IsaacGage860

You were not curious at all. That is a bunch of bullshit. You were pulling moral relativism trying to make me seem insane for questioning Cronyism. I never once said that Hillary would have been better. In fact I said exactly the opposite that she would have been just the same. You think because you donate a lot that you have some special kind of clout huh? Typical Corporatist. Well guess what bitch, I ain't backing down. I'm not scared of you. Let the public record speak for itself. It's a good thing I will be staying far far away from the corporate world thanks to you. I am not even mad just amused at this pathetic attempt to try and assassinate my character. What do you think will come of it honestly?

Where is your argument that it will happen? Hello? The burden of proof does not lie with me to prove that hyperinflation will occur. You are making an extraordinary claim that will affect the lives of millions of people. The onus is on you to prove that we will experience hyperinflation and that your philosophical prescription will be the most beneficial for the most people. This is such a classic Libertarian tactic. Claim that I have no knowledge of economics and that everything I am doing is rambling. How pathetic and boring..... Where is your proof that this is going to happen in the US? The government in Venezuela is a Crony Capitalist government and a protectionist one as well. Here is the definition of Crony Capitalism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism So it is the well connected, the 1%, that are stealing the wealth from everybody else to line their own pockets. If you are in support of the 1% maintaining their hegemony, then fuck you. You are anti-human and fundamentally immoral. The only confiscation of wealth would be from the guys at the top and it would be redistributed to everybody else. I don't see how this is a problem. These redistribution would only apply to the people who are making literally millions of dollars year in and year out. The reason the government has to spend a whole bunch of money is because all of the Cronies are lobbying to get the rules written in their favor. You seem to be just fine with this exploitation which is disgusting, absolutely disgusting. And if "big government" is a problem, then I would suspect the standard of living in most European countries to be sub par. Apart from the ongoing migrant crisis which is a problem caused by foreign intervention, Europe is doing pretty damn well and the citizens appreciate being taxed in order to guarantee certain goods that the market will not necessarily provide. This is Civics 101 although it is apparent to me that you have never bothered attending public school. How telling and unfortunate that you still believe in the fantasy that an unfettered market will be the most ideal. For example, the UK is ranked 10th in the world in economic freedom based on the most recent metrics. How unfortunate that facts contradict your ignorant arguments. http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedkingdom Because people like having certainty in the value of their money. Imagine what it would look like if in one part of the country you had one currency and if you wanted to go to another state you would have to start using the new currencies and figure out the transaction costs of currency conversion etc. etc. Fiat currencies make life much easier because people don't have to spend hours haggling and negotiating in competing currencies. Have you ever even questioned how this could go wrong? Or do you just assume the best case scenario and ignore or disparage anyone providing counter evidence? Can anyone on this thread even fathom the reasons for why fiat currencies are still used and valued by billions of people? Where is Ancapistan? Where is the evidence for a Libertarian Utopia IN THE REAL WORLD AND NOT IN THEORY? The burden of proof is on you to prove how this would work and then convince all of the "Statists." You have to have evidence of a completely unregulated and unfettered market economy in the world today, otherwise your theories are bullshit. Two words: Crony Capitalism

As for the emotionally charged language stuff, that doesn't actually invalidate my claims. Language used emotionally can lead people to do immoral and irrational things yes, but that is not a universal standard that applies in every single case. For example, people can get emotionally about wars and then link it to the Federal Reserve and the overprinting of money. Here my emotions are being used to get Libertarians on board with improving the system. You cannot simply throw it out because it is not something that suits you. Recently Stefan who has made the case for why Atheists suck used an approximation of this same reasoning. The analogy being that Atheists want to tear down everything that Christians hold dear. If you do not have an emotionally compelling reason or system to replace Christianity, why attack it so relentlessly? And yet somehow there are examples of socialist governments not currently in any declared war where lots of innocent blood has been shed. Here is a list of all of the current socialist governments, some of which are involved in wars and some of whom aren't. To claim that this is a characteristic that is endemic to socialist governments is a correlation/causation fallacy. Notable on the list of Socialist governments that are not at war are India, Ethiopia, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and some others. Not to be rude, but that shows a shocking ignorance of current world events and affairs. When you look at the facts, your theory of socialist governments constantly coming up with "problems" breaks down. How do governments create poverty for instance? The reason they have to spend money is to ameliorate the effects of Crony Capitalists who care only for monetary/financial profits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states I am arguing against using a different form of money or "competing currencies" one a national scale. The post you made about Donald Trump not being able to balance the budgets was great. I was connecting that to why a gold standard would not be feasible. It would end up being represented with some form of fiat currency because the transaction costs and also the possibility of theft are too high. If someone steals gold from you because it is scarce you either have to steal it back or steal it from someone else. If someone steals a dollar from you, because there is so many in circulation and because people have to use them to pay for things there is no big deal really. You just go to your local bank and request some more based on your savings account. Or you can also ask friends and relatives if it really came down to that.

Do you understand the implications of going back to a gold standard? Eventually the gold will come to be represented with claim checks because like its always said, government will just print the money. In the interest of the nation, people will not want to use a whole bunch of differing currencies. People like being able to plan and you can't do that if in one state you have one currency and then for a job you move to a different state and have to use a different currency. We have 300 million plus people in the country. Can you honestly imagine going back to a gold standard? And bitcoins too. What of them? Well if they are no sanctioned by the government who is going to trust their worth? Maybe a few communities here and there but most people are going to retain faith in the dollar until we experience a true hyperinflation. That has yet to happen so yeah its insults because these beliefs persist? What gives the money fiat currency its value? The fact that despite fear mongering, people still trust it. Hayek actually wrote that Welfare and social spending was not all that bad. Its on page 125 of The reason you have governments creating problems out of nothing is because of the fundamental nature of Capitalism; to capitalize. And what is the definition of capitalize? I urge you to look it up and think about how that can be interpreted by people without your moral values. Does it mean the same thing to everyone? No clearly it does not. And because it does not and the consequences are far too high, we maintain governments. Now can the governments become corrupted by people who want to use it for their own interests? I did not once say this could not happen. But to then say that we would be better of without government control is to assume everyone would get along. Its as ridiculous as the argument put forth by the those who want open borders. "Oh yeah just relax all the laws and allow absolutely anyone into the country, that will end beautifully." This is the same in principle. You take away every single rule and the bad people in the world take advantage. Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney, and Alex Jones. All have used fears of economic collapse to mislead the public.They do this through being clever marketers and by convincing people that they have something to be afraid of. Even though they have been proven wrong multiple times with macroeconomics and arguments to the contrary, this distrust in government persists. Now I can empathize with where this comes from. People feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the governments that rule over them and so they think everything should be overthrown. The problem being that values can change and that the political process is not something to be feared. Politicians can have spines we just have to demand it. This is a trend that is commonplace in Libertarian thought however. "The government is always the problem, debts are horrible, deficits are horrible, etc etc." Well if you scare enough people into believing these things how does their behavior change? Well now they listen to whatever you say and go out to buy gold and ammunition and stock up on things they do not really value or need and call everybody a "big government commie" or "Statist." Just like the people who over exaggerate about climate change, these individuals over exaggerate about the economy completely breaking down. The counter argument to complete Anarchy is writing by Thomas Hobbes where he explains the Social Contract. People are willing to cede some of their individual freedom to a monarch because the alternative would be to have society collapse. So when people use the term "Statist", not you in particular, what does that even mean? That I support having a strong moral government? Yes in fact, I do support that. And yet, with time a new national currency is introduced because it is in the best interest of everyone in society to not have these ridiculous disruptions and revolutions happening all the time. If I recall correctly Zimbabwe is still a sovereign, functioning nation. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make by saying it has experienced hyperinflation in the past? So what? And despite what every so called "economist" has said about the US and hyperinflation here, has it actually happened yet? No it hasn't. Despite all of the fears over the federal reserve printing money, we still have an economy. An economy and government that favors financial interests, but that can be ameliorated with moral arguments even if the federal reserve is what people make it out to be. There is no actual evidence that it is. And besides, governments have to spend more money than they take in. They are not the same as households. If you balance the budgets there is no money in circulation. Economics Junkie has a great blog detailing why governments have to spend more than they take in for anyone even interested in not continuing this Libertarian diatribe. Argument 1: Why do people trust fiat currencies even though they have no "intrinsic" value according to Libertarians?: Answer: Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. You might not but millions of transactions are carried out with it every single day. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will likely not lose its value wholesale. If for some reason Libertarians succeed in scaring the population into abandoning the dollar then a new national currency will just pop up to replace it. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. Argument 2 which is a reiteration of number one: Answer: People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does today in its highly structured, hierarchical manner? (Consider why the US hasn't collapsed despite fears over the Federal Reserve being propagated for years, if that is even something one is willing to consider) Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far installing Cronies into his cabinet. But that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms, customs, and systems we have developed over the millennia. What will Libertarians replace the current system with? Freedom? That is too vague an answer to convince anybody as should be obvious by now. Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results in terms of swinging anyone towards Libertarianism has it? Not accusing you or Stefan directly of doing this but for every other Libertarian who is still here who does. This is also a lesson in critical thinking. If the thoughts I am expressing do not line up with thoughts that you currently hold, then it does not apply to you or anyone you are affiliated with who has changed their minds on this subject either. From empirical evidence I have gathered from people on this forum, many many people still hold these views. You have to ask yourself, was I referring specifically to you specifically or to Libertarians in general? Argument 3: Why is gold archaic as a standard for the money that society as a whole uses? Well exactly the reason why Libertarians argue it is superior: because it is scarce. With a population of over 300 million, how do you imagine this will work on a national scale? Gold would have to be valued at a lot of money or there would have to be lots of other competing currencies. Because people like simplicity and knowing that they money they used has to be accepted by everyone else for debts, people can plan. With a whole bunch of competing currencies, one week it's this currency but then oh wait people's values change and the next week it's a whole other currency. And on and on and on this goes and people's trust eventually begins to wear thin. With government money people by law have to pay you in it and denominate the price for their goods and services it in because it makes people's lives easier. Libertarians seem to be opposed to making people's lives easier by arguing for "competing currencies." References to authors who have made similar arguments to mine: Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Hobbes actually inspired the founding fathers of America with his argument for the social contract and why governments form so I'd say that is also pretty relevant considering some Libertarians really love their Constitutions. I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you Michael or Stefan of clinging to these ideas. I have heard Stef's video why I was wrong about Libertarians and that was the basis of this posting. This was not an attempt to smear you or Stefan's name. And by the by, sometimes you gotta just be straight up with people. Having cookie cutter, perfectly crystalline arguments to present to Libertarians is never possible because no matter how many ways I try to counter their nonsense, I get the exact same responses over and over and over. I can recall Machiavelli famously writing that sometimes you have to be harsh in order to bolster people's confidence in your leadership. I get the feeling that in some small way Mad Dog Mattis was influenced by Machiavelli based on interpretations I have seen of him. I am sort of paraphrasing here but he pretty much sad "Whenever you are in a room with people, always have a plan to kill them with a knife." Or something to that effect.

This is a great posting. That's all I can say.

To all who support returning to a gold standard for our currency (Libertarians mostly) or who want the market to determine the currency everyone uses, I would put forward this argument for your consideration. Fiat currency is used as money because people still have faith in it. It does in fact have intrinsic value because it is legal tender. If you look a standard dollar bill it will say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Because it is required to be accepted by every business by law it will never lose its value. True there are fluctuations in the trust that people have in their currencies and sometimes there are crises but that does not mean the world is coming to an end. You have let people like Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and other conspiracy theorists trick you into wasting large amounts of money on gold as "protection" from "confiscation" of wealth. I find it interesting that this economic collapse has yet to materialize. Whenever these fear mongers and snake oil salesmen are proven wrong they merely revise their timelines outwards to scare people into doing even more irrational things like dropping everything and going to buy property and be socially isolated. Nothing against people who choose to not live in a city, but these fears of economic collapse are unfounded and you are intentionally misleading young and impressionable minds. Why is it exactly the economy has not completely collapsed though these people are absolutely convinced it will? Well I would say it hasn't happened because millions of people have a vested interest in not living in a complete Mad Max style war zone where tribal chieftains and warriors are the ruling class. People like to have certainty and structure otherwise why would civilization exist as it does toady? Yes there are obvious problems with society, in particular government as is obvious with a Trump presidency so far, but that does not mean we completely abandon the social norms and customs and systems we have developed over the millennia. Rather than seek to destroy the fabric that holds societies together, why not instead become active and persuade people with well reasoned and articulated arguments. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Statist" or "Commie" or "Fascist" hasn't lead to very desirable results has it? Unless you use gold for every transaction, this is irresponsible Libertarian scare mongering and propaganda. Gold is an archaic and regressive standard to try and return to. Just because it was valued by humans in the past does not mean it will be valued today. Values are subjective and are always changing apart from the most fundamental. There is no fixed state of mankind, no ideal that we can look at and replicate at any point in time nor should we try to. My advice would be to stop attempting to scare people about debt based fiat currency so that they will use your services. This is a dishonest and unethical business model and you will defraud misinformed individuals. For example, the mortgage that people sign to their house is a debt that you voluntarily agree to as a condition for owning a home. Each month you pay interest on a maturing principal until you eventually have it payed off. Libertarians need to calm the hell down with this economic collapse BS. If anything we may experience a depression or recession because, ironically, businessmen on Wall Street and in the financial sector are not always looking out for the interests of their clients. This is also why we have governments, to ensure that Capitalism is kept in check with regulations and a court system to punish offenders. I get the feeling that all of the people calling for public schools to be dismantled have never once taken a basic Civics class from the "indoctrination" camps. It's no wonder America is last in education around the world, people hate public schools, are tragically ill informed, and favor private Christian schools where they are never taught our country's founding. I wonder if there is any connection between a misanthropic attitude towards public schools and ignorance on the history of our country? In conclusion, I would urge any Libertarians out there to seriously critically analyze the ramifications and reasoning behind the positions that you take. I can already see the response to this essay so I imagine most of you will not listen, but for those who do read authors like Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc. and think about what all of these men have in common. Thank you for reading.

"It just exemplifies how the Left believes they have the moral high ground without having to prove anything. They just assume public schools are a good thing, "for-profit" = EVIL, and so on. They mention how Michigan has adopted this model, and just say 80% of charter schools are run by private companies...well, how are the kids in those schools doing compared to kids in the average public school? How does spending compare to public schools? A rigorous analysis would ask these kinds of questions, not just assume religion and profit BAD; public GOOD." This is a direct quote from your first response. Just because it works well in one town in one community does not mean you abandon public schools wholesale. This seems to be the policy prescription of many Conservatives. I support school choice as well, but if more parents decide to send their children to public schools in each different cities across America then Conservatives have to accept that. Liberals also have to accept that some parents want to send their children to private schools which is fine as well. Since you seem to keep mischaracterizing my opposition allow me to explain it more thoroughly. Liberals oppose the policy of "school choice" because it is looking like Mrs. Devos is going to direct our tax dollars away from from public schools that most want to send their children to and redirect them to private schools that only a minority of people want to send their children to. Based on her campaign contribution history and her own personal beliefs it is looking like this is what she is planning to use her clout to do. I hope that rational and brave people like Lisa Murkowski abandon towing the partisan Conservative party line and oppose disproportionate redirecting of funds from public schools to private schools. If people better understood the potentially deleterious nature of exclusively for profit ventures they would understand why so many are opposed to this. Try sending your kids to a private school and wait until the bill shows up. If you are willing to pay that tuition than you shouldn't be stopped from doing so. But if Donald Trump gets the government out of education, there will be no subsidies coming from the federal government which help to fund these schools. If that is what you want then by all means advocate for it but you will be paying for all of it through donations. What do you do for the students from lower income households? Not everyone has thousands upon thousands of dollars to spend sending their kids to a private school.

For everyone wondering who past education secretaries were here is a list of them and their histories. All on the list attended public universities and graduated with degrees in political science or some other discipline and understand the importance of public education especially higher education. I wonder why that is. Could it be that public education is not actually useless? Food for thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauro_Cavazos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Paige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Spellings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Duncan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_King_Jr. A lot of the people here are saying that public education is useless and should be done away with. If you look at the genreal reaction to my original post this becomes abundantly obvious. What I am saying is that dismantling public education in favor of private education is not the appropriate course of action. Lots of people in America worship Ronald Reagan and I mean like worship to the point that they do not consider his flaws. Reagan famously said government is the problem and not the solution. Many people from that era are still alive today and that is whats fueling this animus against public education. I do not subscribe to this ideology and I am dismayed that so many are willing to have corruption and Cronyism in government simply because it is not "evil" Obama in charge anymore. I am not arguing that private schools are exclusively bad here. What I am saying is that favoring schools run exclusively for profit is not the best and most ideal solution. Everyone should be represented fairly and yes parents should have the choice in where their children go to school. But to say that public education and schools are "indoctrination" camps is such a ridiculous exaggeration that I can do nothing but laugh at people with this position. Is religion not indoctrination as well? Do your morals represent the absolute best standard for everyone to follow. Also the idea that radical Islam is being taught in schools is ridiculous conspiracy theory level propaganda. Last I checked, terrorism was an idea that the majority of people find abhorrent. I suppose it it everyone's prerogative to think what they want but upon more critical examination, most of these ideas are unfounded and outlandish.

How is education funded by taxpayers indoctrination? Is learning to be an empathetic person without believing in the perfection of the free market really so bad? I would argue not. Another board member Nima actually made a video explaining why government deficits and debt are not what most Libertarians make them out to be. A government has to tax its citizens because taxes provide the funding necessary for the military and for other public goods like education, healthcare, goods that if left to the private sector entirely would likely go unsatisfied based on a sound rule of law. The unwillingness of Anarchists/Voluntaryists to even consider why government is in fact necessary is one reason why Anarchism is never taken seriously by most everybody in society. A rigorous analysis would also not assume that just because profits are involved that does not necessarily mean things will improve for the better across the board. Different areas have different levels of success. This demonizing of so called "horrendous public education" is such intellectual laziness. Just because one person does not have the best experience with a public school does that always put the teacher at fault? Assuming that ignores so many factors that are relevant to the question. For example, what is the home life like? Are the parents actively involved in their child's education? Do the parents even care? There is a reason Mrs. DeVos was opposed so heavily by people who consider themselves more Liberal. "Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations. As 2008 and 1929 show us, equating being a business person with morality is a correlation/causation fallacy. Yes this is bad because public education is not as deleterious as Ancaps and Voluntarists always assume. Do you even understand the nuances of the public education system or are you assuming that because you may have had a bad experience that the whole thing should be torn down? This mindset involves no rigorous or rational thought process. Public education is where people go to learn to be engineers and physicists and economists, etc. Private schools can certainly offer this but the majority of them are Christian and teach only religion. A healthy combination of the two is the most optimal. Completely destroying public education and replacing it with a theocracy and "self sufficiency" is not what is in the best interests of society as a whole. Being completely self-reliant means that you make everything yourself and get no help or hear the perspective from anyone outside of your community. This is not strictly a bad thing but can easily give rise to the attitude that everything that is not Christian or self-reliant is negative and should be opposed at all costs. I empathize but do not agree with this assessment of morality and "hard work."

Compared to someone who will represent the public rather than there own interests. Everyone that is saying government is ALWAYS the problem are unfortunately misinformed. This is also not necessarily true. The question is not whthere we have a government or the free market. The question is to what degree should the government step in to make up for market failures as the free market is not a perfect entity. This is exactly the problem. Treating everything as strictly a business. My account wasn't hacked I have simply updated my perspective based on talking with people who are only concerned with making profits. I have taken accounting course and are currently enrolled in an ethics class. The market is not perfect and there are people who do not share your moral code. Fraud is always an issue and unethical business practices are abound for the type of attitude that you have. Often there is much more to life than simply getting profits. Wall Street is a perfect example of people who only want to have money. But that's the thing, government is not always the problem as Anacaps think that it is. What you are advocating for is Utopia where the market operates perfectly and when there are mistakes private charity will pick up the slack. To imagine the world in this way paints a very idealistic and theoretically compelling argument, but it is simply not how the real world works. A completely unregulated market could very well prove to be a complete disaster and those are concerns that Ancaps do not recognize nor even care for. For having such an adherence to the NAP, it is surprising to me that one would actually believe that a completely privatized market would be the most ideal.

So Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary today. Despite her non existent experience with public schooling and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, she is confirmed with the deciding vote being cast by Mike Pence. What a bunch of hypocrites all of the Trump supporters were to support this "pro choice" candidate. Pro choice in what way exactly? Pro choice to redirect disproportionate sums of federal dollars away from public schools and toward private schools? This mindset ignores the plight of special needs children with parents who very well may not be able to afford private schooling because private schools are focused exclusively on profits. Equating making lots of money with morality is a correlation/causation fallacy. Drain the swamp? Remember all of you who supported DeVos because she wanted to dismantle public schools will be held accountable for the shitshow we are about to experience. Here is a link to an article detailing Mrs. school choice and her history of contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. Notice that her "choice" is slanted decidedly towards private schools. Now that she is a public servant, will this bias constitute a conflict of interest? I already know the response I am going to get to this. "Oh you are just some bleeding heart Liberal who supports the indoctrination of our children!" Honestly this is most boring and predictable response that I can imagine. Think whatever you want I have no control over that. My opinion, based on discussions and exploration into ideas other than Conservatism has brought me to this conclusion. The idea that public education should be dismantled wholesale because it is "evil" is such a silly notion. If at any point you have ever been to a public school, you have benefited in some way from teachers there. Does this mean public school is the best fit for every student. No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that public education is not as pernicious as Conservatives and Libertarians want to make it out to be. I can only assume that most people who think this have not been to a public school where the students are succeeding in their endeavors. All I can say is that Conservatives need to learn how to be more open minded and consider alternatives to their ideal system. To be honest, this Trump presidency is not shaping up to be the type of swamp draining where corruption and favoritism in government is reduced or even eliminated. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/breaking-senate-confirmed-betsy-devos-our-nations-education-chief

I certainly agree with Goldenages, the rational response is to either fortify your sanctuary where you are or if you are single and haven't put down many roots get as far away from these cesspools as possible. There is a wide open America out there with plenty of communities of people who do not tolerate any of this nonsense. If you can handle the winters, I would suggest coming to Alaska. You don't even have to live in Fairbanks because the State is so huge. You could live in Valdez, or Homer, or Seward, or even Anchorage. Not to mention all of the other smaller towns peppered all across the State, so many that I couldn't name them all here. The point is, people have options available to them. Vote with your wallet and feet.

These are good articles that give meaningful insight into the political and social current events of Europe. For example, I knew figured Hollande was pretty unpopular but I had no idea it was that bad. Marine Le Penn is looking better and better. If Hollande or Merkel end up keeping their positions of power based off of everything that has happened you can color me flabbergasted and appalled.

Thank you, I hadn't really considered that angle about Kant initially either. All apart of the learning process I suppose.

Currently I am enrolled in a Business Ethics course while pursuing my Bachelors Of Business Administration. I must say, Stefan and Michael's podcasts have been invaluable references for me to call on while completing the course work. I just finished the chapter on Normative Theory of Ethics which featured a critique of Adam Smith that I had not initially considered and also had Immanuel Kant with the concepts that he coined such as "categorical imperative" and "universal acceptability" which reminded me an awful lot of Stefan's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof Of Secular ethics. I love Western philosophy so much. #TheWestIsTheBest No if you will excuse me I am going to go pull an all nighter reading Atlas Shrugged.