Disqus - Latest Comments for WilliamFrantz

Re: PredictIt | Who will win the 2024 US presidential election? Archive 5

William Frantz — Fri, 01 Nov 2024 14:27:34 -0000

This time it will be over misallocated electoral college votes based on bad census data. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3504546-census-blunder-may-tip-2024-to-democrats/

Re: PredictIt | Who will win the 2024 US presidential election? Archive 5

William Frantz — Mon, 07 Oct 2024 04:27:13 -0000

"Fire in a theater" came from Schenck v. United States in 1919, which was later overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. In 1919 the court used that fire example to justify restricting protests against the draft! It was absurd then and now.

Re: Info Stack > Amazon disabled product images for associate shares

William Frantz — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:26:06 -0000

Unfortunately, if you "download the images and store them in the repository" then you are technically violating US copyright law since you do not have the right to redistribute images that are not yours. Even if you took a picture of the book cover using your own camera and posted that picture on your website, you'd still be redistributing a copyright protected image (the book cover) without the permission of the copyright holder. It doesn't matter how you made the copy.

Hot linking to the source image on the source servers is the only way to avoid the "right to redistribute" prohibition. This assumes the source (Amazon/Google/whoever) actually has permission to redistribute the image. Of course this might run afoul of somebody's Terms of Service and/or they might break the link at some point in the future (as Amazon just did).

Having said all that, you are unlikely to be sued by the copyright holder of the book for merely posting an image of the cover, but if they did decide to pursue it, you'd have little defense.

Re: Ep. 2344 Gene Epstein Wins the Ultimate Libertarian Debate

William Frantz — Wed, 07 Jun 2023 22:01:58 -0000

I don't think anyone claimed the market always punishes racism, merely that racist businesses on average will underperform the market.

Certainly there are localized examples of racist businesses that survive by appealing to racist customers. For example, some store is selling swastika flags to Nazis, but they are unlikely to dominate the flag market.

Re: Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem?

William Frantz — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:29:02 -0000

The question of whether or not taxation is "forced transfer of property" completely depends on the underlying question of ownership.

It costs $150/day to be in Disneyland but nobody is forced to enter Disneyland and nobody begrudges the park for collecting that money. It's not theft because the money is for the legitimate owners of the park. The lady in the booth taking your money isn't the owner. The big dudes who threaten to toss you out of the park for not paying aren't the owners either. They just work for the real owners (the shareholders of Disney Inc).

The same thing could be said of California or Canada. Nobody forced you to enter. Nobody forces you to stay. Don't begrudge the owners for charging money. The taxman collecting your money isn't the owner. He just works for the owners (the voters of Canada).

It's all about ownership. The collection of taxes is legitimate if, and only if, the voters are the legitimate owners of the jurisdiction. If you've been told, the owners get 10% of everything earned in their jurisdiction and you nonetheless voluntarily choose to earn a buck in their jurisdiction, then that's on you.

Eminent Domain is also legitimate if the voters are the legitimate owners. If you've been told that the owners get to reclaim real estate and you nonetheless voluntarily choose to purchase a deed in their jurisdiction, then that's on you.

The very existence of the state itself is legitimate if the voters are the legitimate owners.

Re: Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem?

William Frantz — Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:13:42 -0000

You are asking about legitimate ownership, not literal ownership, so I take it you agree that eminent domain is illegitimate if and only if the ownership is illegitimate. After all, debating the legitimacy of any particular activity is a red herring. The real debate is the underlying legitimacy of ownership. Everything hinges on that and I suspect that's unresolvable.

Nonetheless, I can answer your question, but the very fact that you ask it would seem to indicate that you believe the legitimacy of ownership debate can indeed reach a consensus. Otherwise, what difference would it make?
I'm just one opinion among many. My view is only relevant if you are on a grand crusade to not only unify everyone's opinion but to also uncover the legitimate owners and return their property. Is that actually what you hope to accomplish?

Does that seem realistic? Well, some people may agree with you; valueless land has no legitimate owner. Others may say that all space has potential value and therefore can have legitimate owners. Others may reject the premise; the concept of "ownership" is based on "control" not "value". Indeed, that seems to be the dictionary's definition.

Regardless, if you can't unify everyone's opinion about legitimate ownership then it's not going to change the literal ownership. You are whistling past the graveyard. Whether you or I like it or not, the public still owns the land collectively. That remains an observable fact.

As for my opinion of legitimacy, I think you make an unreasonable leap in logic jumping from "No more than a forest is owned by the animals that live in it" to "Hence there is no concept of prior ownership." That strikes me as a contradiction. You just said that the animals own their habitat. I would agree but I don't see how that leads to conclude the forest is therefore unowned. On the contrary, it therefore seems obvious to me that the forest, indeed the entire Earth, legitimately belongs to the animals (including the humans) who live there. It is their habitat. You say, "no more than" as if to trivialize the legitimacy of this ownership but I don't see it as trivial.

Re: Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem?

William Frantz — Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:03:35 -0000

Who owns the land? Well, there are three types of "ownership". There is "legitimate ownership" which is based on moral philosophy. It attempts to answer the question, "who should own the land?" Then there is "legal ownership" based on statutes and case law. In a just society, we try to make legal ownership align as closely as possible to legitimate ownership. However, these types of ownership are both a matter of opinion. Every philosopher and lawyer could have a different opinion. In fact for any particular property, there's no guarantee that a legitimate owner even exists.

Finally there is literal ownership, or simply "ownership". It exists even where lawyers and philosophers do not. Who actually controls the land? Who has dominion over it? Hopefully, it is the person(s) who are also the legitimate and legal owner(s) but often it is not. A legitimate owner might not exist. Nonetheless, the literal owner is an observable fact, not a debatable opinion. All we have to do is open our eyes and look to determine literal ownership.

For example in a democracy, the literal owners of all land are the voters, or "the public". They elect the government which makes the rules and administers the usage rights of all land. If the public wants to revoke land usage rights (eminent domain) for any reason, then the public will do it. Collectively, the public literally owns the land. This is an observable fact, not a matter of opinion. [The government itself, the politicians and bureaucrats, don't own anything. They serve at the pleasure of the public.]

Is the public's ownership legitimate? That depends on which philosopher you ask. A Georgist might say that all land legitimately belongs to all people. An anarcho-capitalist might say each parcel of land legitimately belongs to the first people(s) who homestead it. The point is, it's debatable and neither opinion is based on consequentialism. Each side claims objective, moral superiority.

Meanwhile, there's no question that the public can issue deeds, levy taxes, and exercise eminent domain. Obviously all those activities are happening. We can plainly see it. Therefore the public literally owns the land. That's an observable fact.

To argue that such activity is illegitimate is actually begging the question. The activity is illegitimate if and only if the ownership is illegitimate. Debating the legitimacy of the entire concept of eminent domain is therefore pointless without first settling the endless debate of legitimacy of ownership. Unfortunately, I suspect that's impossible.

TLDR: It's meaningful to debate specific details about how eminent domain is exercised, but debating the legitimacy of eminent domain itself is begging the question.

Re: Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem?

William Frantz — Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:54:58 -0000

Sure, everyone has the natural right to own property in general, but this particular lady did not purchase inviolable property rights to this particular piece of real estate. Therefore, she doesn't literally own that land. It turns out, those rights are not, and never have been, for sale. She can only purchase a deed (not the actual land) which gives her limited (not inviolable) rights to use that parcel in limited ways. That's what's for sale. Nothing more.

Those limitations include planes flying overhead, warranted searches by law enforcement, zoning restrictions, and eminent domain. There are many limitations. Her land always remains subject to the sovereignty of the city, state, and nation. She is not a foreign embassy. She knew that when she bought the deed.

Furthermore, those limitations are subject to change, which they did in 2005. She knew that too and she voluntarily agreed to those terms. I'm not saying those terms are "just" or "fair" but that's what they are, take it or leave it. If you don't like the terms, go buy some other piece of land outside of this jurisdiction. It's your choice.

Re: Eminent Domain: Are Holdouts Really a Problem?

William Frantz — Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:42:44 -0000

No, the old lady does not have inviolable property rights. She never purchased inviolable property rights. Those rights were never offered for sale. She only purchased limited property rights (assuming eminent domain was part of the law when she freely and voluntarily decided to purchase a deed). The only possible dispute is what amount constitutes "just compensation". There can be no possible dispute as to whether or not the taking itself is allowed. She already agreed to that when she bought the deed. Refusing now would be a breach of contract.

Re: "Corporate Social Responsibility" Only Strengthens Corporate Power over the Public

William Frantz — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:09:51 -0000

Well said, Mr. Weir.

Re: Night Witch Mirror Clone Deck (Free Crowns)

William Frantz — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 19:22:14 -0000

Wouldn't a defensive poison spell kill all the bats and all four witches? How long does a raged bat survive in poison?

Re: Retro Royale Challenge – Best Decks and Tips

William Frantz — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:37:16 -0000

Here's my 6-0 deck:
1. Balloon(5) - the primary win condition
2. Witch(5) - strongest defensive card, cuts down giant/golem/pekka from a safe distance
3. Baby Dragon(4) - use defensively against swarms
4. Valkyrie(4) - use defensively and then as a tank for counter push
5. Tombstone(3) - placed defensively in the center of your court
6. Knight(3) - tank for balloon
7. Archers(3) - support behind balloon
8. Goblin Barrel(3) - goes to work behind the tower while enemy is focused on Balloon
Avg Elixir: 3.75

Seems like a high-ish average but it doesn't play like it. Keep the Witch, Dragon and Valkyrie in reserve. Only play them to counter big pushes. Cycle between Balloon, Tombstone, Knight, Archers and Barrel. Usually the 3 elixer cards are sufficient for defense. If you do need to play the Witch, keep her behind the Knight, Valkyrie, Tombstone or your tower then put a Balloon in front of her at the bridge.

The best push is Knight - Balloon - Archers in that order and then toss a Barrel over the top. That's 15 elixir so it only comes up as a counter push. For example, use Knight+Archers to take down a Giant or Hog then add the Balloon and Barrel during your counter push. Between the Balloon and Barrel, you'll always get some hits on their tower. To initiate a push, use any two of the four like Knight+Barrel or Balloon+Archers or Knight+Balloon. Balloon has 1396 HP so it can tank for Archers or Barrel. Even if the balloon fails to reach the tower, the bomb damages the enemy's counter push.

The only bad opening hand is Witch, Dragon, Archers, Barrel. You could drop a solo Barrel to see what happens or you could split the Archers, but I like to open with a Tombstone in the center or start a Knight or Balloon in the back.

Re: PredictIt | Will any "faithless electors" fail to vote as pledged?

William Frantz — Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:55:08 -0000

During the primaries, Trump said "about 1000 miles" due to natural obstructions. Nobody expected a 2000 mile wall. We currently have over 700 miles of barriers and much more than 10 miles of wall is already in place.

Re: Poll: Public Opinion of Trump Improves; Voters Doubt He Will Build the Wall

William Frantz — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 20:18:50 -0000

What are the terms of the bet? We already have many miles of wall along the southern border. Just show him a picture and tell him you won. For example: https://goo.gl/maps/332Z8TF...

Re: Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) Technical Analysis: Get Ready For A Bullish Run

William Frantz — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:25:02 -0000

Back again, 10 months later and QCOM has bounced back to $67. You could have made a good return if you listened to my advice. Unfortunately, even I don't listen to my advice.

Re: What It's Like Teaching '1984' After Trump's Election - The Atlantic

William Frantz — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 20:14:38 -0000

Sounds like an excellent opportunity to show real-world examples like how the media adopted "undocumented worker" as newspeak for "illegal alien".

In fact, "liberal" itself is newspeak from 1933 which so completely inverted the actual definition of "liberal" that we now have to use the phrase "classical liberal" to mean the exact opposite. "Liberal" is perhaps the best (worst?) example of newspeak in history.

You should illustrate the danger of "thought police" demonizing political dissent and the mandatory "two minutes of hate" against "enemies of the Party". We have plenty of protesters right now "leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice" of the opposition party.

You might also point that under Big Brother, "firearms were impossible to procure" and ask students to explore why that might be.

Re: Who will win the Republican presidential nomination?

William Frantz — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:43:13 -0000

How did Romney mount an attack that actually made an impact? Candy Crowley wasn't there to kick him in the shin?

http://static6.businessinsi...

Re: Who will win the Republican presidential nomination?

William Frantz — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:47:26 -0000

One of the "glass half full" arguments for Trump is that it might rebalance power among the 3 branches.

Congress has abdicated too much power to executive run bureaucracies. Congress passes a "law" like "there shall be no bad things" and then The Bureau of No Bad Things writes reams of regulations that carry the full-force of law. Congress doesn't declare war or even "authorize the use of force" any more. The Commander in Chief just does what he wants.

SCOTUS has been equally feckless handing down decisions like, King v. Burwell: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

With Trump in the big chair, you can bet that Congress and SCOTUS will start re-asserting their power the way they are SUPPOSED to.

Re: Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) Technical Analysis: Get Ready For A Bullish Run

William Frantz — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:47:14 -0000

Well, here we are about 10 months later and QCOM has fallen to $45. Thanks for that bullish technical analysis. Those of you waiting for that surge to $73 have taken quite a haircut. James Brumley at InvestorPlace calls QCOM one of the worst 3 stocks available today.

It could go into the mid 30's, but I think it's near the floor now. I'd look at the fundamentals again and consider re-investing.

Re: WATCH: This Video Proves That Republicans Are Blaming The Wrong President For ISIS (VIDEO)

William Frantz — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:18:52 -0000

It seemed Ben Swann had plenty of blame to go around for both parties so I don't understand the headline. I also think he's picking nits with, "it was not inaction that created ISIS, it was the action of creating a power vacuum that created ISIS." Well, some of us believe that leaving a power vacuum is the definition of "inaction". Yes, we broke it, but then we walked away. Both were mistakes.

Re: Joe Scarborough Hypes Right Wing Medias False Claim That Clintons Server Was Kept In A Bathroom Closet

William Frantz — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:09:08 -0000

According to both the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, there was indeed classified information on Hillary's server AND it was not marked "classified". To me, that sounds like two mistakes rather than one excuse.

Re: Chuck Todd Corrects Donald Trumps False Immigration Claims On NBCs Meet The Press

William Frantz — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:55:50 -0000

Illegal immigration is not a big problem according to reports from NBC. In other news, the #1 television network in America is now Univision.

Re: Chuck Todd Corrects Donald Trumps False Immigration Claims On NBCs Meet The Press

William Frantz — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:22:29 -0000

It's disingenuous to cite statistics about "immigrants" to refute negatives about "illegal aliens". Once, Chuck used the term "illegal immigrant" but by definition, one cannot be both an immigrant and an illegal alien. Every other time, Chuck just talks about "immigrants". Fact: the crime rate among illegal aliens is 100% by definition. Fact: some illegal aliens commit violent crimes. Fact: while the number of illegal aliens dropped about 9% around 2008, the total number has increased by 19% from 2002-2012. Fact: while net (legal?) migration with Mexico might be zero, over 229,000 criminals were *caught* "flooding into the country" in 2014. Fact: if the catch rate is 84%, there are still over 500 criminals per day freely flooding into the country.

Trump: Do you think there is tremendous cost for the illegals that are in here now?

Todd: Of course there’s cost to it.

Trump: Ok, tremendous. Do you think there is tremendous crime being committed by illegals?

Todd: There’s definitely evidence that it’s happening. It’s heinous crime.

When Hillary is interviewed by Chuck, will he ask, "what will you do about the cost of illegal aliens and the heinous crimes they commit?"

Re: Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) Technical Analysis: Get Ready For A Bullish Run

William Frantz — Wed, 13 May 2015 01:45:28 -0000

Lots of technical analysis but no market analysis or legal analysis. How exactly will Qualcomm grow its business or maintain its profit margin? Will Apple buy the high margin Snapdragons? Is there any reason to expect iPhone market share to decline? As the total market plateaus and the iPhone share goes up, Qualcomm profits go down

Re: Win 1 of 5 Huawei TalkBand B2 fitness bands courtesy of Huawei Device USA and Talk Android [Updated With Winners]

William Frantz — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:03:27 -0000

I usually wear nothing, but sometimes I'll put on my old iPod Nano mounted on a wristband.