Disqus - Latest Comments for gil

Re: Earnings Kickoff

gil — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:40:00 -0000

I am planning to put on a reverse calendar spread on AA near the close to take advantage of the earnings announcement. I go into details at http://TradeNakedOptions.com

Re: Success as Pollution: Layard Meets Coase

gil — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:38:55 -0000

Will,

Do you think that all people can change their concern for their relative position?

If so, do you think it's easy?

It appears to me to be a pretty fundamental thing to many people.

Re: Success as Pollution: Layard Meets Coase

gil — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:56:01 -0000

Well, I'm pretty sure that it's quite difficult. But, I don't really buy the argument that these income redistributions are really a serious attempt to maximize happiness, anyway.

As Will points out, studies don't seem to support that the happiness of the poor is greatly affected by changes in inequality.

The thing that's driving this is the leftist distate for inequality. Not their own low status, personally, but inequality in general.

They seem to care about this much more than about the absolute welfare of the people they talk about helping. Even if they seem to understand that if everybody is getting better off, we should expect the spread between the top and bottom to increase; they keep coming back to describing this as a terrible problem, and are willing to make everyone worse off to "solve" it.

I don't know if this is a fundmental moral precept that they picked up as small children, or if it runs even deeper than that; but many people I've tried to reason with just can't get past the possibility of inequality of results.

Re: Success as Pollution: Layard Meets Coase

gil — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:42:02 -0000

Monkeyboy,

None that you can see?

You can't see a fairness-related difference between spending money that people have voluntary paid or invested because they judged that they were getting a good deal, vs. people spending money that has been taken under threat force and without consent?

Call it "fairness" if you prefer that to "distaste for inequality", but either way, your conception of these things is very different from mine. I think inequality of results is completely consistent with fairness; I'd be shocked if the fair outcome was otherwise. I think the concepts of fairness and equality of results have been confused by a large number of people (you included).

I think it's "unfair" to people like me who are willing to leave people like you alone to the greatest extent feasible, that people like you aren't willing to extend us the same courtesy.

Re: Success as Pollution: Layard Meets Coase

gil — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:24:29 -0000

I think there's as much a thing as fairness as there ever has been. Some people will always choose to ignore it.

It's interesting that you first justified redistribution as serving fairness, and now you say there's no such thing anymore. I suspect you realize that the initial excuse was BS.

Many CEOs today are doing what they think is in the best interest of their shareholders. Some aren't, and some of these are getting fired, and others are going to jail.

Society has always been a place where some choose to take what they can steal while others choose not to.

If this society does become one where nobody chooses to be what you call a sucker, I think you'll find that it will shortly become much less pleasant for just about everyone.

I guess I'd rather be a sucker than a clever rat on a sinking ship.

Re: Success as Pollution: Layard Meets Coase

gil — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:44:32 -0000

I have to feed my family. Why do I still have the option of respecting other people's property?

The system is pretty fair, although not perfect. The policies you advocate make it less so. Using imperfection as an excuse to go still further doesn't seem...um...fair.

I'm not sure you're right about median income falling, or what you think Bush has to do with it, or why you should care about CEO pay.

I agree that much government spending is wasted. That's one reason why I'd like to reduce such spending rather than increase it as you seem to want to do.

I don't think popularity contests are a good way to measure philosophical merit, and I would suggest that anyone who still thinks taking Marx's advice is a good idea is tragically mistaken.

All kidding aside, it really seems like you have an interest in hurting people who are successful. Do you honestly think this will help the less successful in the long run, or do you see hurting the successful as something that's valuable for its own sake?

Re: Status Competition & the Political Class

gil — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:21:35 -0000

Bill,

It's true that people with few assets are often faced with difficult choices.

It seems to me that the best way to improve this is to unleash people's creativity to create wealth and more opportunities for themselves and others, so that everyone will have more and better choices.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing some kind of coercive scheme to redistribute wealth, I think the burden is on you to show that this will lead to more benefits than costs. You would certainly be inhibiting the process I described above (among many other costs).

Re: Happiness Quote of the Day

gil — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:06:45 -0000

Thinking about Brad DeLong's head exploding makes me happier.

Re: Libertarianism as a Utility Smoothing Strategy

gil — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:38:26 -0000

What happened to that preference-changing strategy you were advocating a few posts ago?

Maybe people should just switch their preference to whoever is, or is most likely to be, in power?

If that sounds stupid, well, I think it is. Just as is any talk of choosing your party based on its prospects for victory. Although, I know that many people do this, or something like it.

It makes sense to be happy when your party is in power because you think that they are furthering your values, and you expect these values to make things better. It's happiness about this, not the party being in power, that should be making you happy.

Re: Libertarianism as a Utility Smoothing Strategy

gil — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:36:17 -0000

Also, it might not be so much that your guys are in power, but that the other guys aren't.

Everybody knows that we're much better off with the Stupid Party than with the Evil Party.

Re: Happiness Quote of the Day

gil — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:31:46 -0000

Right.

I would say that happiness is usually a reaction to a good thing, not the good thing itself.

Like smiling.

Our ultimate goal shouldn't be to maximize our smiling, but rather to maximize the good things we think are deserving of smiling.

(Oh, and by "maximize" I don't literally mean to have as much of those good things as possible, but the best amounts of each possible good thing, given limited resources, diminishing returns, etc.)

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:01:29 -0000

Bill,

No.

It's the "unreasonable rejecter" who prefers (1) to (3).

Now you know.

But, even if 99% of people accept (1) for themselves, I prefer a world that respects the choice of the 1% to reject the transfer (and of the others who don't want to force them) over one that forcibly imposes these transfers upon them.

If you think wanting these transfers is so reasonable, why wouldn't you expect them to take place through a voluntary process? Surely it wouldn't take much more than someone like you explaining to thim how reasonable it is for them to agree, right?

And organizing lots of people voluntarily, and making their transfers contingent on some threshold being reached, has become relativley cheap.

Is there a good reason to prefer the coercive regime over the voluntary one other than to satisfy some irrational, destructive, impulse to punish those who have achieved more success than others?

Oh and if we're counting hedons, I think we should factor in the unhappiness that the coercive regime causes people like me, who would prefer that the autonomy of others is respected.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:32:26 -0000

Thanks for the explanation, Bill. I was more familiar with Rawls than Scanlon, but I think they both "game" the system with their rules, and I don't accept that either of their bargains capture a good conception of justice.

In any case, I'm not at all inclined to accept 1). And, I'm a reasonable man. So, you and Scanlon must accept that it's unjust.

It seems reasonable to me to consider things other than my relative place in some social or economic hierarchy (like whether people's autonomy is respected to a degree that makes a slide into tyranny unlikely). If Scanlon defines this as outside of reasonable consideration, then I think he's cheating and the bargain is intrinsically unfair.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:39:34 -0000

Bill,

By autonomy I mean people's ability to persue their own peaceful projects with the minimum coercive interference from other people.

This leaves a huge range of wonderful, creative, kind voluntary cooperation that lets people help each other without treating each other as means rather than ends.

So, I endorse the Nozickean rights as side-constraints view, rather than forcing other people to improve the choices of the worse-off.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:07:22 -0000

Well, Tom G. Palmer's critique seems pretty strong to me.

Perhaps you and many others should reconsider.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:53:35 -0000

Bill,

I don't know what you're talking about.

It looks to me like there's absolutely nothing left of Cohen's "argument".

"Also, absent ignorance, they wouldn't agree to anything that would make them worse off than continued joint-ownership"

But, almost anything would make them better off than continued joint-ownership. Continued joint-ownership is suicide.

Everyone, absent insanity, would welcome the improvements that come from private ownership.

Requiring unanimity to allow this (or even to agree to the disposition of jointly-owned property) is a death sentence to all.

So, remind me why anything from Cohen should lead someone away from self-ownership+side-constraints?

I mean, other than the fact that liberty leads to possible circumstances that some people don't like.

I think all systems have that feature.

How does Cohen get us somewhere better?

Re: Forgetting for Fun & Profit

gil — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:22:34 -0000

From the Julian Sanchez interview of Robert Nozick in 2001 there's an interesting exchange about the value of believing the truth. There Nozick says:

Or the literature that seems to show that optimistic or even overly optimistic attitudes towards one's chances at succeeding at something, or recovering from a disease, or something like that, actually increase the chances. Maybe not up to the level of optimism one feels, but there one would be better off not being a perfectly accurate assessor of chances. In fact there's some psychological literature that seems to indicate that when people are asked by psychologists what other people in their social circle think of them, and then the psychologists check with these other people about what they actually do think, that the people who have more accurate views of what other people think of them are less happy, less successful in life, cope less well with various things, than the people who have rosier views of what people think of them than is actually the case. Now, here's another case where one may be better off believing what's not strictly true. Parents raising children might think: "Well, do I want my child to have a disposition to believe exactly what's true about other people's opinions of him or her? Or to have, not an out-of-touch-with-reality view, but a more optimistic than is actual view, a rosier view, of what people think of them, so that their life will go smoother, more easily, and so on?"

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:52:25 -0000

Bill,

We're talking about people, right?

Individual people who have individual goals, and respond to incentives?

I think Nozick's model approximates my sense of our moral obligation to each other to respect each other's autonomy and limit our interactions to the voluntary (other than defense).

And, his notion of the distributive justice where justly acquired and transferred holdings lead to a just distribution, regardless of how that distribution looks, also squares with my thoughts.

Why should anyone care whether you or Cohen think that in the unworkable fictional state of joint-ownership of everything some idiot might not agree to selling part of it?

This doesn't seem to go anywhere towards demonstrating that I must change my notions of morality and justice because people in that situation would only sell their property by considering consequences (as opposed to what?).

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0000

Oh.

Okay.

Re: Happiness Quotes of the Day

gil — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:02:29 -0000

I think (hope?) Menken was joking about marriage.

He was right that happiness often comes from the sense of accomplishment of a difficult goal (Jefferson would agree). I think his joke was that the difficult goal for women was to get married and for men was to avoid it. Also, the feeling of security and well-being was more obviously associated with married women than men.

Re: Happiness Quotes of the Day

gil — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:05:19 -0000

Monkyboy,

Now you can do one thing well, and spend the rest of your time focusing on things that interest you, rather than be forced to deal with as many other things.

Sounds like progress to me.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:28:16 -0000

No, Bill. I don't think that's the real question.

Should we decide the question of whether or not to permit the rape of women who say "No" on whether some utility function is maximized?

Sure, we might frustrate some promiscuous women's expectations about their entitlement in terms of contol over their bodies, but maybe some women mean "Yes", and maybe some experts judge men to get more benefit than women bear costs, etc.

Sorry, but I don't think that's the way to decide if these are rights violations.

Re: Preference Change and Tax Policy, Again

gil — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:55:31 -0000

Bill,

I understand that you're joking and realize that I wasn't speaking for myself when proposing that hypothetical.

What I hoped you'd recognize is that many of us view property rights in the same kind of category, though. Property often represents the results of tremendous personal sacrifice and difficult choices; a significant portion of their lives' time and effort. Your cavalier attitude about "frustrating rich peoples' expectations about what they're entitiled to" suggests that you don't take this idea very seriously. I tried to form my "frustrating some promiscuous women's expectations about their entitlement in terms of contol over their bodies" line to try to express how offensive that attitude can be.

The better lesson is that nobody should be "the one in charge of making interpersonal utility comparisons" with respect to basic rights such as these. At least, not the kind that spark coercive remedies.

Re: What’s the Matter With Frank?

gil — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:18:35 -0000

Monkyboy,

How's the new hat working out for you?

Re: Does Cindy Sheehan Have Moral Authority?

gil — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:22:37 -0000

Will,

Did you consider that Casey Sheehan did more than just expose himself to the risk of death in conflicts that the president might engage in in the future.

He specifically reenlisted after the start of this war.

So, he viewed this war as just and chose to be a part of it. I don't see how there can be anything left of his mother's moral protection.

Re: ID, Aliens, and Pointlessness

gil — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:04:34 -0000

Will,

I'm as opposed to government involvement in "education" as anyone, but I don't think your conclusion follows.

I don't think liberal neutrality requires the teaching of anything like ID in science classes, so I don't think this is a legitimate backlash or indication of a problem with the institution (there are many others, though).

If there was a racist backlash to a legal system that treated all races equally, would you conclude that this "shows that there is something wrong with our institutions."?

Re: ID, Aliens, and Pointlessness

gil — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:38:32 -0000

Will,

Thanks. I think I misinterpreted you.

And, I agree that this issue could be avoided (at least in its political form) if the state would stay out of this area which is unnecessary for it to protect basic rights.

But, many will argue that ensuring the learning of basic science is as important to a decent chance in modern life as the three R's.

Re: Happiness, Adaptation, and Bigger Breasts

gil — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:45:59 -0000

If I'm being forced to pay for something, I should definitely get to (at least) see the results of the spending.

Re: Happiness, Adaptation, and Bigger Breasts

gil — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:53:34 -0000

Eric,

You're forgetting to factor in the effect on the sum of men's happiness.

And, also, the fact that this is really just a joke to point out how ridiculous this sort of project is (I hope).

Re: Contribution Limits: A look ahead

gil — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:26:10 -0000

good one. swiftee is one insightful and comic monkey. redundant, too.

Re: Interview: The Job-like Job of Mary Kiffmeyer

gil — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:06:37 -0000

yeah... Whatever about that, Swiftee. What I wanna know is: do you support the lunatic ravings of Mary Kiffmeyer?

Re: 100-Hour Agenda: How the Minnesota Delegation Voted

gil — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:01:33 -0000

Why do Kline and Bachmann hate America?

Re: Olson v. Brodkorb: Precedent or One of Many Milestones to Come?

gil — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:30:34 -0000

Tough times, Swiftee? By the volume of comments you leave at Minnesota Monitor every day, I'm guessing those flat fees ain't rolling in. By the monotonous repetition of points you make - Soros, sock puppets, Media Matters, etc. - I can see business is slow: your specialty isn't in demand.

Re: ‘We Will Not Go Quietly’: Strib Staffers Protest Cuts at ‘Black Thursday’ Rally

gil — Fri, 11 May 2007 12:01:57 -0000

I see. The extent of Swiftee's vocabulary.

Re: Contribution Limits: A look ahead

gil — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:26:10 -0000

good one. swiftee is one insightful and comic monkey. redundant, too.

Re: Interview: The Job-like Job of Mary Kiffmeyer

gil — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:06:37 -0000

yeah... Whatever about that, Swiftee. What I wanna know is: do you support the lunatic ravings of Mary Kiffmeyer?

Re: 100-Hour Agenda: How the Minnesota Delegation Voted

gil — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:01:33 -0000

Why do Kline and Bachmann hate America?

Re: Olson v. Brodkorb: Precedent or One of Many Milestones to Come?

gil — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:30:34 -0000

Re: ‘We Will Not Go Quietly’: Strib Staffers Protest Cuts at ‘Black Thursday’ Rally

gil — Fri, 11 May 2007 12:01:57 -0000

I see. The extent of Swiftee's vocabulary.

Re: Debian vs Dell R200 = No kernel no party

gil — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:28:45 -0000

Di al tuo capo che non Di al tuo capo che non capisce una mazza. (ok diglielo in maniera più blanda altrimenti ti licenzia) :lol:
Evidentemente lui ha le idee molto confuse, capita. Se usi un kernel vanilla è abbastanza pulito e controllato però manca di diverse funzioni ritenute dai più essenziali. Anche Caricare un ambiente desktop potrebbe essere un problema, a dire il vero qualunque supporto hardware/software può essere un problema. Questo perché i ragazzi del kernel fanno un buon lavoro, ma poi non si preoccupano molto del come il kernel reagisce con il resto del sistema. Certo un minimo di supporto c'è ma spesso risulta insufficiente. Pertanto oggigiorno praticamente tutte le distro (di qualche rilevanza) patchano il kernel, si anche Debian Slakware gentoo, tutte. Non lo fanno perchè sono matti, lo fanno perchè il kernel deve funzionare all'interno di un sistema e quindi loro abilitano moduli e modficano e pthacno per aumentare la compatibilità. Perchè altrimenti magari un Dell R200 non va, ma potresti avere mille altri problemi. E chiaro che chi modifica il kernel è esperto, ma sicuramente non può avere le conoscenze di Torvalds o i suoi stretti collaboratori, pertanto può anche capitare che modifichi in modo errato il kernel. E comunque se il kernel vanilla è ad esempio 100 righe di codice statisticamente diciamo ci sono 4 errori di programmazione. Se viene ptachato e portato a 125 righe statisticamente gli errori saranno 5 almeno. Quindi è tutto un compromesso, se hai hardware standard supportato dal kernel (generalmente hardware anche datato) puoi usare il vanilla altrimenti devi affidarti alla patch di qualcuno. A livello server ci sono diverse soluzioni dipende di chi ti fidi di più, tutto li. magari Suse non riconosce bene qualcosa però è più pulita ubuntu riconosce tutto però a più patch, a qual punto devi anche valutare chi programa meglio. Può anche essere che con gente più brava più patch non vagliano dire più errori.
Può anche essere che la distro X abbia fatto poche patch ed abbia iserito proprio quella per il tuo R200, e la distro Y pur avendone fatte molte non ha inserito quella per il tuo dispositivo. Ripeto sono compromessi ognuno deve trovare il suo.
Concludo ricordando che per Fedora purche l'uso su server non è escluso dagli sviluppatori è una distro orientata al DESKTOP, quindi chi cavolo si fa le pippe sul kernel e poi sbaglia tutta la distro? La distro della stessa azienda (R.H.) per server è RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) se volete una soluzione più economica potete usare CentOS ovvero una
REHL senza supporto e quindi distribuita gratuitamente.

Re: Fat Chance?

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Gotta laugh when Libertarians talk violent. X)

Re: The Market: The Only Trustworthy Registrar of People’s Preferences

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Gee, I could do a 'vidyohs grammar check' on Crusader's thought:

"They founding a Constitutional Republic to reign in the democracy."

Hmmm . . . A Republic is a nation that isn't ruled by a royal family, i.e. a monarchy. Whoopdeedoo. A Constitution is a document that outlines the power and restrictions of a government. Gee, Australians don't have to dicker over whether they have the right to 'bear arms' because there's no equivalent of the 2nd Amendment. American gun nuts must have keeled over when Australia did the unthinkable - the people were debarred from owning firearms unless they have a pro-active reason in 1997.

Re: How we feel about our taxes

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Pfff. I believe Irwin Schiff went to jail using much the same arguments to believe he could legally not pay taxes, vidyohs. You're probably better just stating taxes are theft than accidently send Libertarians to jail on false advice.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"The war on poverty is a war on the poor." - Methinks.

By your thinking there was no poverty until the Guvmint intervened and then poverty was rife. Poor people are poor in a free market because they haven't figured out any way to satisfy any market demand.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"But, we also know that you know the difference between a small minority being so poor that they need help, and the majority being made poor and being encouraged to become dependent." - vidyohs.

Thanks for at least pointing out the poverty that will still exist in a free market.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

And Conservatives find it hard to believe when Muslims say 'jihad' can mean anything from a literal battle to merely looking into one's self.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Oh please brotio! The terms 'war' and 'crusade' can be both used in the literal sense as well as in a flippant way as mean 'a personal challenge of some sort'. Muslims don't like the way Westerners casually use the word 'crusade' as it pertains to certain events in history for them. Are you going to get offended if you overheard a local Muslim referred to his personal jihad to lose weight?

Re: Men of System Systematically Misunderstand Spontaneous Orders

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Do you feel a certain scientific smugness then that in the modern 'Socialist' era the modern Westerner's life expectancy is starting to go downwards, S. Andrews?

Re: Perspective on Living Standards

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

So are you essentially saying, Don Boudreaux, that income inequality in a society has no correlation (hence no causation) with the economic freeness in that society? Unlike, dgl's 'masterstroke', I'd suggest income inequality, if anything, ought to increase. Since low-productivity isn't rewarded in a free market society therefore such people are going to be poor whilst being in the same nation with billionaires.

Re: Moon Struck

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

It'd be nice if a new Moon landing was planned because new rocket technology was being used that as efficient as today's computers are relative to those forty years ago. Unfortunately, rocket technology has hardly changed in the last forty years. Therefore it's going to be merely 'more of the same' or 'it's been done already'.

Re: Moon Struck

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"There is money to be made in space." - Metre.

Unless you're talking of interstellar travel - i.e. more life-bearing planets like Earth then: no there's not a great deal of money to be made in space. Well, maybe some from mining but that be about it. Terraforming Mars or Venus sounds about as technologically difficult as interstellar travel. Of course, humanity could slowly migrate across the Galaxy in a 'slowly but surely' way just as people can colonise the world in boats and by foot. However, real local space travel requires speeds close to light and there's no obvious way of doing it. True space travel requires speeds faster than light or the ability to warp from one place to another and then space travel seems nigh on impossible. It was a bummer that ion engines turned out to be a fizzler but oh well what can you do.

Re: Royalty Stinks

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

So what? This could contrasted with relative cleanliness of the Ancient Romans. It is said that advent of Christianity caused the end of bathing as people reject outward signs of worldliness. Not to mention people in those times hadn't any idea of what actually caused disease and either thought to be due to astrological alignments or God's wrath.

Which in turn reminds of a gag from Blackadder II where Edmund is trying to sell his house:

"What about the privies?"

"When the master craftsman, who created this home, was looking into sewage, he said to himself 'Romeo, for t'was his name, Romeo let's make 'em functional and comfortable'."

"Oh my, that seems nice, doesn't it dear?"

"I think we understand each other, sir! So sir then, a drink?"

"Well what about the privies?!"

"Well what we're talking about in, um, privy terms is the very latest in front wall, fresh air orifices combined with a wide-capacity gutter installation below."

"You mean you crap out of a 'window'?"

"Yes!"

"Well, in that case, we'll definitely take it! I can't stand those dirty indoor things!"

Re: Royalty Stinks

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Duh vidyohs! Of course individuals can't properly smell their own stench. You can easily tell who let go of a 'silent but deadly' fart because he's the one who's got the stupid grin on his face whilst everyone else is trying to get out of the room.

However I can't help but point out the way the 'miasma' theory of disease lasted well into the 1800s.

Another aside however (in the interest of hygiene) is the question of whether toilets should of the 'sitting' kind or the 'squatting' kind. Westerners with their preference for the sitting toilet get to sit on a seat that has been used by others hence the dunny seat can be a source for the transmission of disease. Whereas the squatting toilet as used elsewhere merely requires the user to squat over a hole and let nature do the rest. It has even been pointed out that the squatting toilet is not only more hygienic due to less physical contact but being in a squatting position is a more natural pose for pooping than sitting and may be more beneficial in the long run. Room for improvement, eh?

Then there's a problem with those who are coprophiliacs/coprophagiacs. (You think that wouldn't happen in this day and age but it does. 8( )

Re: Royalty Stinks

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Early Christian values did see the closing of public baths as well as adopting the value of 'uncleanliness'. There's a historic quote in a book that says just that if I could find the darn thing. 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness' is a rather late concept.

Re: Caring About the World’s Poor

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

But then it can be show that charity-givers hurt the poor - so much grain can pour in from charities that local growers can't compete thefefore the poor people have no incentive to grow food for themselves. Go on say it - the poor must be left alone to develop their skills of independence and even voluntary charity can do more harm than good.

Re: Who’s the Materialist?

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Uh oh! It's look as though Don Boudreaux is saying what dgl is saying: "there's no third way!" Unless anarcho-Libertarian is being offered then Libertarians are going to argue over what constitute 'reasonable government' and 'taxes that aren't theft'. So they too are going to argue of what their 'third way' is going to be.

Beside if Don Boudreaux hangs around sites that lean heavily to Socialism than inevitably he's going to find stuff that's going to get under his skin.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Meh. Gecko seems to say what I'm thinking - poor countries are poor because they're just non-productive, period. Other countries have had impediments too but they overcame them. Other countries, such as China, aren't exactly laissez-faire but they are getting somewhere. It's just the same as listening to someone who cries poor and it's because "everyone's holding him back" only realise he just a plain loser.

Re: Wages at Wal-Mart

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"Walmart's CEO is required by contract and required by law to act in the best interests of shareholders."

No kidding, J. Dewey! Why do you write that in a way that makes it sound as though you're offended by the concept?

"On a company plan, I'm lumped in with the fat, lazy, sedentary people, and so I subsidize their poor choices with a good chunk of my salary.

No kidding, R. Gardner! All insurance companies use the money provided by safe customers to pay out the unsafe customers. If everyone was sufficiently incompetent and inept then insurance companies wouldn't exist. By the way, how do you feel about your car insurance?

Re: Only at GMU

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Chalk isn't exactly hardcore.

Re: On America’s Middle Class

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Why not technology? Without technological change most of us would be simple peasant farmers using hand tools to feed ourselves.

Re: On America’s Middle Class

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

How about this: define 'middle class'. What does that actually mean? It sounds as though it's some sort of a relative term. Of course, there will always be people who aren't defined as 'upper crust' nor 'lower class'. Is like 'the poor'? Some seem to use the poor as to mean the 'bottom quintile'. Hence the 'poverty rate' will always be 20%. It's the same as stating "Did you knnow half the population is below average median intelligence?" Truth being told there is always about 80% of people who be considered 'middle class'. Maybe a peasant farmer in the Middle Ages was 'the middle class' - he had basic access to food and shelter - neither of which the poor had back in those times.

Even if we're talking absolute shift in what the middle class, so what? How do know that the average fat-arse middle-class Westerner losing the purchasing power his father had mean 'something's wrong'? What if the shrinking income merely has to do with outsourcing and globalisation? In other words, Westerners had it good because of trade barriers and puppet governments that forced non-Westerners to be artificially poor? If so, then the lowering of real income for the average Westerner and increase in real income for the average non-Westerner could be reflecting the honest redistribution of forced wealth gain back to the rightful producers?

Re: Unintended Consequences

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"The end result is that there will be more blow-outs and you'd better hope its not on one of those 15 person vans but it probably will be since blow-outs happen mostly under load." - Franco.

As I asked in the 'pop quiz' blog: what right to those people have to use dangerous tyres and then blame the President Obama when something goes wrong? They can blame Obama for not being able to buy cheap tyres from China but they have NO right to use dangerously unsafe tyres that can blowout at any moment. If those van drivers don't like it then tough. They can picket outside of the White House. However if those types of idiots do buy unsafe tyres and get someone killed they can rot in jail for vehicular manslaughter or murder. A tyre retailer knowingly selling such dangerous tyres ought to sharing the same cell too.

Re: Treason Against Reason

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Here's a simple scenario: let's suppose global warming was true in the mild sense of some are going to suffer, whilst most will see no change and some will benefit from it. Do those who suffer have any claim to compensation? Or is it a 'tough luck' negative externality?

In other words, the Industrial Revolution imposed hardships and pollution but then you have to break eggs to make an omlette? The positive externalities of technology and industrialisation more then outweigh any negative externalities? That to give people any power to stop negative externalities (which isn't the same as direct criminal behaviour) will force people back into the Stone Age?

Re: On the Sanford Affair

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"It occurs to me that your point is very strong evidence against the contract theory of government. We did not and would not agree to put so much power in the hands of the political class, therefore, it is evident that they took it." - Randy

Well you can blame the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Libertarians and old-time Conservatives should seen this coming and made a special 11th Amendment that the U.S. Constitution can no longer be amended (before it was too late).

Re: Globalization

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Don Boudreaux is rather photogenic! ;)

Re: Globalization

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"There are several factors in play which I think are based in human tribal instincts.

1 Conformity

2 Status seeking

3 Follow the leader"

Can you not re-read what your wrote and get a cold shiver, S. Grove?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"Mr. Shi would have manufactured with Chinese slave labor anyhow. Whatever loss might exist on Australia's part is negligible." - sethstorm

I totally disagree because Dr. Shi is in business of cutting-edge research in solar panel tecnology not cotton growing.

Re: Will vs. Krugman (and DeLong and Econospeak)

gil — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:19:03 -0000

Maybe M. Brock has a point - elsewhere the Great Depression is referred to as the period between 1929 and 1932. Which is to say, the Great Depression was over in 1933 and the trough in 1938 in this picture is unrelated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1930Industry.svg

After all, the complaints of the time talk of "poverty amidst plenty" which would mean a mismatch between supply and demand as opposed to standard poverty which is "poverty amidst scarcity". After all, where did the goods and money come from to supply the bread lines during the Great Depression? Why did many of the wealthy carry on living in opulence in spite of the surrounding poverty? If the same thing happened in 1829 would there be no bread lines, period? Therefore times may have been tough but it was still better than what would have been in earlier times?

Mind you why didn't the 1987 stock market not trigger a 'great depression' even though the crash was worse?

Re: Relative Price Adjustments and Aggregate Demand

gil — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:28:32 -0000

"Most rational people believe that murder or theft are universally known as wrong . . ."

This seems like a tautology. Murder is unjustified killing and theft is unjustified taking. The difference between what is justified killing/taking and unjustified killing/taking would change with time and people.

Re: Relative Price Adjustments and Aggregate Demand

gil — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:46:03 -0000

And every murderer has a reason too. Boom Boom!

Re: The Stakes

gil — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:00:06 -0000

Well, at least a university running via government funding and espousing Libertarianism could hardly complain that there's a guvmint conspiracy forbidding the spread of Libertarianism.

Re: A New Monetary Theory

gil — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:55:12 -0000

Oh well at least people here aren't taking the opposite take and saying "deflation is therefore good". Robinson Crusoe can't make food appear on his plate by plucking leaves off trees and 'inflate' his way to food and more than taking the same leaves and burning them 'deflates' his way to food. :\

Re: Keynesianism?

gil — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0000

Aw come on, admit it, Keynesianism is akin the Great Auto Bailout - declaring the economy is made up of circular institutions and it would forbid people from leaving that economy. Yes people would save/hoard in a way there was no counterbalancing lending/investment because such believed all the potential investments were bad. It would be like a town going the way of a ghost town because it offered no real reason to stay (e.g. a mining town with a depleted mine). People want to take their savings and leave. Keynesianism means people are forced to stay and prop the local ghost town economy.

Re: Keynesianism?

gil — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:54:11 -0000

I think I get what M. Brock means - I believe he is trying to say money isn't supposed to be a commodity unto itself rather it's supposed to be a measure as to what various good & services are worth so people can make informed trades. Most monetary conservative types prefer that money be gold coinage & weights because the amount of gold is deemed on a relative par with the amount of goods & services in circulation (Gold mining would create inflation but makes the return on gold mining less worthwhile (thus avoiding hyperinflation) and deflation makes gold more valuable restarting the gold mining process).

Re: Sweet Freedom

gil — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:21:20 -0000

Of course you know you're right Muirgeo. In a true Libertarian a woman would have to figure out how to fend off rapists or somehow bargain with burly men to help defend her (if it mean payment in sex it'd defeat the purpose!). However she can't expect others to create laws against rape and expect forced payments called taxes for the enforcement because that'd be theft and thuggery. Likewise if the woman in the book wants the freedom she seeks, she has to flee or fight. I'd be a first to see a regime to disband because they'd all of sudden feel bad about what they're doing.

Re: Sweet Freedom

gil — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:34:28 -0000

Piffle, dgl! I'll do a 'vidyohs' and argue you're playing wordsies. Besides the 'government' you seem to want is what other Libertarians don't want - a system of arbitrary power and forced payments. They argue for some sort of 'self-rule'.

Re: Sweet Freedom

gil — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:38:54 -0000

Yeah right dgl! Poor people are poor because they're marginally productive hence you can find geniunely poor people in rich countries. You're presuming all poor people are because some are holding them down. Yes, it does happen but not everywhere. There are plenty of places where people are poor but there's no one in particular they can blame. They just don't any skills whereby they can leave poverty.

Likewise what muirgeo originally said, and what I agree with, is the woman in the story is waiting for freedom to be granted to her from the skies. She does nothing to bring about her personal but hopes those who are eroding her freedom will stop or someone else with arrive on a white horse and save her.

Re: Tranquilizing the Stimulators

gil — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:43:37 -0000

" Kinsley argues that last summer's high oil prices were essentially a tax on consumers . . ."

I'm surprised someone such as brotio or vidyohs didn't chime in with something like this:

"Can't Kinsley tell the difference between a free market transaction and an imposed government service? The money made by the oil companies was a free trade with the consumers of oil as opposed to a taxed-imposed government program. Whiners of oil prices can get a pushbide or convert a vehicle to electricity at their own expense."

Re: More Mencken Wisdom

gil — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:40:00 -0000

More? The 'hobgoblins' quote is old and well-circulated.

Re: Who's the Partisan Hack?

gil — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:50:10 -0000

Don't worry vidyohs I love to turn on the news and see Libertarian militia forces sweeping across the country especially to the White House and even see Libertarians dragging out all inside to their firing squad. It'd sure beat the regular drivel.

Re: Who's the Partisan Hack?

gil — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:27:59 -0000

The Skeptical Optimist put his two cents at to what is to be stimulated:

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2009/01/stimulate-what.html#comments

Re: Who's the Partisan Hack?

gil — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:31:25 -0000

Aw come on Doug. By the same token the question can be reversed to you and if you see the U.S. Federal Government is legitimate. Besides M. Brock seems to suggest that he might believe that some people are only very rich because of special privileges handed down by government and that a true free market would keep profit margins slim through competition and no one would become overly rich (or at least not for long).

Re: Planet Obama

gil — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:57:23 -0000

"Anarcho-capitalism is a term invented by Leftists like Gil and Mierduck. They apply the term to anyone who disagrees with their notion that we're all property of the State."

Apparently you didn't look too hard brotio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Re: Planet Obama

gil — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:19:59 -0000

Uh huh . . .

Re: More Mencken Wisdom

gil — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:47:09 -0000

So apparently you have never heard the 'hobgoblins' quote before vidyohs? You just read it in that link and thought "well fancy that!". I heard that quote years ago and have the disinterest as I would if someone quote the 'teach a man to fish' saying as if it had never been heard before.

Re: Second Amendment Book Bomb

gil — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:32:31 -0000

LOL vidyohs! Them guns are be'en banned!!

I wonder likewise about FDR and his banning of private gold ownership. Yet people could still own silver, platinum, palladium, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. I wonder if you, vidyohs, & friends get hot under the collar about the private ownership of grenades? All weapons should be permitted under the 2nd Amendment, er right? It says "to keep and bear arms" not "to keep and bear guns". Heck, the Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) was concerned whether the 2nd Amendment allowed for concealed knives!

By the way - does the 2nd Amendment protect people who'd take guns & knives onto private residences? Surely the 'right to bear arms' is universal and does not allow private authority to disarm you either.

Re: Winning the debate

gil — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:57:38 -0000

Aw come on - admit it - the present generations don't have a duty to the future generations of a century or two hence. It's the same as externalities - why should people be compensated for negative externalities when people who create positive externalities don't get any thing for their troubles. Similarly what of the plight of London Smog in the 1800s? The smog was a negative externality to some but was a big positive externality in terms of increasing the standard of living for every one else in London - especially the future generations.

Re: Second Amendment Book Bomb

gil — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:54:23 -0000

Gadzooks brotio you're for 'private victim disarmament'!?!? Presumably even in a minimalist Libertarian world where the government is but a wafer-thin organisation with very little public property could mean the average person could be virtually always disarmed by private owners! Hell the government might as well argue that a person only has the right 'to keep and bear arms' on their own private property just as anyone can drive an unregistered vehicle on their own property but can't take it onto the open road.

So if muirgeo, trumpit and I came onto your property brotio?/vidyohs?/etc. looking like some sort of ccwboys with a pair of guns and a gunbelt full of bullets you wouldn't actually ask to hang it all up on the wall until we get ready to leave? Er, right?

Re: Second Amendment Book Bomb

gil — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:41:45 -0000

"You're presuming I would allow you onto my property."

Hehehheheh. Okeedokee. :)

Re: Second Amendment Book Bomb

gil — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:56:35 -0000

So you can see why even NRA types can advocate that gun control should apply to some people.

Re: Second Amendment Book Bomb

gil — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:59:58 -0000

Thanks vidyohs for presuming I have a ginormous dick that I could actually step on it! LOL!! :P

Well if you presume the 2nd Amendment applies to the U.S. citizens versus the U.S. Local/States/Federal Governments only (even though militias at times worked with the government and fellow citizens, such as in suppressing trade unions) and you woud presumedly believe in 'natural rights' then you don't need a steenkin Constitution because it's a restriction for the relative government in question. Which is to say I'm sure you'd argue you'll arm yourself with whatever and however you see fit regardless of what the law, guvmint or your neighbours, for that matter, think. I'm sure if you could secure a nuke vidyohs you bargaining against guvmint would be very high indeed.

Re: Today's Economy in Perspective

gil — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:55:46 -0000

Yeah dgl quit using your 'masterstroke' so much or you risk going blind!

Re: The seductive power of royalty

gil — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:46:20 -0000

Sooooo . . . what is the alternative then? Disband the governments and make current landholders into sovereign landowners?

Re: The seductive power of royalty

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:30:20 -0000

Voluntary payments?!?! Voluntary payments means the 'government' becomes a private charity or a private business (presuming you'd allow private firms to compete with what the government provides). And, of course, if the 'voluntary government' folds from lack of donations then it's the same thing as just plain dismantling it.

By the way, by 'sovereign' I am referring to who actually owns the land and makes the laws on that land which by elimination can only mean the people who are currently landholders and they'd get full owership of the land their holdings encompass by default.

Re: The seductive power of royalty

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:56:53 -0000

Oh! Suddenly it's MY govenrment!

"In other words, your argument boils down to the idea that government is exploitation and taxes are theft."

Gee - isn't that the Libertarian definition of what defines government and taxes? That is to say, what separates government from a private business and taxes from voluntary payments? What I meant was if government was 'voluntary' and can only attract money from only interested parties then it sounds it has made the transition to the private sector and therefore is a business or a charity.

How can a government be voluntary yet have a claim to a 'monopoly over the land' or a 'monopoly to define what is illegal and have the right to detain and imprison people'? The Vatican could come close to such a system as its edicts and admonitions can be ignored by adherents and non-adherents and neither Vatican official can't march onto others' private land and tell them what to do, let alone forbid other religions from appealing to peoples' interest.

Finally, what d'you s'pose would happen if the voluntary government folded because of anti-government Libertarians and indifference-to-government free-riders? Who owns the sovereignty the land then? Landholders get the land they're on already seems the path of least resistence. Either that or all land goes on the market and is auctioned off to the highest bidders.

Re: An Inauguration Day Thought

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:13:21 -0000

"Without the government to enforce the property rights of slavery, the institution of slavery then depends on the culture of your neighbors, i.e., their willingness to get your runaway slaves back to you."

Howz about "if your neighbours have no intentions of giving sanctuary to runaway slaves or would actually capture the slaves for themselves"? Last time I looked the ending of slavery was forced on slave owners and not given in voluntarily. Besides the texts of the major world religions support (or at least fail to denounce) slavery.

Re: The seductive power of royalty

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:14:29 -0000

*sigh!* Xb

So you want government to be 'voluntary' yet it is somehow different from a business or a charity. I am lost here.

Where's vidyohs when you need him.

Re: An Inauguration Day Thought

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:14:02 -0000

Well Ken I have asked others here: what actually constitutes slavery from crappy employment? I have also asserted there's no such thing as slavery - there's just criminal-initiated-employment versus ordinary employment. The way slaves in Rome could have a lot of responsibility and have a high standard of living meant they weren't really slaves rather they were servants. Likewise free workers could have a crappy working environment to the point they could get seriously hurt or killed however the rejoinder was "if you take the job, you take responsibility for the conditions of the job". Besides what of those who are 'enslaved' because they have to repay a huge debt or invaders being forced by the defenders to work and rebuid what they destroyed?

Re: An Inauguration Day Thought

gil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:09:37 -0000

". . . it's a matter of choice, not comfort"

In other words, not much really. It's more of an emotive term to get people attention. E.g.: 'tax slavery','wage slavery', 'debt slavery', etc.

Re: My mood

gil — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:27:09 -0000

Hey muirgeo, I sure you're looking forward in 10 years time to a graph showing improved economic performance with a Democrat president, eh?

Re: An Inauguration Day Thought

gil — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:22:28 -0000

Why vidyohsgoose? If someone wanted to beat you up, you wouldn't just let them, you'd fight back wouldn't you? If someone wanted to put you in chains, you wouldn't hold out your hands wound you? If someone had kidnapped you and tried to force you to work on their farm you would take every opportunity to escape wouldn't you? Hell! You most certainly wouldn't ask for the kidnapper to voluntarily release you because you'd argue your freedom is not his property, would you? Hence you could easily argue in these situation you were always free because you seek freedom for yourself without anyone's permission. On the other hand, if people work dutily on a plantation forever hoping their master will grant them freedom one day then they enslaved themselves because they have given the property of their freedom to the plantation owner.

If it is said "you can't cheat an honest man" then it could also be said "you can't enslave a free man".

Re: Comment of the week

gil — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:21:20 -0000

Actually there's no real distinctin between negative versus positive rights. All rights place a duty on others. 'Don't use initiating force&fraud' = 'You must refrain from using force&fraud or face the consequences'. To argue for rights in a 'Robinson Crusoe' in the sense of one person alone is defunct since any perceived right Crusoe would perceive doesn't place a duty and besides freedom of speech is meaningless unless there's someone to listen to you.

Re: Parliament of Pimps

gil — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:07:37 -0000

Golly vidyohs! That could describe self-styled Communists who'd deny the existence of private ownership.

Re: What's Fair?

gil — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:35:09 -0000

Does anyone act surprised that vidyohs would take an axe to the word 'fair'?

Re: Emergent disorder: four pieces of really bad news

gil — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:24:05 -0000

". . . then fight rape gangs on my way back to the shack I live in, THEN I'll start to think the entire economy has collapsed." - J Oost.

Well I would said something along like ". . . when you down&out people in long lines waiting outside a soup kitchen". But I guess that'd work too.

Re: An attitude problem

gil — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:02:38 -0000

I wonder if vidyohs would take a baseball bat and break the legs of those who said "the power that be don't care" because they are apparently very child-like who see society as their parent who is expected to give them everthing thing they want because they breathe.

Re: An attitude problem

gil — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:09:24 -0000

Or at least hug the 29% who are truthful enough to know they're not entitled to anything.

Re: A World of Monopolists — THAT'S the Ticket!

gil — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:24:51 -0000

It's interesting some presume immigrants = Mexican. Could it be it's presumed Mexican migrants always equal hard workers? Perhaps you'd be concerned about immigration if the proposed migrants hailed from a war-torn part of Africa where they believe in 'big man' politics which involves very strong government and violent crackdown on dissenters.

Re: An attitude problem

gil — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:18:51 -0000

Or you can visit:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

(It's fun!)

Re: A World of Monopolists — THAT'S the Ticket!

gil — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:02:30 -0000

Uh huh, vidyohsgoose. My first "hey yeah" moment toward Libertarian views on immigration is when a commenter pointed out(American) Libertarians constantly view immigrants as 'hispanic' - in other words, they see all immigrants as hard working, low paid helpers coming from down south. What of the immigrants from around the world who have no intentions of being good l'il Libertarians and will happily vote for larger government and more welfare?

Oh yeah "it's the government's fault" and all. Maybe it's the NIMBY situation that's raising its head. You, vidyohsgoose, would only allow enough immigrants for your needs then tell the rest to "keep on moving". So you have a 'closed door' immigration policy and expect the government to have an 'open door' policy . . .

Re: An attitude problem

gil — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:23:58 -0000

Isn't that the point muirgeo? An annual income of $1,000 puts you in the top 50% of world income earners?

Re: Temporary Slavery Called "Service" Is Still Temporary Slavery

gil — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:57:06 -0000

Good point muirgeo. Why not put it this way:

"We are not guaranteed crime protection nor defence forces nor access to taxpayer money when times get tough"

When times are tough, people can defend themselves by themselves and not try and free ride off everyone else.

Re: An attitude problem

gil — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:03:23 -0000

"To claim yourself a libertarian and to be able to explain that away with your typical excuses is to be a self-deluded hypocrite." - muirgeo.

Vidyohs would probably near die of laughter after reading that. He knows I never claimed to be a Libertarian. He know I lean towards Evil Liberalism. I could issue disclaimer to the tune of: how many people live off the land rather than a paycheque hence their dollar income is low but their standard of living is relatively high? BTW: I used the 'fun' as I hoped folks like brotio and vidyohs would actually look at the site.

Re: A World of Monopolists — THAT'S the Ticket!

gil — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:02:08 -0000

Oh do tell vidyohsgoose, do tell. Apparently you want to keep your views hidden so you can't risk being criticised. You want Mexican immigrants knocking at your front door trying to make an offer as to why they should hire you whilst you make sure ex-Somalian warlords immigrants keep looking elsewhere. In other words you believe as to what the immigration policy should be - let landholders decide not the government as they don't have business deciding anything.

Re: What can we learn from Japan?

gil — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:14:49 -0000

Tell us why the whopping 1987 stock market crash not send trigger the Great Depression v2.0 O. Shock?

Re: Yeats on the economy and economists

gil — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:07:24 -0000

Well vidyohs & friends, Communists must have more conviction and courage than Libertarians. Communists went forth and changed the world with physical action. Libertarians won't do any thing other than converse with one another. I am reminded of someone who (in the '60s) said something along the lines of "when he saw 'revolutionaries' who preferred to talk about their ideas and not do any thing about it he knew the future was safe". The standard reply I've heard is "oh no, we don't like force, we feel hypocritcal" and yet you'd also complain that everyone is constantly using force&fraud against you. Heaven forbid a Libertarian revolution could be defended as retaliatory force&fraud for the past 100 or more years. I want to see Libertarian forces march on the White House led by General vidyohs.

Re: Quick, snap the ball!

gil — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:54:47 -0000

Come on, why don't you guys admit it - health services shouldn't be socialised because people shouldn't have access to services they can't afford and to supply goods and services to those who can't pay is Socialism. Let 'em get on TV and plead for charity if they can't afford medicine . . .

Re: The seen and the unseen

gil — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:06 -0000

Sic S.C., muirgeo!

Re: Contracts are Not for Judges to Re-write

gil — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:22:00 -0000

Sure you can M. Brock, haven't you heard of Debtor's Prisons?

Re: Contracts are Not for Judges to Re-write

gil — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:05:15 -0000

I believe the traditional arrangement for a loan was that the borrower was required to pay back a loan in its entirely - period. Which is to say, a person can't just discard the rights of the lender because they can't pay the lender. Anyway I suppose a Debtors Prison could be a place a prostitution in which the debtor could pay off a debt by working his or her arse off literally. :\

Re: Jim Crow Was a Product of Government

gil — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:42:30 -0000

geoih and Sam made the most sense and it went downhill from there (let's bash government), namely - people in those times wanted slavery hence even if there wasn't any formal government they would have found another way to do it.

Re: Jim Crow Was a Product of Government

gil — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:11:30 -0000

Pretty lame Cheers. Greece was 'democratic' and 'had slavery' = makes good argument for Libertarians to bash Democracy. Any halfwit knows slavery had no obvious starting point and has existed throughout known history.

Then again, if 'slavery' is merely defined when 'someone is forced to work against his/her will and is forbidden to leave and will be tracked down and returned to their place of work should they escape then 'just' forms of slavery include:

1. Prisons

2. Debtor's prisons

3. War reparations whereby the (successful) defenders force the invaders to replace what they destroyed.

Re: Jim Crow Was a Product of Government

gil — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:58:15 -0000

Thank you Methinks!

Re: Comment of the week

gil — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:04:23 -0000

I can think of two 'Libertarian' solution as to why times like the '60s grew with high taxes:

1. There were plenty of tax loopholes that next to no one paid huge tax rates.

2. There were huge increases in productivity that more than made up for the tax rates. Nowadays taxes may be lower but the productivity is far lower. (It's same with computers - they were getting very fast very quickly in the '90s yet are slow changing in the '00s. (Partially due to components being at their physical limits and part due to the Law of Diminishing Returns - most people can use a five year old computer to do most of what they want to do.))

Re: More Unalloyed Arrogance

gil — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:38:12 -0000

How does a CEO run a business then? Should they run a business at all? Do they actually do anything either? Do the workers and manager do the actual work and the CEO gets the credit? How can a CEO necessarily 'plan'?

Re: The Unsung Successes of the Market

gil — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:53:38 -0000

Indeed Richard. Such is my thought. If mere laissez-faire is the cure then why has the second half of the 20th century seen a greater shift in the standard of living than the 1700s and the 1800s? Even when the first half of the 1900s was mired with Depression and two World Wars?

Do Libertarians loathe to admit that wealth comes primarily from production? Does it grinds their gears knowing a quasi-Socialist/Capitalist highly-productive nation will outperform a pure laissez-faire low-productivity nation? Or would they something along the lines of "if everyone was peace-loving, laissez-faire-loving and gold standard-loving then all of our problems would have been solved 4,000 years, people would have our current standard of living some 3,800 years ago and we'd be spread all over the galaxy by now"?

Then again is some discotent good? Isn't discontent that with which all people can change for the better? If people were fit to be content in the Middle Ages and not be greedy and ungrateful then nothing would changed since then.

Re: The Unsung Successes of the Market

gil — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:48:43 -0000

M&M your reply was as clear as mud.

Your points:

1. Non-sequitor? Richard posted:

"Why isn't it right that our higher modern standard of living is due mainly to technological innovation?"

Contrast this with Don Boudreaux assertion:

"(Note that O'Brien mistakenly believes that our modern standard of living is caused principally by technology.)"

I think my comparison was a reasonable sequitor.

2. Well actually Libertarians prefer to emphasise freedom over productivity. Slaves can be made to be productive. But it is interesting you took this sentence away from the next and remove the context I was writing in.

3. Or to put it another way: does it grind Libertarian gears to see Socialist Europe not turning into a collection of Third World nation states? Shouldn't such 'high-intervention' states go belly-up and fast? Why do such non-free market states continue to operate like the Energizer Bunny despite Libertarian claims that such 'economies' should grind to halt and cause mass poverty?

4. A tad melodramatic but if we would presume it took 200 years to get people from an agrarian culture to the modern standard living why didn't it occur in times past? Wouldn't Libertarians point to the opportunity costs of statist interventions? People were too busy being forced into building pyramids and temples when they could kept to themselves and create technology to make their own lives easier? Why not tru amd point out an inverse correlation to technology and free markets - the Soviets were beating the U.S. in the Space Race yet could barely feed their own people.

P.S. What's force got to do with this argument, dgl?

Re: The Unsung Successes of the Market

gil — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:14:49 -0000

1. What non-sequitor? It's akin to a person who makes a $1,000,000, pays a 50% tax rate and is left with $500,000 versus another person who makes $50,000 and pay no taxes. The second guy would qualify as free whereas the first guy is still richer anyway.

2. Why not? Freedom to choose not to be hyperprodutive. E.g. The Amish.

3.4. Embarrassing spelling bloopers aside :(. What is the argument when Conan O'Brien is wrong to suppose technology? I presumed an example is the Space Race - the Amish can't put a man into orbit no matter how hard they try but the Soviets did but they were unfree and generally poor. In other words, I suggested a possbility where technology and freedom may not go hand-in-hand.

So, ultimately, when one sees the footage of the Moon Landing what are they supposed to think? Wow look at the technological progress that achieved! Or - how dare the government comandeer huge resources to put a man on the Moon, it's expensive, pointless and the resources wasted could have been better spent by those who had their resource confiscated for this show in the first place!

Re: Competition Would Be the Best Regulator

gil — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:11:52 -0000

Everyone knows that the natural free market money is made up of gold and silver coinage.

Re: Competition Would Be the Best Regulator

gil — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:56:02 -0000

Yeah right M. Brock! Coinage has been primarily made of copper, silver and gold. Technically a 'true' coin derives its purchasing power from its metal content. Other coins, which take their values from the inscription on their faces and not from their metal content, are 'tokens'. It is true that people haven't always using precious metal coins however I'm sure, as many Libertarians would like to point out, whereever true coins have circulated their economies have been relatively stable. Plenty of goldbugs/Libertarians are quick to point out that when governments and banks make the transition from proper coins to paper money economies tend to destablise. Perhaps the most overt person to force others to accept fiat money over true money was Kubla Khan.

Re: Competition Would Be the Best Regulator

gil — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:56:48 -0000

I agree with vistavista, M. Brock - if you promise to deliver gold yet deliver platinum is that any different from someone hoping to get two puppies getting two kittens instead?

Re: The same old mistakes

gil — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:16:50 -0000

"Hey, great! Since labor contracts make the labor market "less dynamic," which is a BAD THING, let's apply that principle to the market for other factors as well. Let's eliminate rental contracts and leases so that everyone operating a business or residing in rental property can be evicted without notice. Let's eliminate all contracts with suppliers and outlets, so that the supply chain can be eliminated at any time without warning." - K. Carson

Actually I thought (in a true free market) the shop owner could turf pit the shop renter on a moment's notice if there's was no contract per se or the renter violated the terms of the contract. The same with suppliers and distributors, unless they're locked into some sort of contract, they too could go their separate ways on a moment's notice. Freedom to choose?

Re: Socialism?

gil — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:33:09 -0000

Is Obama a Socialist? Is he a Libertarian. Nope. Therefore he is a Socialist. QED!

Re: Socialism?

gil — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:39:04 -0000

"None. Government doesn't produce anything, ever. Government is a parasite. For you to continually cite your favorite version of it as some kind of savio[u]r is ridiculous."

My mind boggles with such-like statements when some provide a caveat, "oh, but we're not anarcho-Capitalists either".

Re: Greenspan vs. Taylor

gil — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:36:52 -0000

Quoting Keynes here is like throwing two cats into bunch of pigeons, muirgeo. :\

Re: Real money

gil — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:37:42 -0000

"What China should do is hire a good attorney, or any attorney . . ."

I'm sure the attorney would then say "tough cheese" or something like that. He also probably say why invest in that which U.S. government could honour through umpteen goods&services or that the U.S. government could give up and fire up the printing presses? It'd be akin to Bill Gates all of a sudden saying he's wanting to give 1,000,000 Microsoft shares, I initially think I'm rich when I get ownership of the shares, only to watch the news saying Microsoft is defunct and Bill Gates has disappeared into South America. I can't say I get cheated in any way, regardless if the shares were a a payment for my sevices because I got what he offered - 1 million shares of Microsoft. Likewise the Chinese would have to consider whether the U.S. would actually engage in hyperinflation to pay them back. If China feels cheated then next time they should ask for gold or silver as payment.

Re: Real money

gil — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:29:13 -0000

*slaps forehead*

Martin - I said China should next time try and make a contract where the U.S. would have to repay China in the form of silver or gold as to avoid hyperinflation (barring some miracle in mining). Earlier in the post I said China risks getting what they asked when they contract for fancy American printed paper which could either derived from actual trading or plain hyperinflation. Hence my Microsoft analogy.

Re: Did Roubini Get It Right?

gil — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:41:52 -0000

An interesting contrarian piece. I've read about similar claims that someone "predicted the downturn for years" as if they were pyschic when in reality that someone was just a pessimist.

Re: Getting "Tough" on Trade

gil — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:22:57 -0000

So vidyohs' YouTube alter ego is Funbobbasso? I thought that'd be pretty much how you looked and sounded vidyohs.

Re: Getting "Tough" on Trade

gil — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:09:07 -0000

>:)

Re: Behind the Marble Facade, It's Thuggery

gil — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:46:19 -0000

Then again:

Capitalism - one wolf creates market value by converting the chook into chicken pieces and selling it to the other wolf.

Libertarianism - the wolves eat the chook as it is the natural order.

Re: Behind the Marble Facade, It's Thuggery

gil — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:50:11 -0000

Gee, talking of border patrols - what of those who police goods for the introduction of disease and pests? The Black Death was caused by free trading with Asia.

Re: Audacity without veracity

gil — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:25:11 -0000

"I'm an economic policy researcher at a private, not for profit firm."

Wouldn't that make you amongst about five or so people here who actually have professional economics qualifications D. Kuehn?

Re: I Am a Liberal

gil — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:28:12 -0000

I sorta agree with vidyohs - we all know what 'Classical Liberalism' is and what 'Modern Liberalism' is. But so what? Conservatism has changed over time. Why should owning term 'Liberalism' mean anything? Everyone more or less knows what 'Libertarianism' is.

Re: Every Sensible Person Understands the Reason for Rules; Too Few People Understand that Rules are Not Synonymous with Government Dictates

gil — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:00:34 -0000

"Rather, it's that rules written by politicians and enforced by bureaucrats generally work much less well than do rules that emerge decentrally - rules that evolve from the voluntary interactions and successes and mistakes of individuals each pursuing his or her own goals without being herded by a central authority - rules that are enforced by competition and by the exercise of personal responsibility and that, when sufficiently important, become formalized in case law declared by courts." - D. Boudreaux

Heh heh, Don does it again! This is what anarcho-Capitalists argue except they argue that the laws, police and courts are provided by private institutions in actual competition with each other.

Re: Social Engineering Vs. Piecemeal, Competitive Creation

gil — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:42:12 -0000

BTW: Here's my respone to your asinine concept of U.S.A.s vidyohs (In "I am a Liberal" - some 210 comments deep). I hope you're not prone to <s>ducking</s> goosing around:

Um, nope, vidyohsgoosee, it's sounds as though I'm right on track. There's only one U.S.A. - the United States of America of 2009 A.D. with its current President - Barack H. Obama. You're playing some sort of 'should have' game. What sort of nation was the U.S.A. 'should have' been until it was hijacked by special interest groups. You're obviously dreaming of a U.S.A. that doesn't exist and are (apparently) pledging allegience to it and doing your best to ignore the one that actually is. By the same token I bet you do your best to ignore speed limits because you can remember a time when there wasn't any.

Re: Social Engineering Vs. Piecemeal, Competitive Creation

gil — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:32:45 -0000

What - the 'United States of America' - LCJ? You're kidding right?

Re: Social Engineering Vs. Piecemeal, Competitive Creation

gil — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:11:40 -0000

You're not playing some word game as vidyohs would do LCJ? The U.S.A. stands for the United States of America. Simple. I'm guessing you're talking of "well it should be the United State of America because the fifty states don't have the individual soveignty that they used to". Or some crazy talk like that?

Re: Social Engineering Vs. Piecemeal, Competitive Creation

gil — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:08:39 -0000

*slaps forehead*

Aw, having a senior's moment there vidyohs? To think you knew were I comment from back in January 2008. Oh well it seems you're quite happy to walk around the mulberry bush and mutter that which make sense to you but no one else.

Re: Big Media

gil — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:41:55 -0000

". . . government uses violence against persons who refuse to fund its budget and otherwise do its bidding."

But we're not anarcho-Capitalists either.

Re: Language

gil — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:44:07 -0000

What does arming grannies with Uzi's got to do with vulgar language, TrUmPiT?

Re: EconTalk Book Club—The Theory of Moral Sentiments

gil — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:34:38 -0000

Don't you have grandchildren vidyohs?

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

gil — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:59:54 -0000

Golly, let's see, after giving my 'burger' example:

"I don't recall whether it was you or someone else who previously had pointed out that my theory would not hold true in the case of taking from the employed to give to the unemployed.

And you may not recall that I agreed with that, with certain qualifications, and limited the main part of my theory to the case of taking from the richer to give to the poorer among the employed themselves." - dg lesvic

and:

"dg lesvic's masterstroke would respond: "but the loss of the burger would present a huge burden to the burger maker, he would have no incentive to work anymore and he would just close his shop in despair - leaving everyone poorer". This is the problem with the masterstroke - it IS sensible IF you assume completely unrealistic responses to redistribution and taxation. Those completely unrealistic responses are very easy to argue if you have an aversion to using numbers to estimate actual responses, as dg lesvic does. As long as he lives in the world of foundational axioms, he can have whatever axiom he wants to describe how the burger maker will respond - it doesn't have to resemble reality!" - Daniel Kuehn

Yep. It's sounds as though D. Kuehn gives a direct response whereas you waffle about whether it was me or someone else who posted something about the employed and unmployed (which must have been someone else since I don't know what you're going on about).

Re: Keynesianism Vs. Coordination

gil — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:09:58 -0000

What the hell are you going on about dgl?

Re: On Voting to Spend Other People's Money

gil — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:23:48 -0000

"This is how NASA has made space exploration seem prohibitively expensive for private ventures."

You can't be that dim, S. Grove. The laws of physics are the big impedient for space exploration. There's nothing stopping private folks from stockpiling liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen other than it's frigging expensive! If there was some sort of prohibition against private ventures then what was Richard Branson doing a few years ago? The blinding obvious stopper to space exploration is the lack of some sort of high-energy fuel that can put someone on the moon on the cheap. It's akin to comparing the exploration of a continent with people and horses in the old days versus someone driving around the same countryside in a car along the highway. Right now space exploration is at the 'Lewis&Clark' stage - it's highly expensive and low returns and the best that can be done yet.

Re: On Voting to Spend Other People's Money

gil — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:55:01 -0000

What 'technological limitations'? Gold? Silver? Copper? Computers? Hydrogen? Oxygen? What resources were locked up that the private sector couldn't get hold of? The private inventors didn't have to build a building-sized rocket just something on a small-scale whereby the inventors could test the relative power to fuel ratio of their rockets before building anything on a large scale.

Re: Cheap Shot

gil — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:21:22 -0000

The gripe that some people would have, vidyohs & vvista, would be the employer is a government entity, not a private business. Hence someone who gets employed by a public university and, say, the military are having job security enforced by the taxpayers.

But talking of trade, why should one country being cut off from trading with another 'doomed' to poverty? This false dichotomy reminds of a Libertarian cartoonist who drew two starving Third World types where one complains "Where can we find a multinational corporation to 'exploit' us?". What about the option of people being able to provide for themselves rather than waiting for some foreign trading hero from across the shores to uplift them?

Re: On Voting to Spend Other People's Money

gil — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:50:12 -0000

S. Grove are seriously saying . . .

. . . "The government uses computers therefore computers aren't available for the private sector."

. . . "The government uses cars therefore cars aren't available for the private sector."

The way you carry you'd think rockets were made out of solid gold. Considering this guy can make his own rocket it shows that rocket science isn't a mystical knowledge possessed by only five people in the world.

Re: On Voting to Spend Other People's Money

gil — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:01:50 -0000

Way to miss the point Sam. I'm talking of techical ability - the ability get more results from the same amount of materials. A modern-day superfast processor may not have much more materials than a slow one from a number of years - and, depending on how far you go back, modern processors use a helluva lot less resources than ye olde 'processors' of decades prior.

Re: Responsibility for Health Care

gil — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:28:34 -0000

"If there were enough health care to go around, the poor would already have it; and, since there isn’t, who should it be taken from?"

But isn't that the cringe factor that no one wants to hear? Yes, some people will go without medical services, maybe even life-saving treatment because they just can't afford it and the hospital just can't afford to use up resources without any compensation (apart from a feel-good factor).

Re: Responsibility for Health Care

gil — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:13:30 -0000

Certain groups cringe at the thought that there may not be enough hence they call for socialised medicine.

Re: Responsibility for Health Care

gil — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:21:39 -0000

To whom does socialised medicine deny care to? Those who can't afford medical care anyway? Most places have a two-tiered system - a public service for everyone and a private system for those who can pay. How would those who can't afford private health services going to be any better if the system was privatised?

Re: Responsibility for Health Care

gil — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:00:26 -0000

Gadzooks vidyohs! When did you get knighted?

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

gil — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:21:20 -0000

T'is interesting to note you referred to Obama as 'Mr. Obama' as though he were some guy on the street. Don't want to refer to him as the President, eh? ;)

Re: On the Scottish Enlightenment

gil — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:34:13 -0000

No the 18th century wasn't a brilliant time be alive because some writers wrote "the free market should have no intervention" because there are more people alive today who are of that view than in those times. Nor is any period in time 'enlightened' because someone gets half-drunk into the 'philosophical phase' and ask "why can't there be peace in the world?" The reason Libertarians can get a rosy view the 18th century because a certain group of men threw off the shackles of an imperial government and formed a nation that was not a Democratic Republic but an Oligarchic Republic and came the closest to where private land and business owners were, in essence, the government and the markets were relatively free.

Re: On the Scottish Enlightenment

gil — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:41:57 -0000

You missed my point D. Kuehn. I said the 18th century was important because there was actual action not philosophy (which of course predates the 18th century).

Re: The First Rule of Good Business: Don't Kill Your Customers

gil — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:55:45 -0000

I agree with mjh.

Re: Insurance Questions

gil — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:29:05 -0000

Hmmmmm . . . certain people want government regulations for insurance for evil entry-barriers and rent-seeking. By the same token why would people want to look to the government for protection and crime? Does the governmnet how to plan and solve the problem of crime via central planning? Why not just let the market sort out the crime? Individual players in the market will try & fail and before long you'll have high quality law enforcement for a song.

(Go anarcho-Captialist! You know y'all want to!)

Re: The State of Manufacturing in the United States

gil — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:46:13 -0000

So there are job losses in U.S. manufacturing yet the U.S. is the highest producer. But, of course, a century or two ago there was a shift from manual farming to mechanical farming in a way that farms became more productive and could feed more people but only a fraction of the population was required to work on the farms. Hence there can be massive productivity gains yet still have high job losses. But the simple reasoning is that it isn't the industries' duty to 'provide jobs'. If virtually all industries could fully automate their processes in a way that create virtually no employment in the various industries then so what? It could be said in a simple analogy that blacksmiths became unemployed with the arrival of the automobile. Furthermore many-a-blacksmith found that their skills didn't automatically cross over to being a car mechanic. Many blacksmiths who were well-to-do professionals in their heyday couldn't recover from the sudden job losses and lived out their days by finding only low-paid, low skilled jobs. But the big question is - so what? Should anyone care let alone make the claim that when some jobs are lost there will be other jobs created? Or that the new jobs will automatically be better than the jobs that were lost?

Re: But Think of the Lost Jobs!

gil — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:49:47 -0000

You forget another type of job loss - more children surviving to adulthod, competing for the same number of jobs and creating a downward pressure on wages. Oops, zero-summing?

Re: What Earth Day Means to Me

gil — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:07:13 -0000

So in a moment of seriousdom are folks here 'anti-evironmentalist' (cue the late Michael Crichton)? Which is to say they despise the natural organic order? Hasn't human progress been achieved through the elimination of the natural environment? Didn't our medieval ancestors hate the environment because represented all that is dangerous? Sure we will always have trees and cute critters but only because they are profitable for human to have? Wasn't it the Green movement that saw the end of DDT spraying in Africa to preserve the natural order only to have malaria death rates skyrocket in a short time? Or, suppose the Passenger Pigeons did survive and rebuilt their numbers to pre-culling times - would they be viewed as nothing more than a pest and will there be culling seaons, anti-hunting protests and farmers crumbling something along the lines "our ancestors should have finished that pesky bird off when they had the chance!"?

Re: Cardboard Characters

gil — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:25:09 -0000

What is a polite way to ask - why are certain nations languish in poverty? It's good to see the way Singapore was transformed via the help of reaonably free trade with multinational corporations in a way that country went from dirt-poor to having one the highest standards of living in about two generations. So why are parts of the world where poor nations don't seem to enjoy that sort of growth? Is there any truth to the conspiracy notion that multinational corporations like oppressive dictatorships as they can keep the people down&out as a source of cheap, compliant labour? If multinational corporations do like them does that mean they are helping to conspire against the poor? Or is that Singapore and Hong Kong had something valuable to offer (as trading posts) whereas other parts of the world are just plain backwaters and the people who live there can only compete by being cheap.

Re: Forget the Political Boundaries

gil — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:31:08 -0000

Did anyone else get a feeling of 'circle web-surfing'? Don wrties an article about Mark's aricle which is about Don's recent article on Protectionism? :S

Re: My Imaginings are So Beautiful!

gil — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:33:35 -0000

Heck! Isn't the path to wealth means people of humble circumstances want what the rich have? In the olden days people lived on the farms or the cities because they had to. Only the rich could afford to live away from the rat race. These precursors to suburbia were called 'estates'. Just as the trickle-down effect of owning cars started with the rich so too did the lifestyle of a home and backyard on the outskirts of the city.

Re: Hocus-Pocus Indeed

gil — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:16:22 -0000

Why, that's a good argument for gun control, M. Smith! If people didn't have access to guns then there'd be no mass shootings.

Re: Hocus-Pocus Indeed

gil — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:50:15 -0000

"If you think there is no evidence that demonstrates that statism doesn't work . . ."

Wait a tick - doesn't 'statism' mean a society that has a central government? Unless you're talking of some sort of anarcho-Libertarian society where everything is in private hands and every good and services is provided privately then you're a 'statist'?

Re: Roads and Public Goods

gil — Sat, 02 May 2009 06:25:27 -0000

Why not entertain the possibility that "yes, roads, streets and highways as we know them would not have been built"? It may be akin to "would the private market put men on the moon"? No, private operators wouldn't waste huge resources on that which has little to no return. Some roads and highways would have been built but only as a response to growing cities (as Tom Kelly noted) but would they necessarily build roads and highways all over the nation for the sake of it? Probably not.

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:24:54 -0000

"Personally, I'd solve this problem by making them legal."

So you believe governments don't have the rights to borders, M. Brock?

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:32:24 -0000

On the other hand, how much is NIMBYism involved? I'm not a truck driver so I don't care that Mr. Science has to work at $25/hr less than what he used to or find another field of employment? I found it funny that Libertarian Professor Walter Block argued against Ron Paul when Mr. Paul said he'd get rid of taxpayer-funded universities and the job sercurity that went with it. Oops! Got too close to home.

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:33:30 -0000

Since HTML tags are turned off - here's the link to Walter Block's article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block93.html

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sun, 03 May 2009 04:40:13 -0000

Oooooooh! Crusader's gone apespit!

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:39:30 -0000

Actually Martin I think Chris was referring to W. Block versus R. Paul and not you.

However I believe my question was valid. Even though you can recognise between 'ought' and 'is', I still nonetheless asked if you believe governments have the right to define and therefore defend their borders. If you say you're for free immigration this implies a "no, you don't think governments should".

Re: Costs Are Not Benefits

gil — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:12:55 -0000

I'm a little bit confused with Don and Paul's orginal argument (not the AGW sidetracking). I initiallly thought (hoped) Krugman was more or less saying "it'd be good to invest in new&improved technology for the future" however he actually says "spending money on different things just for the sake of spending money will stir the economy". However I thought 'continued investment' maintains 'economic vitality'. But then, investing in the short-term is an outright expense - you don't know the investing was a nett gain unless it pays off, if it pays off at all.

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:34:28 -0000

Hey Martin - I didn't say LewRockwell.com is anti-Semitic, Crusader. (I can't remember reading anything there that was anti-Semitic.)

Re: Focus on the Essence

gil — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:34:52 -0000

. . . Crusader did. :(

Re: Not a Killer Question from the Protectionist

gil — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:03:27 -0000

"How can the poor Bangladeshi Phd in economics feed his family when teaching positions in the U.S. are being protected from fair competition? There ought to be a law to stop that nonsense once and for all. He or she spent 10 years in college getting an education only to have to work at 7-11 selling beer during the graveyard shift. There ought to be a law."

Hahahaha. Now you're talking Trumpit!

Re: Great Depression: Myths and Facts

gil — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:39:38 -0000

Gadzooks, the 1921 crash didn't lead to a Great Depression? Egads, the 1987 crash didn't lead to a Great Depression either.

Then again, how many people actually lived in the 'Roaring '20s'? I thought most nations were doing fairly mediocre in the 1920's and 'didn't have as far to fall' as the U.S. did. However, wasn't the 'Roaring '20s' confined to a fairly small section of the U.S. economy? Weren't other sectors, such as agriculture, rather 'ho-hum' during the 1920s? How much of the stock market crash of 1929 have to with a stock market bubble than any actual productive growth? All I heard with the wonderful share prices were the standard Ponzi-bubble type - they were only high because others were willing to pay more. Isn't then farly easy to say that "yes the 1930s shouldn't be able to recapture the 'dizzying heights of the late 1920s' because it was simply a bubble"?

Re: Great Depression: Myths and Facts

gil — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:42:17 -0000

By the same token - how is full employment a private world a magical thing to aspire either? Children worked in coal mines in the 'good old days' and were 'gainfully employed'.

Re: Great Depression: Myths and Facts

gil — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:38:15 -0000

How was the 1921 incident a 'depression' at all? Something about a large fall and so forth? I can't reference to it except at Libertarian sites.

Re: Tyranny in a Sentence

gil — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:08:02 -0000

Gadzooks! Isn't obvious that the logical extension of Libertarian thought is the anarcho-Capitalist society?

How does government know what the right sort of national defence is correct? Or what the correct solution to the problem of crime? Why can't people decide for themselves and come up solution that don't mimic the government include DIY self-defence in the home or voluntary militias instead of a standing army?

Re: Tyranny in a Sentence

gil — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:05:19 -0000

"Why anybody cares about the rantings of a spoiled brat who thinks the world should conform to her way of thinking is beyond me." - Superheater

Gee could that apply to every one of the world's 6.5 billion+ people? I believe everyone has their own worldview and think it'd be nice if everyone else thought they way they did.

Talking of quotes:

"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." - Socrates

Re: Dog bites man

gil — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:03:28 -0000

Sure you can be call a right-winger. Not all righties support Republicans just as not all lefties support Democrats. After all, Left-Libertarians are primarily concerned as to the legality of drugs.

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:45:46 -0000

Bwahahaha! What do you care vidyohs? You live in Vidyohsonia (somewhere in Texas apparently) anyway. The American Revolution was as bodgy as the French Revolution - it wasn't made up of misty-eyed Libertarians rather a group of people who didn't want to take orders from higher-ranking officers while still expecting the allegience of lower-ranking soldiers. But what think of the Americans who had their ties with Britian and didn't want to revolt?

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:54:45 -0000

Muirgeo - please don't tell you going for similar conspiracy theories except you view G.W. Bush as the Anti-Christ where they're choosing B.W. Obama?

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:26:27 -0000

"Will you get one of your fellow psycho-babblers like muirduck or STrUmPiT to interpret that jumbled mess? Or, put the funny cig down, go out and breath some clean air, clear your head, and try to write it again, only this time intelligently and in a readable fashion."

Double bwahahahahaaa :V ! Maybe you should put down your own 'funny cig' down. I guess I don't really have to care if America goes down the gurlger as I'm not American. And, by the same token, you have previously said you aren't American either as you don't take notice of the government nor pay any taxes yet reside somewhere in your principality inside the boundaries of the U.S.A. and constantly migrate to and fro with Texas, U.S.A. do your international business dealings.

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:29:35 -0000

I especially refer to that with which you must have been smoking with your rant which began:

"Man, being man, always man, never changing from early man and man's natural instincts, will not allow socialism to be other than totalitarianism . . ."

"Arrrrgggghhhh!!! Socialists are crawling under my skin and eating my brain!!! I better get a knife and start cutting them out before they kill me!!!! . . ." >:)

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:37:28 -0000

"Did Hitler rise to power through a military coup or through a democratic process?"

S. Andrew you gotta be kidding if you think what Hitler accomplished was due to plain ol' democratic processes.

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:09:00 -0000

T'is interesting the way some have poked fun of muirgeo suggesting "he's not really a doctor, maybe a janitor or an orderly" but the way vidyohs carries on I find it hard to believe he's been in a serious military position (hasn't he hinted he has done covert operations behind enemy lines akin to a British Commando?) I could almost see him as a grumpy private forever peeling potatos and getting reviews to the tune of "someone who hates taking orders but does so whilst engaging in petty passive-aggressive behaviour and is unlikely to ever get promoted."

P.S. No muirgeo, vidyohs said he wanted to eliminate 90% of the world population in self-defence. Murder is unjustified killing.

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:16:46 -0000

Whilst muirgeo made an ambiguous comment before, I don't see a dichotomy between Libertarianism and Socialism, S. Grove. It's akin to someone telling me I have to be either a hardcore materialistic amoral atheist or a hardcore six-day creationist. I don't advocate real Socialism. When Libertarians use the 'S' word to encircle everyone who isn't a Libertarian a 'Socialist' it become a vacuous term for the sake of creating strawman arguments.

P.S. Oh haha Methinks. Do show me the part of the U.S. Constitution where habeas corpus is an 'inalienable' right.

Re: Hayek on the Totalitarian Surprise

gil — Fri, 08 May 2009 08:30:06 -0000

Um Methinks *cough!* 5th Amendment *cough!* *cough!*.

Re: On Canada's Health-Care System

gil — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:31:47 -0000

Why does the healthcare topic get thrown around, comparing one country's healthcare to another, without getting to the heart of the matter? Should healthcare be left to the free market? Or, yes, have single system - users pay up. Vidyohs links an article where the British specialists don't want waste resources on those they deem 'not worthy'. Imagine a old drunk needing a liver transplant - if the drunk can afford to pay for the whole shebang then he's gets the liver. Similarly, why should a person, who has spent their spare income on cigarettes, act surprised when they get cancer yet can't afford any treatment? At least in the free market there'll be all sorts of pain relievers that were previously illegal (e.g. heroin) to help as the cancer spreads. Who knows? In a free market where people who engage in unhealthful habits (e.g. getting fat, smoking, drinking, etc.) find out they're in trouble and can't afford treatment - they'll act as role model for the next generation to be healthy so they don't go broke or dead in middle age.

Re: On Canada's Health-Care System

gil — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:47:34 -0000

Huh, vidyohs? I was simply postulating a bit of free market healthcare. If healthcare is left to the market then there aren't Guardians to determine who get what but simply whether people can afford the treatment to get well. 'Tis hard to understand what you write sometimes much less do I have a donkey to gamble with.

Re: Is Resistance Futile?

gil — Tue, 12 May 2009 06:41:39 -0000

"And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords" - K. Brockman

Re: Is Resistance Futile?

gil — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:59:10 -0000

"Progressives are better than Borg because they don't fly around in a stupid cube-shaped spaceship. Most don't even need a spaceship to fly around." K. Ackermann

Oh well, at least it's not bad as this guy who reckons being a leftie is a mental illness.

Re: Query

gil — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:20:57 -0000

Vidyohs support the notion that paying taxes is 'slavery'. Gee, didn't see that the coming . . . yeah right!

Re: Query

gil — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:56:01 -0000

Surprise! Surprise! Very low working conditions need not qualify someone to be a 'slave'. Indeed the complaint that being working poor amounts to 'wage slavey' has met with obvious scepticism. But then in <a href="
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient... rel="nofollow">Ancient Rome
, slaves could live in a way that was downright terrible to being given a great deal of responsibility and life of relative comfort. But, at the end of the day, slavery was abolished by force of law and not merely 'phased out' by market forces.

P.S. I don't why 'tax slavery' has any right to merit than 'wage slavery'. Both are irrelevant but heart-tugging terms.

Re: Query

gil — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:12:08 -0000

"Hereditary slavery was established by force of law, so it could only be abolished by force of law."

Yeah right Martin! If it could be proved that slavery was economically unsustainable over free labour then it would have been phased out long ago simply out of necessity. There's a humourous tale that the South were going to phase out slavery because it was becoming unprofitable in an increasingly Industrial Age. It's humourous of the same calibre that some Japanese revisionists claimed there was a secret movement to surrender during World War 2 before the Atomic Bombs were dropped.

Re: Don't know where to start…

gil — Thu, 14 May 2009 03:51:05 -0000

It could be, Dr. T, that when the states seceded they became foreign powers and when Fort Summer was attacked then the U.S.A. went into defensive war mode to repel the C.S.A. attackers?

Re: The Administration's Sixth Sense

gil — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:12:26 -0000

But doesn't the U.S. have some sort of estate tax?

Re: Government Is Anti-Trustworthy

gil — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:41:10 -0000

One possibility, Trumpit, for your question as to what is happening to AMD is their lack of ability to compete with them Intel CPUs. I believe AMD was on a roll back in the days of the Athlon 64 CPUs which faster than Intel's Pentium 4 CPUs yet had a slower clock speed requiring less cooling and they costed less. Intel must have felt terrible when the AMD's A64 4000+ 2.0 GHz CPU outperformed their Intel Extreme water-cooled 3.8 GHz CPU in gaming benchmarks and it cost less than half too. However Intel bit back with their Core Duo processors in a way that Intel CPUs are technically slower than AMD CPUs yet can outperform them. AMD CPUs generally sell cheaper but their performance is slower too.

On the other hand, Trumpit, naturally if you want a hardcore computer that lasts a long time, yet is fast as the latest releases then you'd have presume there won't be any more technical innovations once you buy your magical computer.

P.S. Interestingly it is said that the coma of the Great Comet of 1843 was size of the Sun. It wouldn't have mattered if the comet had have collided with the Sun as it akin to sponge colliding with a cannonball. (Same size, helluva different density and mass.)

Re: Sudden disruption

gil — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:15:03 -0000

Wasn't Marx the victor during the 20th century?

Re: Politicians' 'Principles'

gil — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:36:22 -0000

Very interesting quote, raja_r! :)

Re: Politicians' 'Principles'

gil — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:45:57 -0000

Ouch, indy! K. Ackermann did point out that there were laws there forced people to replant trees. 'Forced'? If free market actors did not feel they had to replant trees but were forced by government . . . But, more trees, fewer forests - I heard that there's no 'natural forests' in Europe, all trees were chopped before Greenies were invented. Allegedly, Europe is covered with functional plantation trees and the odd decorative ones in parks and yards but then that could be a Greenie urban myth.

Re: Sudden disruption

gil — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:28:53 -0000

"Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened." - vidyohs

But what of the rise of the welfare state and trade unions during the 20th century?

Re: How Will You Spend Your $2,800?

gil — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:28:02 -0000

It seems as though you're a pigeon walking into a cat convention, Daniel.

Well, Randy, building a moat and filling it with holy water might be a start.

Re: How Will You Spend Your $2,800?

gil — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:53:54 -0000

Gee, should small cars be banished if "lighter cars are death traps", Joe? Pres. Obama could save 40,000 lives a year by forcing everyone to go to horses and bicycles. V8 pickup trucks for all?

Re: Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity

gil — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:42:45 -0000

Instead of saying "aw those poor workers either lose their jobs or have to work for less" - why not try "those bastards were tricking me in providing 'make-work' employement or were way overcharging me for their labour"? This also raises the question of "what is the point of trade unions anyway?" Don't they just jack up the price of labour through the threat of force and to say that "as long as it's a voluntary-joined group and employers can ignore them" is akin to saying "as long as it's a voluntary-joined invasion army and the would-be 'invadees' can tell the would-be invaders to 'bugger off' and they would actually do so."

Still the problem of offshoring to find cheap labour is merely the problem of trade unions and employment regulations. If the West were a free market economy then wages would naturally fall in a way there'd be not incentive to offshore.

P.S. That was a pretty funny post, Trumpit.

Re: Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity

gil — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:37:40 -0000

"What exactly is a living wage? I think the economy is only dysfunctional in that you don't like the outcomes."

Yeah problem of creating a productive system whereby everyone has a decent pay is still elusive.

Re: Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity

gil — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:49:09 -0000

Aw, come on, admit it - wages don't come just from productivity but are also (and mainly) determined by how easy or hard it is to find someone else to replace you. Productivity is asking "Do you have skills that we want?" Marginal worth is asking "Why should we pay you $10 per hour when this other guy will do the same work for $5 per hour."

P.S. Complaints about minimum wage comes about from the fact that employers want to pay less than the minimum wage. I can't employers getting worked up over a minimum wage of 1 cent per hour.

Re: Economizing on Resource Use, Including the Use of Labor, Is Key to Prosperity

gil — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:48:42 -0000

. . . I can't imagine employers . . . :(

Re: Can You Spot the Billionaire?

gil — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:26:29 -0000

Why not proverbially kick her in her arse by stating "yes, some people are indeed millions of times more productive than other"? For someone to be a millionaire they run a large productive enterprise and that's a helluva lot more productive difference compared with someone barely subsisting.

Or at the very least you could used that analogy of the average Medieval schmoe and Queen Elizabeth I versus average Westerner schmoe and Queen Elizabeth II for showing real growth over inequality.

Re: Can You Spot the Billionaire?

gil — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:48:24 -0000

Or to do an anti-dg lesvic:

Yes inequality will grow as one group embrace innovation, growth, technology, creative destruction, etc., and the other groups continue to subsist as their ancestors did. If one group embraces tradition, strong family, prohibitive religion, etc., in a way they embrace stasis then why should they act shocked when a foward-thinking culture grows wealthier and more unequal in living standards? After all, are there not countries or communities in countries where there has been little change for fifty or more years? In the vibrant part of the West the each decade means different norms and values (What comes to mind when you hear the '50 culture? The '60s culture? '70s? '80s?, '90s?, '00s?) In many parts of the world they're still pretty much doing what they did all along. Hence they look at the decades and think "it was pretty much the same as before except I used to young and my adult children were once babies".)

Another anology is the inequality in the structural view of the Universe. A hard-core Creationist may feel warm and fuzzy when he believes in a simple, small Universe created by God 6,000 years because that view hasn't changed since the Bible was collated and printed. A person of science, on the other hand, see the Universe getting more amazing, detailed and more mysterious as old phenomena is explained whilst new ones crop up (E.g. we now what fuels stars, what quasars are, what shape the Galaxy is, that there are more galaxies, planets, supernovae. However, now there's dark matter, dark energy, etc.).

Re: Huh?

gil — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:31:07 -0000

"Actually, I have some gay friends who think it's not at all the same thing as a heterosexual marriage and should be treated and respected as its own entity." - Methinks.

They're probably playing the 'good guys' as they don't want to get married and make heteros feel warm an fuzzy the same way (from that article a few weeks ago) a man who can't cheat wife because no other woman would have him support monogamy and faithfulness.

Re: Why Greater Differences in Incomes?

gil — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:23:59 -0000

Two posters who have made the most sense to me so far are: vidyohs (*cough* *gasp* *wheeze*) and Trumpit (*snicker*)

For some reason people are falling for dg lesvic's 'masterstroke. Vidyohs rightly points out that natural inequality occurs therefore to bring about equality require an external force that destroy wealth. Trumpit tongue-in-cheek post also show a hypothetical scenario whereby everyone is equal but in a totally bad way.

At the end of the day, if some poor guy is living just above the poverty whilst CEOs and movie stars are making millions then there's huge inequality but is it necessarily 'wrong'? If something goes wrong and the CEOs and movie stars lose it all and having to work for a pittance whilst the poor guy is still working for a pittance then greater equality has been achieved (and the poor guy is probably feeling pretty good about himself because his income is now 'average) but is it necessarily something to strive for?

Re: How do you figure?

gil — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:25:14 -0000

"Is it possible for someone to support a president without getting accused of worshiping him???" - D. Kuehn

Only if you're a Conservative and the President is a Republican. After all, what would these posts be like if McCain was the President? Oh well, what of about the stink kicked up when a politician breastfed her baby in the Aussie Parliament?

Re: Smith Understood This Reality

gil — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:30:12 -0000

Does that not mean as a free market becomes more developed and more hi-tech then the size of people per buiness shrinks? If you want to build a large pyramid 4500 years ago you have to get maybe 100,000 people to work. Today, who knows? Maybe 5,000? In the future - one person bossing around robots and machinery? Ultimately, robots, computers and machines will do all the donkey work as people do higher order stuff?

Re: Inspiring – Not

gil — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:19:51 -0000

Is this unsurprising since was Herbert Spencer the original Social Darwinist? He wouldn't have much time for the inefficient and weak. I'm sure he would have believed in "war-war is better than jaw-jaw".

Re: Inspiring – Not

gil — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:49:13 -0000

Maybe it was the invention of modern medicine which allowed for the weak and feeble to survive and reproduce.

Re: Socialism

gil — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:33:24 -0000

Who 'stole' what now? What difference would it make if 'Libertal' now meant 'Libertarian'? It is due to the fact that as soon as someone hears you're a Libertarian they then walk away?

So henceforth Socialism/Communism is seen as 'force'? The notion of a group of people voluntarily entering a communal living aren't 'Communist' but 'unorthodox Capitalists' because it's voluntary? Would they still be Capitalists if the group made no claim to private ownership?

Re: Socialism

gil — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:14:34 -0000

"You 'socialists' . . ." - bio rot.

What lamo crap is that? It sounds as though you suffer from some sort of inferiority complex. I can't help if the 2nd Amendment didn't read "Congress nor government nor private individual shall make no law prohibiting the the individual's right to buy, sell, carry, bear, conceal, use any firearm or weapons". It's not as thought I wrote the darn thing. (Nor is it my fault that disgruntled Americans won't form a geurilla army to overthrow the federal government. That's something they have to do on their own and not give puppy-dog-eyes looks to the U.N. and hope for them to intervene.

Re: Socialism

gil — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:14:50 -0000

)

Re: Spending Other People's Money

gil — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:17:10 -0000

This reminds of those who try to talk of 'fiat' money. They go in for the doom&gloom of "did you know your money is a collection 'I.O.U.'?" This is false. What can make a piece of paper quite valuable is that it is a contract or an I.O.U. of some sort. Heck! A handwritten I.O.U. can even hold up in court! True 'fiat' money that is no better than couterfeit money is that the notes represent nothing. Since 'fiat' means 'decree', then fiat money is money isn't even an I.O.U. but a piece of paper that certain someone says you will use this as your currency through the backing of force.

Re: Spending Other People's Money

gil — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:03:18 -0000

Golly SaulOhio. Isn't that what most people say when they mean 'fiat' money? It's not valuable because the market chose it but the government decreed by fiat that it is valuable through legal tender?

Re: Why macro is nonsense

gil — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:29:22 -0000

"Inflationary depression of the late 1960s and 1970s comes to mind." - S Andrews.

Puh-leeease! Plenty of Libertarians are presuming the current economic mediocrity will be 'the one'. The one where societies will collapse as this economic downturn was the last straw. Somehow this is hard to believe as there aren't huge lines of people waiting for soup.

Re: Where orders emerge

gil — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:14:46 -0000

"They take place because of the ones who consistently back with the idea that the solution to every problem is government and more trust in it."

Who's the 'they' then vidyohs? The problem with Libertarians such as yourself is that you're so far off the political spectrum that everything that seems to be at the same spot just as London and New York can be seen to be sharing the same spot to someone living on Mars. Invariably you & co. put everyone into the pigeon hole of 'Socialist'. It's akin to the far left crying "racism" at anything a white person does and akin to the far right crying "reverse-racism" at anything a non-white person does.

P.S. I had didn't that 'statism' was even a word until I found Libertarianism and the nature of its meaning pretty much confirms that it was invented by Libertarianism.

Re: Brilliance from Bryan

gil — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:31:15 -0000

So the poor can stay terribly in their home country or be poor second class in another? Howz about questioning the role of evolution and genetics as well? These people are born naturally underproductive hence have no capacity to not be poor. If it's plain folly for the aspiring economic leveller to say "why not take those who have 'too much' and give it to those who have 'too little'" then is it not folly to say "free the market and they'll go from poor to rich" as these people aren't being 'held down' but are just plain unproductive, period?

Re: Brilliance from Bryan

gil — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:12:07 -0000

"In spite of all the boo hooing I have never seen any evidence that income inequality is any more than the results of effort inequality." - vidyohs

Who's to say any inequality is unnatural? Since Libertarians are too weak to be a separatist movement and overthrow government then government going to always be here. Libertarians might further despair that those who are strong enough to be separatists are just as 'statist' as the government they intend to overthrow. Who's to say 'force' is necessarily unnatural as those who excel in initiating it as they don't feel obliged to refrain from it. As far as they are concerned they were given this power and it'd be a shame not to use it. Weaklings may despair over what the strong do but they're weaklings and they can't much change their lot in life and should find allegiance with a gentler strong group.

Re: Brilliance from Bryan

gil — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:20:11 -0000

Yeah, you talk tough vidyohs but you don't have any ideas on any change. I'm sure you'd love to round up the key statists, massacre them, bulldoze their bodies into a large pit and fill it in and then warn the average voters who supported them that if they don't change their ways they'll end up in a pit as well but in reality nothing happens. Similarly, it must be embarrassing watching Mexican drug lords do more to thwart their government than any Libertarian yet they wouldn't have heard of Mises or Hayek let alone have any intention of being Libertarians but they do get the job done.

Re: Did Global Warming Cause the Air France Crash?

gil — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:26:25 -0000

"Note that I am not here saying that global warming isn't occurring." - D. Boudreaux

Why not? Are you afraid you'll be arrested or fined for saying otherwise?

P.S. Apparently some find Methinks' humour trolling funny.

Re: Did Global Warming Cause the Air France Crash?

gil — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:06:23 -0000

What is the secret to accepting the Word of <s>God</s> Government without question? - brotio

Is another take that of the 'tragedy of commons'? No one 'owns' the atmosphere therefore no one ought to have the right to prohibit what people dump in the atmosphere? "Not yours to regulate", eh? Even if a global warming scenario become true, let's say - Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable due to extreme floding, then no one's to blame because the flooding came from 'the atmosphere' which no one owns therefore no one in particular is liable?

Re: Did Global Warming Cause the Air France Crash?

gil — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:03:54 -0000

I was actually arguing whether global warming cannot be regulated even if were true as the government can't claim ownership over the atmosphere and therefore does not have a right to regulate anyway? Er, right, brotio? Besides it could be argued that global warming can't be proved beyond a doubt anyway. Even if slightly higher temperatures are recorded in 2100 it could be just attributed to unusual but random heat waves. After all, the Earth's distance from the Sun is still going to 148 million kilometres in a century's time.

Re: Did Global Warming Cause the Air France Crash?

gil — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:03:45 -0000

Would you call Don Boudreaux disingenuous for not stating he denies climate change, vidyohs? Or is Don Boudreaux disingenuous if he'is using diplomatic language where he doesn't really believe in climate change but he's 'playing it safe' for those who do?

However, the real question is: do governments have the right to deal with 'negative externalities'? Is it "no" because government doesn't own the 'commons' therefore has no right to regulate? Or is it "no" because 'negative' externalities are counterbalanced by greater 'positive' externalities? Or is it "yes" because people shouldn't have the right to palm off their costs onto others because some places can't be obviously privatised?

So:

"Yeah the Industrial Revolution was tough and living standards went down for a while but quickly went back up and exceeded the standard of living prior to it."

"Yeah the Industrial Revolution caused a great deal of pollution and waste but we'd all be half-starved Medieval farmers if they didn't proceed and London is considerably less polluted than two hundred years ago anyway."

Re: Source of Desirable Jobs

gil — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:04:33 -0000

Why should better jobs be 'cheaper' dgl? Lower paid work doesn't mean higher standards of living. The only way a low-paid job could be replaced by a high-paid job is if the worker had learnt new and better skills. Besides why should one job necessarily be replaced by another? Why can't workers find themselves scratching their heads as to what to do now as their jobs have been made redundant?

Re: Source of Desirable Jobs

gil — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:53:45 -0000

Why couldn't you two, vidyohs and dg lesvic, not go for utilitarianism? Why should American factory workers who lose their jobs to Chinese workers who will do the same job for less necessarily find mystical better jobs? Or, why should the real income of the average American necessarily be higher than the real income of the Chinese? Is an American necessarily more productive more than the average Chinese? Or did American workers get protection from the global markets that allowed them to stay in low-skilled jobs with artificially-high pay? Should not in an idyllic world the average person's wage be relatively the same across the world? Has not the West had protectionist policies against other nations whereby the West was artficially wealthy in many areas and nations were relatively artificially poor in some areas? If so then when the world become closer to the natural equilibrium then certain Western wages and incomes should fall to their natural places whilst the real wages and incomes should rise in the other nations.

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:21:48 -0000

Meh. It wasn't really a 'war' on drugs. If no one's heart wasn't really in it then it wasn't really 'prohibition' either. I remember reading someone who said if people really wanted a war then Congress would have to declare war, habeas corpus could be suspended, some people caught dealing drugs might be charged with treason, and so forth . . .

Re: Wrong, revisited

gil — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:50:50 -0000

"If the income of poor people is growing at 3% a year and that of rich people 5% year, then inequality will grow."

Oops! It looks as though Russ Roberts has sunk your 'masterstroke' dg lesvic!

Re: Source of Desirable Jobs

gil — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:01:38 -0000

"What part of that don't you understand?"

Well, dgl, mandeville hits the nail on the head:

"The poorest countries have the highest employment rates as everyone is out in the fields working. This proves that having a job is meaningless in relation to one's standard of living, or a society's overall wealth."

If U.S. policy is causing "prices to be too high" that means "employers want to pay less than the minimum wage and have to find a country that will provide workers who will work for less than minimum wage". "Bring the jobs back in" - scrap U.S. labour laws and let U.S. workers work for a pittance if they are to make their labour seem cost-effective relative to poorer nations. "There's going to be more jobs" - hooray, people are working for a dollar a day just like in the poor parts of the world!

Re: Wrong, revisited

gil — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:44:16 -0000

Russ Roberts shows how inequality can/does rise in a free market. Since everyone is unequal, inequality ought to rise relative to a Socialist Dictatorship. It's just like handicapping in sports, it there's to equalise the players. Non-handicapping would allow for maximum inequality. Russ Roberts has sunk your'battleship', it's time reset the pieces, old paint.

Re: Wrong, revisited

gil — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:39:35 -0000

"It is easy to confuse inequality and absolute well-being.

If the income of poor people is growing at 3% a year and that of rich people 5% year, then inequality will grow. But the poor will be doing much better. In fact, in roughly a generation—25 years—if that trend continues, the poor will double their material well-being."

Re: Wrong, revisited

gil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:42:31 -0000

Sorry muirgeo but I have a conspiracy fear that the lack of super-duper growth as seen in the 20th century is due to the Law of Diminishing Returns versus various technoogies 'hitting a wall'. For those who lived through WW2 to see in 1969 the Saturn V rocket take off for the Moon must have seem magical and humanity is on the brink of interstellar travel such that by the year 2000 we'd all live the same way as George Jetson. How many of those who lived then and are alive now sigh as space flight technology has barely budged since the '60s? If NASA were to send another rocket to the Moon the computers would heaps faster and smaller but the engines would be pretty much the same.

By the same token, has not technology improvement slowed down because the next generation is no longer 'that much better' than the previous generation? Is '00s car magically better than a '90s car? Many '90s cars have computers in them and are rather fuel efficient and how many people who own a '90s car don't feel like trading it because it still runs well and the improvements in a '00s don't make it worth trading in just for the sake of 'it's newer'. So may it be with other technologies hitting a wall where better isn't that much better. Hence the change in the standard of living from 1900 to 1950 was significant so too was the change from 1950 to 2000. However the change from 2000 to 2050 may not be that spetacular as most of the stuff that will be there already exist today (cars, mobile phones, computers, roads, air-conditioning, TVs, etc.).

If technological growth in the next fifty years is going to be at a snail's pace for most areas then theoretically the economic growth won't be much chop either. A great danger is that most of the current hype of future innovations seems 'horizontal' - petrol cars are set to be replaced by electric cars. Big whoop! A car is still a car and an electric car doesn't confer much benefit over a petrol car other than a quiet motor and no air pollution. However an electric car industry won't necessarily 'create' jobs but transfer jobs of those who build and service petrol cars. Heck! Electric may cost jobs as electric motors have no real reason to foul up!

I know people such as yourself, muirgeo, 'growth' is the answer (Steve "The Skeptical Optimist" Conover is another) but where is this growth going to come from? Unless true space travel can be developed that will allow future generations to access more and more resources then we're going to be swirling the same old resources around and around in circles.

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:54:04 -0000

Here's a lengthy article on the issue on drugs by Paul Birch. It's rather lenghty but is a good read and bound to offend those on either side of the debate ;) :

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnalysisOfTheDrugProblem.html

Re: The Sport Has Many Players

gil — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:59:44 -0000

Why fret over what a bunch of extremists say whilst they are in their safe havens, vidyohs. You could probably go to a KKK meeting and here how many would like to see a great deal of violence against non-'true whites'. But how many people like to talk tough in their safe havens but never have the guts to do anything about it?

Besides, so what even if you point out that for every extremist-enviro who does engage in violence there's 99 of them at home cheering them on even if they wouldn't admit to it in public? After all, for every anti-abortionist who kill an abortion there's probably another 99 at home cheering them on. And, for every Libertarian who shoots dead a police officer there's 99 at home cheering them on.

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:31:56 -0000

How did read in the 'collective majority imposing the minority' seanooski? Rather Paul Birch shows a problem with drug legalisation - if users are still harming others when drugs are legalised then they're still criminals who need to be dealt with. What's the democracy suggestion about? Unless you're referring to an 'anarchist utopia' where there's no government and the problem with a crime between a drug user and a victim is between the drug user and that victim and no one else except private defense insurance agencies (if any). But then just as drunkards aren't the best workers, why should drug users be model citizens? What if, in anarchotopia drugs are effectively prohibited by private housing estates because sober citizens are the most productive citizens and don't want users of any drug (including tobacco and alcohol) in their private estate just as non-smokers don't generally like hanging around smelly smokers let alone have one light up in a non-smoker's private residence? It could come full circle and drug prohibition has returned albeit in the private sphere this time.

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:58:37 -0000

Where does the author Paul Birch state that "marijuana is harmless". What I found was:

Marijuana isn't safe

We often hear that marijuana should be legalised because it's harmless. Nobody ever died from smoking pot, we're told, and anyway it's obviously much safer than tobacco. There's a lot of truth in that. There's also a lot of falsehood.

It is true that, compared to tobacco, less of the hemp weed needs to be smoked to maintain a habit, so some of the health hazards may also be correspondingly less; but to be safer than something that will kill around 20% of the population is hardly a recommendation.

It is also true that no one drops dead from smoking a reefer — overdosing on marijuana is all but impossible — but then no one drops dead from smoking a cigarette either. That doesn't make tobacco safe. And it doesn't make marijuana safe.

Whilst you make a reasonable point Sam Grove but even though alcohol is legal people don't only drink light beer either. It would be sad irony if hard drugs would not have appeared if soft drugs had have stayed legal however hard drugs are here to stay (the cat's out of the bad, so to speak).

The obvious 'middle' solution would be the same as alcohol: drugs are legal to consume - if you can afford it, do it on your own time and premises that allow it, but, BUT, you can't harm others nor put yourself in a position of responsibility whilst high (just as you can't drink-drive). If there are certain people who still can't control their drug habit such that they are unemployable and commit crimes to support their habit then they'll find themselves constantly in trouble with the law just as now.

Besides I s'pose some say "when drugs are legal they'll be doctored to give the 'high' without any of the negative consequencees". There is only 'drug' that fits that safe category and that's caffeine.

Re: Pinocchio declared winner in Iran

gil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:23:40 -0000

"The defeat of the Empire in WWII and the imposition of democracy under McArthur subsequently showed the Japanese that even the lowest could seemingly share power and at a minimum have opportunity for wealth and advancement never available in the old scheme of things.

Small wonder democracy took root and thrived in Japan." - vidyohs

*spit take!*

In others words defeating the enemy and showing them Democracy did work in Japan? Fancy that!

Of course, a question is how did the Japanese drop 'obedience to the Emperor no matter what' to 'whatever'? Similarly the Germans go out of their way to denounce Nazism. I wonder why that is when other cultures can't let go?

Re: Pinocchio declared winner in Iran

gil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:29:15 -0000

"My problem with the liberal view of the Iranian regime is that it's too much like Jimmy Carter's "communism is just another way to live" attitude. It isn't. It's another way to die. Slowly and painfully - and they mean to forcibly export it to your shores." - Methinks

Wasn't McCarthyism indeed the right response? People may have thought it was harsh as the time but it was worth it? When people found out what really went in the Soviet Union they should have thanked their lucky stars for the Communist suppression in the U.S.A.? (I'm not being sarcastic I'm geniunely asking.)

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:01:00 -0000

"That may be, but a large part of that problem, for a lot of people with this issue, is due to prohibition pricing.

I have seen it with crack." - Sam Grove.

Drugs will come down in price but will they be free? Alcohol isn't free just because it's legal. Alcohol still costs a lot because production costs hence is way more expensive than soft drinks (A.K.A. 'soda'). The price of drugs ought to come down a great deal but it will still cost money. If people get caught in a downward spiral of addiction to a particular drug where they lose their income then there's a good chance they'll commit crimes to suport their habits. By rights, the number of crimes would be fewer and farther between because the price is considerably lower. Then again, what happen if drug producers decide to see if they can grab patents on slightly modified versions of existing drugs? The price may start creeping up again. And what of FDA approval?

Re: Drugs Won the War

gil — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:03:16 -0000

Could you be more coherent in your viewpoint, sea? Who gets executed nowadays for speeding and so forth? On the other hand, do you believe private operators have the right to set rules? What if getting caught speeding saw you're banned from a private highway owner? Use another one? But he happens to own the roads and highways that gets you to point B in the shortest time? What if the majority of people who happen to private housing estates are Puritanical and support private drug prohibition? You'll find private housing estates that allow free-for-all drugs but they are all on the seedy side of the city? Don't tell you believe all decent private property owners in Libertopia are going to embrace a free-for-all attitude towards drugs?

Re: Stupid Cult of Political Personality

gil — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:12:35 -0000

"Why?

Unfair?" - vidyohs.

After all, Daniel Kuehn, you can't spell 'slaughter' without 'laughter'.

Re: People Choose

gil — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:27:36 -0000

In other words, Gamut, Westerners could live to be 100 years old or so if they could be bothered to eat healthful food and actually exercised. But prefer a sugar-laden lifesytle and live up to be 50 or so?

Re: People Choose

gil — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:41:21 -0000

oopsies!

Re: Waging War on the 'War on Drugs'

gil — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:11:14 -0000

Another type of question - do people have the right to ban activities that aren't necessarily harmful per se but carry a high risk of a dangerous outcome: e.g. driving well over the speed limit or driving drunk (or driving well over the speed limit whilst driving drunk)? Some Libertarians do argue drink-driving is fine - they're hurting no one and some claim that they're better drivers when they're drunk. But then it could be argued that firing guns in public for no reason other than it fun should be legal too. However, how many would be willing to do drugs if it were as near-banned as smoking?

But then what happens when those who take drugs overdose? Some would say those who want to do drugs and yet desire public health services for the times when things go wrong are still interfering in the rights of others. Besides are Libertarians hoping that in an open society the drugs users are going to do drugs in quaint, simple way just like a morning cup of coffee? Or will society have more negative externalities with drivers have different way to be driving under the influence?

Re: Waging War on the 'War on Drugs'

gil — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:34:06 -0000

So private road owners are allowed to take a prohibition stance? Well, can we then presume if they choose to ban substances then they'll be inundated with crime as that's what prohibition causes? The private owners then have to allow the use of various substances to stop the crime wave that can come with prohibition? Therefore 'private prohibition' won't work (except in small pockets where users will happily go elsewhere).

Re: Unfairness — and Anti-Freedom — Doctrine

gil — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:23:18 -0000

Glenn Beck fight the good fight?!?! *spit take*

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:32:33 -0000

Since there's a legal, front door path to immigration and citizenship to the United States of American why the hell should the citizens tolerate illegal immigration? If aspiring immigrants want to migrate yet they take the illegal route then how's that anyone's else problem? If you try to do an illegal transaction and get swindled then you can't complain let alone go to the police. And is this going to be another one those where the State should have open borders and let every halfwit in but private homeowners and landowners can have closed borders but that's okay?

You might as well be complaining that vidyohs breaks the legs of every trespasser he finds on his property regardless if it's potential armed robber or harmless snooping child. Vidyohs would then reply "it's my property I do whatever the hell I want to those who jump my fence!"

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:46:16 -0000

Maybe it has something to do with countries that want to get ahead have to cause a 'brain drain' from other countries. Does any country want to be dumping ground for the down&out from all around the world? Or for that matter how does bringing in cheap labour amount to general productive growth for a nation?

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:37:09 -0000

What's your point vidyohs?

Re: Friedman on Health Care

gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:22:39 -0000

Is the moral of the story that people have to take a leap of faith? Which is to say let the health system be a free market in the way other services are? The usual retort is that if a cancer cure was found but was rather expensive such that few could afford it then people say "subsidise it so everyone might be cured" but then it would be said that "making it artificially cheap doesn't allow research into production-efficiency hence it will stay expensive but seem cheap with subsidising". Alternatively, in the field of movie players the release of a Blu-Ray player doesn't cause people to clamour for subsidisation so everyone might enjoy it rather it has to find its own level.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:29:47 -0000

Actually people who find themselves being 'head-hunted' because of their quality skills get big fat offers they can't refuse and a welcome mat. Illegal immigrants don't tend to fill that shoe and appeal to those who think US$6.55 per hour is a fortune to be paying anyone.

Re: Friedman on Health Care

gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:41:03 -0000

Geez John. Another variant to my earlier would be DVD makers had to figure how to make DVDs and DV players cheap if they wanted a serious market. Once a DVD player was expensive but now it isn't. How did that happen? Oh well two problems with medicine is the way that a life-threatening scenario can occur at any point in life and at times when some can least afford it, also life-threatening conditions that were untreatable a few generations ago are now treatable.

But then who's to say healthcare hasn't come down over the years? No one should die of gangrene in this day&age and bubonic plague and leprosy are both highly treatable.

Re: Unintendend Consequences

gil — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:44:07 -0000

"From a purely economic perspective, it has been proven that slave labor couldn't compete with free labor and that fact was the primary reason slavery eventually ended in societies that had both free and slave labor. What this means is that slave holder costs of taking care of slaves was higher than what he would have paid them had they been free." - mandeville.

How quaint is not that free labour can be cheaper (though not always) than slave labour such that slave labour loses its relative economic value? How quaint that the condition of free labour weren't really that different from slavery except for the right to 'leave'. However slavery was all-in-all ultimately outlawed not merely 'phased out'. What do Libertarians think of slave-owners who tried to hold out to the end and how they hated government telling them what to do about slavery? Let alone the Confederates who thought that should Negros be protected from slavery with the Declaration of Independence then that document is fundamentally wrong?

By the same token, how quaint the immigration debate keeps coming back to Mexico? Why is that? Why not Europe or China or South America or Africa? Cheap labour south of the border? Native-born Americans would be working for $5 a day if it weren't dang guvmint hence the need to look abroad?

On the other, Australians are kicking themselves that they lost Dr Zhengrong Shi. He wanted $7 million to start a solar panel company, he was knocked back, he went to China where they are trying to 'brain-drain' other countries, he get the money, founds SunTech and the rest is, as they say, is history. B'oh!

Re: Fotos ousadas de Martin Kovalik - Arte ou Pornografia?

gil — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:06:11 -0000

GOSTEI MAS NO MEU PONTO DE VISTA E PORNOGRAFIA NOA ARTE