KallanDaMan

On the surface Trump looks like the candidate least likely to start WWIII, but protectionist trade barriers tend to strain relations.

Ron Paul did well in 2012 by standing on principle. I know many people who adored him who were not libertarians (and some are still not). But one could tell that he stood for his principles and never watered down his message for his audience. From what I've seen, people respond to that. Since Republicans will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions and Democrats will not positively respond to Libertarian policy positions, the only effective way to reach out, as I see it, is with principles. That's not to say don't talk about policy, but from what I've seen the Big L candidates talk about ONLY policy, and to outsiders, their positions make no sense. It just sounds like they took some Republican ideas and some Democrat ideas and mashed them together with a little bit of anti-government extremism.

I find this infuriating. The Libertarian Party thinks the NAP is irrelevant. That sort of thinking is the reason they will never win. People loved Ron Paul in the 2012 election because they felt he was principled. Most of his supporters weren't even libertarians. In my experience people generally think libertarianism is just a hodgepodge, and saying "We're liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues" doesn't help. It sounds like you shot darts at a board when you were drunk one night and arrived at that conclusion. Voters understand principles. They don't understand random assortments of policy positions. http://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-libertarian-party-nomination/the-top-three-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-agree-the-non-aggression-principle-is-irrelevant/#sthash.GU0OIdPN.dpbs It goes to show that those seeking office, even in the Libertarian Party, are completely unprincipled and really just want to enforce "their" ideas. The NAP is the core unifying principle for libertarians, and the Party is just hurting our image by disregarding it. They're never going to convince anybody with "my way works better". Is it moral, or is it not?

The first few times I heard Stef's voice it turned me off too. I think it's because Stefan is so self-confident and is not at all afraid to show it. It's strange and threatening to hear somebody who is right and who knows it.

If I compensate myself with a new TV from the corporate coffers, wouldn't I have to report the retail price of the TV as income, though?

I watched The Social Network today, so naturally the bit about diluting Eduardo Saverin's shares in Facebook down to almost nothing piqued my interest. So to any of you skilled in business here, care to answer a couple questions? 1) Say I own 60% of Corporation X with a charter topping off the maximum share count at 100,000 shares. But only 10,000 shares have been issued, distributed as follows: 6,000 Kallan; 4,000 Bob. What is stopping me, Kallan, from issuing 90,000 more shares and gifting them to myself (over time through options or in whatever way), thus diluting Bob's share from 40% to 4%? Is there anything other than my fiduciary responsibility to Bob that would stop me from doing that? 2) On a somewhat unrelated note: Say I am a 100% owner of Corporation Y. What stops me from directing Corporation Y (assume Corporation Y wholesales or retails items I personally desire) to buy an item that I want for a certain price, say $500, and then selling it to me at a loss for, say $200? In doing so I would reduce the tax burden of Corporation Y by lowering the profit of the corporation. Intentionally selling things at a loss is obviously illegal, but it seems it would be easy to hide such a scheme.

How many of you have seen this documentary "Child of Rage"? It's an incredibly sad and downright disturbing story of a young girl who was sexually abused at a very young age and suffered long-lasting emotional trauma. It goes to show that even trauma incurred before memories begin can have incredibly potent long-term effects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4

I think taking from the state exactly what is stolen from you would be perfectly within the bounds of morality. Any more and you are relieving a thief of other peoples' money (which does not belong to you either). If you were to calculate that the government has taken or will take $100,000 in total from you, keeping $100,000 in welfare benefits seems very legitimate. The remainder you cannot morally keep. If you were to donate it to charity it would almost certainly be better utilized than in the hands of the state (as the money cannot be reasonably returned to its rightful owners since you cannot know).

I'm not sure the answer to that question. Is it wrong to exploit the welfare system? In a sense, you are simply retrieving stolen money. You will probably pay the government more than you take from the government. I don't think the existence of the welfare state is dependent upon how many people draw on it, either. It will exist whether you exploit it or not. Walter Block makes the case that it's virtuous to take money from the state, because then the state has less money. I disagree with him here to a degree because the state doesn't run out of money. It will "create" what it doesn't have. I wouldn't attack you for exploiting the welfare system, but I am not 100% sure if I'd be morally comfortable doing the same thing. So I don't know.

I try to fight against it, but it's human nature, I think. We conform to those around us, because, from an evolutionary perspective, that's what's most likely to get our genes copied. I think it's impossible to behave exactly the same around every group.

Wait, is this article saying that President Bernie Sanders would increase the debt by $18 trillion in the next 10 years, or that he would increase the debt by $18 trillion more than it otherwise would have risen? (because, let's be honest: it's probably going to rise $18 trillion anyway) As a commenter above me stated, I'm sure $18 trillion is an underestimate in any case. 2x-3x is the benchmark for government estimates.

As commenters above have stated, while I definitely don't think staying home and playing video games is a productive use of time, for many college probably isn't either. It may even be worse than a waste of time; you can actually lose economic value by going into debt to pay for college. The insinuation here seems to be that men are going to end up as a whole being less economically valuable than women because they are discriminated against by colleges. Intuitively I wanted to say that probably isn't true because men do make measurably more in the workforce than women on average (when you DON'T account for factors such as time in the workforce, days off, level of education and work experience, etc.), but since we're talking about younger folks I looked up the stats for people younger than 25 in the workforce. Assumedly these are people fresh out of college, or out of college a year or two. http://www.financialsamurai.com/median-income-by-age-and-sex-in-america/ It shows the pay gap is small for this age group, but it is still favorable to men, suggesting that men on average have more economic value. So even if women are going to college more, this is not improving their economic value. But this only applies to people who are working, so I found this: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm Interestingly in the 16-24 age group, measurably more women work than men. So this definitely gives credence to the idea that men are less motivated.

I also love UPB shows. I must admit that while I definitely feel UPB is the most rational system of ethics I've ever heard, it hasn't fully "clicked" with me. It's a little bit late at night for me to place any faith in my own rational analysis here, but on a glance it seems that your argument would not be enforceable through violence. But could it be aesthetically preferable? Not sure. Been a while since I read the book!