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

Fellow Canadian here. I doubt I'll ever vote again. I used to vote conservative, even so far as being a card carrying member at one time, on the rationale that they were the lesser of the evils available, for the reasons stated by others in this thread. I no longer see it this way. Even if it were true that they were the lesser evil (which is very much debatable) the likelihood that my one vote will have any impact on the outcome of the election is practically zero, while the act of voting itself lends legitimacy to and implicit approval of the state. Even the libertarian party itself does not have a truly principled position on things like taxation and government spending, they just feel that the current levels are higher than what they would prefer. So long story short, any imagined/possible benefit from voting for the least evil candidate is more than offset by the harm of providing sanction to the evil of the state.

The op's concern is that in a stateless society there may be insufficient charity to adequately support the poor. Leaving aside the difficulties mentioned in this thread as to defining the poor and what is adequate, the point of Molyneux's argument is that if the op's concern is valid, then we must conclude that current state based poverty programs are in excess of what the population feels is appropriate, and thus democracy is a sham. Is it ethical to force people to find these programs against their will just because the ruling class decides it should be so? This is the argument for a benevolent dictatorship based on paternalism and is not compatible with western liberal ideas usually trotted out to justify state action.

Individuals can choose to pay too much for goods and services as they see fit to satisfy whatever ends they have in mind such as supporting companies that espouse values that they share or local businesses. "Communities" are merely aggregations of individuals thus it is meaningless to ascribe properties such as goals and desires to them.

Even if it could be shown empirically that protecting infant industries can sometimes lead to growth and development, it is too much open to abuse. Every industry in existence will make the argument that they are deserving of protection. Politicians will have another goodie to dole out to their friends and supporters. And not least importantly, restricting the ability of consumers and businesses to purchase goods and services from any supplier from anywhere in the world can never be justified on ethical grounds.

This is what I love about this board. Where else can you find these kind of high level discussions about such arcane topics. For my part, I've never understood Marxist ideas, they always seem like gobbledygook to me. I think the fundamental issue is property. Marxist and socialists seem to make a distinction between personal property and things like land, resources etc. I've always felt this distinction to be arbitrary or ad hoc so that Marxists can avoid the absurdity of having to share clothing and toothbrushes with their comrades. Whereas ancaps derive all of our principles including property from the NAP.

I want to make my own position clear. I'm not a creationist and have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I simply have always had doubts about the theory of evolution and have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation. That certainly doesn't imply that the theory is incorrect as I readily acknowledge that I'm not a scientist, let alone a biologist. What I see in this discussion from many of you (though not all) is the same dogmatism that religious people are rightly accused of, very similar to the climate change debate. I truly doubt that most of you really understand the theory of evolution but because scientists say it's true then you're ready to act as if it's completely certain and that anyone who disagrees is a fool. I would suggest a little more humility may be in order if all you have at your disposal are appeals to authority.

Agreed, and I'm certainly not arguing that. I just find the mechanism for evolution as currently understood to be unsatisfactory. My understanding is that the eye could not have evolved in a nice simple "straight line" of improvement, that many of the supporting structures such as blood supply etc. would have to be in place before the beneficial parts, which does not support the natural selection hypothesis.

I'm not aware of any evidence in favour of biblical creation as such, but i have heard some compelling arguments against Darwinian evolution. Following are what I've found to be the strongest: Fossil record - evolution based on small changes over a long period of time should result in a fossil record showing smooth transitions between species. Instead what we see are fully formed species appearing suddenly on the scene without transitional types. No evidence for "favourable" mutations - Nobody argues against the idea that natural selection will cause those traits that are best suited to the current environment to flourish and multiply through a population, such as the example of the pepper moth, but that doesn't explain how those traits emerged in the first place. Mutations are invariably harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Complexity - It is hard to imagine how something as complex and specialized as the human eye to have evolved from entirely random processes, regardless of how much time you allow, especially given that some of the intermediary stages would likely not have provided the organism any immediate benefits on which natural selection could be applied. These are some of the reasons I've always had trouble accepting Darwinian evolution as the cause of biodiversity. I would like to point out that I am no biologist so I welcome to any corrections that the learned FDR community can provide.

All absolutes are bad. One should try to avoid equivocation where possible, but this depends on the circumstances.

Furthermore, doctors in the public health care system have either explicitly or implicitly conceded that violence is appropriate, so to then object to discrimination on the grounds of morality strains credulity. If they accept the concept of socialism in practice then they have no moral or logical basis to object to any of the rules imposed by the authorities.