Fav quotes

[Travis Retriever]

"The luxury of today is the necessity of tomorrow. Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, an indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone. Luxury consumption provides industry with the stimulus to discover and introduce new, things. It is one of the dynamic factors in our economy. To it we owe the progressive innovations by which the standard of living of all strata of the population has been gradually raised." --Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism

[Lord T Hawkeye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A  This interview is loaded with good ones.  I like this guy!

[MrBogosity]

"One of the things that always shocks me is how people whom I would trust, maybe not with my wife, but certainly with my pocketbook, in their private capacity, whom I would never question the integrity of, will in their public capacity, because they believe that it's in the best interests of other people, lie to the American people." --Milton Friedman

[MrBogosity]

"I have come to the conclusion that the more someone boasts about being for free speech, the more likely he is to engage in censorship." --Me, right now

[MrBogosity]

"I concluded that [the Federal Reserve Board] was indeed a weak reed for a nation to lean on in time of trouble." --Herbert Hoover, in his memoirs

[Lord T Hawkeye]

"I have come to the conclusion that the more someone boasts about being for free speech, the more likely he is to engage in censorship." --Me, right now

Well, not always.  Look at Pat Condell.

[MrBogosity]

Well, not always.  Look at Pat Condell.

True, but Pat Condell does it to defend free speech. I'm talking about people who pay lip service to free speech while defending their pet political agenda.

[Travis Retriever]

Well, not always.  Look at Pat Condell.

Funny you should mention him:



The only two videos of his I have EVER rated one star.
Ever.

[valvatica]

Speaking of being able to walk around naked, what is the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/anti-statist/libertarian take on it? It doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, right? So is it permissible?

[Virgil0211]

Speaking of being able to walk around naked, what is the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/anti-statist/libertarian take on it? It doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, right? So is it permissible?

The problem usually isn't walking around naked on your own property. For one thing, most people wouldn't walk around naked in full view, and neighborhood boards/landlords/etc would probably establish their own rules against such behavior while still exercising their own property rights. At least, that's how I understand that part. As far as someone running around nude on someone else's property, well, that's just the property owner asserting his right to eject anyone from his land if he so wishes.

The public nudity laws and such are excessive and unnecessary. The only time they would actually come into effect would be on so-called 'public land' or state-owned property. Considering the fact that the state should 'own' as little property as possible, this problem solves itself.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

The only two videos of his I have EVER rated one star.
Ever.

I hardly see why.  He said it best when he said "If the world were as honest as it ought to be, it would be a non issue as the burka would already have been ridiculed out of existence."

[Travis Retriever]

I hardly see why.  He said it best when he said "If the world were as honest as it ought to be, it would be a non issue as the burka would already have been ridiculed out of existence."

Because he's advocating an outright ban in the videos...
That's the part I take issue with.
The use of state force for illegitimate reasons.

[MrBogosity]

Speaking of being able to walk around naked, what is the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/anti-statist/libertarian take on it? It doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, right? So is it permissible?

Fine by me.

[Travis Retriever]

"The statist can pursue the matter further: 'If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service — "defense" — why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services — such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?'
I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own 'protection' to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel." --Murray N. Rothbard, Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?

[MrBogosity]

It's very simple: government is force. Therefore, government is legitimate only where the use of force is legitimate, and in no other way. Since the initiation of force is illegitimate, the government can't do it. Defense isn't an initiation of force; welfare is.