right: 5.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56