webdever

I'm sure you are already in several such databases, like credit scores, court records, social networks (especially if you freelance or earn money through any web service like uber that tracks reviews). You asked the same question about insurance companies, if they are cable of such great evil, why trust them? And you gave the answer that competition would keep them in line. If we have the same problem with databases, that their owners could be capable of great evil, shouldn't the same apply here? Competition and free markets will keep the database maintainers in line?

That is absolutely correct. You and many others are confusing several different concepts Milo was bringing up during that conversation (which admittedly were not well elucidated). Listen closer and read Milo's explanations.

No, he joked about his abuse as a child (molested between age 13-16), and spoke positively about his consentual relationship with an older man when he was past the age of consent (17). That is not the same thing.

No I am not an expert on blueberry science, and yet somehow I still manage to be able to pick berries and eat them. I bet I could even trade them for something. Why is it relevant that you spent 2 seconds on google to look this up? Yes, in a free market you follow the non-agression principle, trade freely with whomever as long as you do not use force or threaten the use of force. Your example doesn't prove anything, if someone is beating their spouse and the cops come and arrest them then yes, they have used force, but that use of force has removed violence from the situation, not created it. No economics is not a science. Value is subjective, their is nothing to measure or compare or run experiments on. I think maybe the issue is you are using a really broad definition of "Science", which makes the question of "which came first, science or the market" kind of meaningless.

The Romans had some fairly advanced technology that was relegated to circus tricks because they didn't have the incentives to put things like the steam engine to use. The free market is just what you get when you don't use force to restrict peoples actions. I see no requirement for the "Science" of knowing how to build a good spear to allow people to trade freely... you could just as easily trade blueberries. Do you need "Science" to pick a blueberry from a bush?

The argument-to-emotionally-charged-language ratio in this post is staggering. Do you have any examples of these libertarians you mention being dishonest, unethical, fear-mongers? any evidence of them being proven wrong over and over? As for public schools, do you have any arguments for why public schools are great for society or just more accusations and emotional language? Before you blame capitalism for depressions are you familiar with Austrian economics and business cycle theory? Or are you just complaining that we are ignorant of the important literature of the history of our country (which you have not named or explained what that has to do with the need for a state) while not making any effort to understand Libertarian arguments yourself?

I was there as well, I saw you come out after your wife got hit with the paint ball, glad you guys were alright. Great analysis and good advice you are giving. After most of the pro-Trump people had left the commotion died down a bit and we were actually able to have some decent conversations with some of the protesters. Most of the black-clad people were not interested in hearing any sort of opposing ideas, they came there specifically to shut down the event, silence the Milo fans, and start a riot. I think they were trying to provoke an escalation too. After the event they were posting on facebook how one of their own got shot and this shows how violent the "fascists" were, even though it was pretty clear to anyone who was there who the aggressors were. Seattle times is even making the claim that Milo fans yelled "White Power" to further the narrative.

The only reason people can even entertain the idea that we could have an RBE based around abundant resources is because we live in a more or less capitalist society. Capitalism can provide the illusion of abundance because the price system allows resources to be allocated extremely efficiently. You can walk into a store now and see such an abundance of goods and products that you may speculate about why there is so much food in front of you yet there are people elsewhere who are hungry, and maybe how you can redistribute those resources so everyone can have what they want, but the minute you try to do that you run into the calculation problem. The more you interfere and remove price signals, the more resources will be wasted or allocated inefficiently meaning they will amount to much less. Were we to actually try to implement a Resource Based Economy the reality of scarce resources would hit Peter Joseph right in his face.

Blog link is broken. I think maybe this is it? https://gafreeman.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/dakota-access-pipeline-a-sober-analysis/

It's very relevant. We only have video showing the aftermath of the events, and only have the reports of witnesses to determine what actually happened that led to the shooting. If the victim or witnesses have a history of bad behavior, acting aggressively towards cops, drug use, etc, and given that they ended up in the extremely rare case of being shot by a police officer, it makes their testimony much less believable and makes it much more likely that they threatened the police in some way which lead to their death. Also I don't think the anarcho-capitalist perspective that all cops are immoral is incompatible with believing that when it comes down to a policeman and a criminal trying to kill him the policeman has a right to his life, or recognizing that given that we do not live in a libertarian society some police action is not the initiation of force and does make the streets safer.

I'm not sure what your trying to say. Praxeology can only describe what happens based on people's preferences. It fully takes into account that preferences and abilities differ between human beings and populations. Of course two separate populations that are vastly different biologically will develop very differently. But praxeology can show that if both populations avoid the use of force the results of the development will be optimized to serving the preferences of each individual in those societies.

They're pulling data from here, which seems to show Syrian refugees registered in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey, and North Africa. But the claim is about migrants seeking asylum in Europe. Aren't they two different datasets?

I've found spartanlifecoach's channel on youtube to be very good and helpful.

It is a good video but I don't think he actually refutes the claim that the welfare state doesn't affect divorce, instead he tries to refute something which I don't think I've ever heard anybody argue, that "government largesse caused the increase in divorce", and shows a graph of total government spending as a percentage of the GDP. I don't really know what the actual data is here, but a quick google search pulled up this: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/what-is-driving-growth-in-government-spending/?_r=0 , which shows the rate of entitlement spending vs total government spending. I don't know why the author of the video chose to use statistics on "government largesse" and then try to make the case that cutting social spending won't affect divorce but it does seem misleading.

The question becomes irrelevant without government and "public property".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/europe/germany-cologne-new-year-assaults/ Apparently this sort of thing is just a misunderstanding..

Family Of Origin (FOO) work? or just Family Systems Therapy? IFS I think is more to do with examining multiple 'subpersonalities' inside your head, which are considered to be like a family and treated similar to how the Family Systems model treats an actual family.

The NAP is the primary principle used in determining whether violence or coercion is acceptable. Thats it, thats all it applies to. Nobody here believes the NAP is the only principle, or that everything will be solved by hammering away at the NAP, if you've noticed many people in this conversation recognize that "hammering about the NAP" has not been effective, much of the discussion is on better ways to achieve freedom. The most important principle, I think, is methodology. Believing in something which rational and empirical methodology proves to be completely false (the existence of a deity) requires you to reject that methodology. Since LaRouche's philosophy seems to revolve around that rejection (although I am confused about the idea that Aristotelianism doesn't allow for absolutism), I don't think there is much to discuss. Sounds typical of mysticism to me, big words and sentences that sound deep but mean nothing.

I ran into a LaRouche supporter on the street in 2008, she was telling me how FDR was the model president, and when I said something about how FDR put in motion half the stuff she was blaming on Bush she started screaming at me. LaRouche is pretty philosophical I guess, and has some views I can agree with, but from what I've read his philosophy seems bizarre and quasi-socialist, and all based around a rejection of reason and evidence. I'm not really sure what he has to offer ancaps.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/ ^ I highly recommend this course to anyone learning computer science, the full book is online at https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2727/fifty-shades-of-brave-living-life-as-a-slave-wednesday-call-in-show-june-18th-2014

Tom woods interviewed him yesterday on basic income. It is gaining a lot of traction right now (just read almost any reddit thread on /r/politics right now with any relation to economics), but I don't see how there can be much of a libertarian argument for it. As others in the comment thread on the article linked pointed out, it doesn't look like it will be cheaper than welfare, and the idea that the government will somehow be able to implement this one government program with very little overhead (as well as ditch all the existing programs) sounds like a fairy tale to me. And it will effect incentives. Even if it doesn't have a huge effect on the employment rate we know praxeologically that theft and redistribution must lead to inefficiencies. It must lead to some disincentive to work or disincentive to pay/receive higher wages. The information in the recent truth on immigration and welfare video showed that currently a lot of immigrants work and receive welfare, when you think of it like that welfare sort of becomes a subsidy to companies who employ cheap labor, and I'm sure you could find many other far-reaching consequences if you look into it.

Very interesting, thank you for the information! I still find the research a little bit conflicting. Although the Swedish study and the emotional intelligence study appear to show lower iq correlates with more binge drinking, the two british cohort studies seem to show the opposite (and the 1970 one does point to higher 'problem drinking', the 1958 cohort study mentions they measured both past use and problem use of illegal substances, but I don't think it shows any associations with problem use).

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(12)00170-6/abstract http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2011/10/28/jech-2011-200252.abstract You have it backwards, people with higher IQs are more likely to become addicted to substances. Becoming an addict doesn't take you out of the gene pool either..

What? of course they are getting food stamps voluntarily, nobody forced them to go the welfare office and apply for foodstamps and take the free snap cards. How can you possibly paint welfare recipients as 'unwilling consumers'.