Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - Travis Retriever

#201
Before taking economics and seeing Shane's videos, I was one myself.  The line of reasoning goes something like this:
If government helps (corporatizes) business or some sector of the market, it's the same, both in principle and result, as government not intervening in said market.
It all springs from that little bit.  This seems to be what people of the socialist mindset think; that, in a free market, big business runs wild with nothing to anchor it, causing it to do the same harm that it would if government was backing it up.

It's shown in this quiz http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html question #8 which implies that government regulation of business is automatically pro worker and good for the poor, but bad for the rich, while the free market, or "pro business" which, judging by the middle ground choice at the bottom is pro corporations, pro rich and hurts the poor AND is the same as government backing the businesses (as evidenced by a lack of a choice saying "let the government stay out of it" choice.
Of course forgetting that corporations, as they exist today are a product of the state.
Sheesh.
#202
General Discussion / Argument with 82abhilash
August 28, 2009, 12:26:59 AM

On this video (You can watch it if you like.  Does Schiff mean he wants the Fed to decrease the supply of loanable funds?):  [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-j2tQhIB2LY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-j2tQhIB2LY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Me:  I agree with Peter Schiff on many things, but I do disagree on his point about the Fed raising internet rates: watch?v=Ubmjc83yAtI ("What Caused the Great Depression?" by ShaneDK). To raise interest rates, the fed must pull money out of circulation. It was this exact policy (inflating then deflating) that caused the great depression.
We need the Fed to do nothing, like in 1920, where the economy recovered in a about a year.


bearcat648:  "Actually, all the Fed has to do to raise interest rates is do nothing, like you say. Stop the (metaphoric) printing of money, and interest rates will rise on their own."

vortmax1:  "I completely agree with you... however I think that's what Schiff meant. By doing nothing, the Fed would merely be ALLOWING interest rates to rise as market forces dictate. I agree with you that raising interest rates artificially is just as destructive as lowering them artificially. So instead of saying "the Fed should raise interest rates" I think what he meant to say is "the Fed should allow interest rates to rise and tell the truth."

82abhilash:  "He did not say that the fed must raise the interest rates, at least I did not hear him say that in this clip. Indicate to me where he did please. I did hear him say they must MAINTAIN high interest rates. That indicates to me that he thinks the interest rates would be high if there was no Fed interference and they should let it stay that way (keep at the same level aka maintain). Perhaps he should have said maintain natural interest rates, but no one there would understand that."

Me:  "Look for the videos where he responds to the Fed's threats to increase interest rates. He says that that's what they need to do."

82abhilash:  "You have not substantiated what you said. It is simple. Give me a video link and if possible the time slice in the video."

Me:  "Don't lie. "Look for the videos where he responds to the Fed's threats to increase interest rates." I gave you something to go by. Just because I didn't give you the exact piece of him saying doesn't mean I didn't give you anything.

I just didn't feel like providing a link to a video: I expected you to find it yourself.

However, after much searching and no success, and finding stuff he wrote that contradicts that, it might be that I took it out of context, in which case, my bad."


82abhilash:  "Your bad, it looks like it is. You just said something is true to me and then instead of substantiating the claim yourself, expected me to do it for you. Unless you substantiate, I have nothing to verify. Your bad indeed." (I wanted to fucking kill him after he said that...)

Me:  "*facepalm*
I gave you the keywords for the video to look for it.
Don't say I gave you nothing when I gave you something."


82abhilash:  "No keywords. You said something. Refused to substantiate it. And then had the tenacity to claim that you expect me to substantiate it myself!! You made the claim, so yours is the burden of proof. You looked and came back empty. You are right about one thing. You gave me something. Distraction. Why not just admit that you goofed up?" (And that.  If it was supposed to be good enough for me in my argument with Shane, why not for him?)

Me:  "I did.  What did you think I meant by 'my bad.'"

82abhilash:  "Sure thing goofy."

Me:  "I made a reference to a video.
You're the one making the big deal out of it.
I know what burden of proof is, I didn't expect it would be so hard to find the video.
I goofed up.
Now fuck off and leave me alone,
ass."


82abhilash: "It is just that your goof up had potential far reaching implications. Which is why I made a big deal."
(Like???)

Not just in terms of debate, but also for semi arbitration of moral-esque stuff.  Who was in the right?
Was this a jerk, were we about even, or did I go completely out of bounds?
#203
General Discussion / Ron Paul - Disagreements:
August 26, 2009, 05:28:26 AM
What do you disagree with Ron Paul in terms of policy and why?
#204
General Discussion / Ownership is subjective?
August 17, 2009, 04:23:05 PM
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YToyCVrGSkQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YToyCVrGSkQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuHD9sHALnc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuHD9sHALnc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Some conversations I had on the Emergent Governance one:

Me:  "Hmmm... This sounds suspiciously like mob rule, imho."

hydralisk125:  "Prescriptive vs descriptive."

Me:  "Explain."

hydralisk125:  "CS covers this in his video, 'Democracy =/= subjectivity (Private Property)'."

Me:  "Thanks.  I'll watch it now.
Wait, hold on, now I get it.
He's describing how ownership develops, not saying that the way it does is a good/bad thing.
I'm such a scatterbrain tonight...

It's an interesting paradigm, though I still prefer and like the inalianable right to life, liberty and property (negative rights that can only be violated) paradigm."



clearthedecks:  "@Surhotchaperchlorome: Unfortunately it's not possible to have society without having some sort of mob rule/intersubjective consensus. You say that you believe in the "unalienable right to life/liberty/property". But even that is subjective. Do you have the unalienable right to life if you murder someone? What if you unsuccessfully tried to murder someone? What exactly counts as legitimate property? Does the property have to be in constant use or use for only a certain period of time?  To elaborate further, what if I parked my car in an abandoned field with the intention of coming back to it a day later to drive again? What if I left the car there with the intention of not coming back to it for a week, or a month, or a year, or 50 years? At what point is that car no longer my legitimate property and someone can take it under the assumption that the original owner has abandoned it?"

Me:  "In order of points presented:
I agree with that. I think I admitted this in another post, if not on this video than on another.
Hence why I called them paradigms. I'm not saying that it's absolute truth.
Yes.
Yes again.
I suppose that would be for common law to be decided. A very good question.

I'm not a judge/arbiter, so I wouldn't have an answer to that question."


ConfederalSocialist (in response to my point about this sounding like mob rule):  "Don't be a prick by making little pricks like this. Spit it out, how is it false? And remember the difficulty of the marginal state that makes the enforcement of mob will not a simple matter of majoritarianism."

Me:  "'Don't be a prick by making little pricks like this.'  Hit a nerve didn't I? :P

'Spit it out, how is it false.'
What if I don't consent to the laws/intersubjective consensus in question?
What if I want out from what my neighbors think? If I disagree with them that it's MY shirt?

'And remember the difficulty of the marginal state that makes the enforcement of mob will not a simple matter of majoritarianism.' If this means what I think it does, what I said about Republic != democracy is true."


Confederalsocialist:  "Then you move away and/or don't deal with them."

Me:  "Fair enough.  You don't like being called an advocate of democracy, yes?"

KatakiUchiha:  "It doesn't matter if you consent to it anymore than it matters that you consent (or not) to the government ruling over you. It's still there. You thinking that it's not there doesn't make it go away.
If you don't want it, then don't have any neighbors. "


Me:  "I'm aware that it would still be there, duh.
I'm talking about secession from the system, jackass.
I'm just saying, what if I don't agree with said consensus, and was wondering how it differed from mob rule.

Also, If that's true, then why does it matter whether or not there is anarchy or total government, or anything in between? Consent of the governed is one of the bigger arguments against government, for Anarchy.
I think you said 'fuck that shit.' :P to it."



Me (on the other video):  "Democracy, as a form of government (mob rule) is what most refer to as "pure" or "direct" democracy.
I know that in a republic (in theory anyways) that the majority is constrained by a special set of common law (Constitution). This is not so in a democracy (direct/pure).
So I guess it boils down to this: Would the majority be constrained from violating the rights of the minority in an Anarchy?
I guess that's what I'm getting at.
When I say rights, I mean negative rights of life, liberty and property (they can be violated, not taken away. See Shanedk's videos on the constitution for a description of the paradigm).
Or the health care article on mises about the Clinton Healthcare system."


It's the one in Red that got me the most, and my response to it.  Basically, it's looking at the idea of rights as subjective, not as inalienable.
What are your thoughts on this?  Is it true?  Is it a more advanced way of looking/interpretting the concept of rights, or something else?
Also, another problem was how, if this is for real (descriptive instead of prescriptive) that property rights are subjective from intersubjective consensus, how then, does Anarcho-Capitalism, in this sense, vary from mob rule/ ultra direct democracy?

Something he tries to rebut in this:  [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/za5bej5t36E&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/za5bej5t36E&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
#205
In response to how the gold standard works.
I take more from the anarcho-fucktards than from the socialists and from the creationists combined.  Needless to say, I'm very pissed...
Here's where it begins...I'm the guy getting wacked by Laughing Man for those wondering.  The original thread:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/410.aspx?PageIndex=2 (near the bottom)
So you tell me, is he correct, or am I correct:

Me:  "gfitzy123:  'we don't have enough gold in the world to back every dollar'
It doesn't work that way.
How much gold is there?
How many dollars are there?
Divide and keep it that way.  Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government's treasury/mint, or the open market (depending on whether it's the government or the free market that has the power to coin money)."


Laughing Man: "'malgratloprekindle:  Divide and keep it that way.  Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government's treasury/mint, or the open market (depending on whether it's the government or the free market that has the power to coin money).'

So you want to enact monetarist style inflation with a set percentage? I understand it may be difficult to conceptualize that a monetary supply need not expand because the point is to increase its purchasing power, not its overall abundance."


Me:  "Laughing Man: '"malgratloprekindle:
        Divide and keep it that way.  Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government's treasury/mint, or the open market (depending on whether it's the government or the free market that has the power to coin money)."

    So you want to enact monetarist style inflation with a set percentage? I understand it may be difficult to conceptualize that a monetary supply need not expand because the point is to increase its purchasing power, not its overall abundance.'

WTF!?!?!

Where did I say I wanted constant inflation?  This is how new money is made via a gold or commodity standard.  This has NOTHING to do with Monetarism, or inflation at a set percentage.  When more gold comes in (it's very scarce last time I checked), you use it to coin more money.  There would be no set %age, and the money supply would be mostly constant, save for the few times it becomes more profitable to mine for new gold...I'm aware that the point of money is to increase or maintain it's value.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It's bad enough I have to take shit from Harry Felkner and the other more dogmatic anarchists."


Laughing Man:   "'malgratloprekindle:
    Where the hell did I say that?  This is how money is made via a gold standard.  This has NOTHING to do with Monetarism, or inflation at a set percentage.

    malgratloprekindle:
    Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government's treasury/mint'

The goal of the gold standard is not to make more dollar bills."


Me:  "Laughing Man:

        'malgratloprekindle:
        "Where the hell did I say that?  This is how money is made via a gold standard.  This has NOTHING to do with Monetarism, or inflation at a set percentage.

        malgratloprekindle:
        Use that ratio to define the dollar in terms of gold, and only create more money as more gold comes into either the government's treasury/mint"

    The goal of the gold standard is not to make more dollar bills.'



I'm aware of that.  Again, stop putting  twisting my points and strawmanning me.  I never said a SET percent.  I just said when new gold is found it's used to create new money.
That's how free market commodity backed money works:  you only can coin new money when you have more commodity to back it up.  I feel like I'm dealing with socialists and creationists...same strawmanning, dogmatic thinking."


Laughing Man:       "'malgratloprekindle:
    I never said a SET percent.  I just said when new gold is found it's used to create new money.'


And the supply of goods usually goes up by 3% a year. I'm speculating but I wouldn't be surprised if gold does the same. Therefore with new gold, according to you comes new money. Therefore the production of dollars will raise to production of gold. Percent of dollars increased by percent of gold.

    'malgratloprekindle:
    That's how free market commodity backed money works:  you only can coin new money when you have more commodity to back it up.'


The point of having a commodity backed money is actually because it is more difficult to produce. Simply raising the money supply in terms of the increase in the supply of goods is not going to make goods cheaper which is the natural course of the free market. You want increases in the purchasing power of money, namely a high per unit value, which one cannot achieve if they are constantly printing dollars in relation to the unit.

    'malgratloprekindle:
    I feel like I'm dealing with socialists and creationists...same strawmanning, dogmatic thinking.'


Self-victimization is all the rage these days isn't it?"
  (Laughing Man:  Burn in hell.  No I didn't actually tell him that for those wondering)

Me:  "People don't HAVE to trade their gold in for dollars, even if the supply increases.

     'Laughing Man:
    And the supply of goods usually goes up by 3% a year. I'm speculating but I wouldn't be surprised if gold does the same. Therefore with new gold, according to you comes new money. Therefore the production of dollars will raise to production of gold. Percent of dollars increased by percent of gold.'


  No, because people don't HAVE to trade their gold in for dollars.

    'Laughing Man:
    The point of having a commodity backed money is actually because it is more difficult to produce. Simply raising the money supply in terms of the increase in the supply of goods is not going to make goods cheaper which is the natural course of the free market. You want increases in the purchasing power of money, namely a high per unit value, which one cannot achieve if they are constantly printing dollars in relation to the unit.'


That's kinda where I'm getting at...

    'Laughing Man:
    Self-victimization is all the rage these days isn't it?'


It's not self-victimization when it's a reaction to something real, asshole."


Laughing Man:  "     'malgratloprekindle:
    People don't HAVE to trade their gold in for dollars, even if the supply increases.'


Then Gresham's law will drive out the bad money and you can keep printing ridiculous paper without learning and bettering your practices. I like to develop institutions which will actually be sustained, but who knows that might actually just be some kind of odd subjective preference I have."


Me:  "No, you can't.
Because new money can ONLY be coined with more commodity to back it up.
What's so hard to grasp about this?"


Laughing Man:  "    'malgratloprekindle:
    No, because people don't HAVE to trade their gold in for dollars.'


Then you start something that is already doomed to fail since you knowingly inflate a currency in accordance to the gold supply while other worthwild currencies achieve purchasing power.

    'malgratloprekindle:
    That's kinda where I'm getting at...'


No you are saying that the dollar supply should coincide with the gold supply. I am saying that the dollar supply should be at a fixed state

    'malgratloprekindle:
    Stop strawmanning me, and I'll stop complaining about it.  Goes for the rest of the anarcho-dogmatists here.'

This isn't a strawman. This is the refutation of idiocy.
(Again, fuck him)

    'malgratloprekindle:
    Because new money can ONLY be coined with more commodity to back it up.'


And only the prices will increase. You've never heard of the 'Angel of Gabriel' model. If you double the money supply, it will only double the prices. The natural course of free market capitalism is a decrease in prices, not an equilibrum like the monetarists champion.

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/rothbard/R2-16m.mp3
For your benefit."


Glad he finally provided a source...sheesh.  Never mind what I stated about the gold standard can be found in ANY basic economics text...
I digress, is he correct, that the supply of commodity should always be kept constant in a gold standard or it will fail?  I'm glad he at least provided something, but I'd like to know how he explains the period of prosperity in the U.S. after the Civil War, until about 1900, on a gold standard that did very much what I talked of, and is even touted by the Mises Institute as historical evidence for commodity money's success and soundness.
#206
General Discussion / Republic a form of democracy?
July 25, 2009, 11:18:31 PM
Me: "Democracy is a shitty form of government anyways.
A Minarchal republic is better.
And to the person who said so, No, a Republic is NOT a form of Democracy."


Anarchist: "A Republic is not a form or Democracy?
Answer this... What do you use to elect your representatives?
Don't you use Democracy? Yes you do."


Me: "A republic CAN use democratic representation but doesn't HAVE to. Remind this person that Senators were NOT democratically elected until 1913."

Anarchist: "A Republic is not a form or Democracy?
Answer this... What do you use to elect your representatives?
Don't you use Democracy? Yes you do."


Me: "A republic CAN use democratic representation but doesn't HAVE to. Senators were NOT democratically elected until 1913."

Anarchist: "How were they elected then?
Without Democracy you can't elect a politician.
Did they just came to power by force? I can't think of anything else."


Me: "They weren't elected.
Another false dichotomy.
Appeal to Ignorance. Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the various states via Article 1 Section 1 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution."


Anarchist: "Who choses the people in the legislatures?
How?
Democracy, majority.


Control and more control, one way or another.
Which history has shown how governments grow, degenerate and fail.

But don't think I'm against you forming your constitutional republic, you can, but let people secede from it, and as long as you can do that you'll be much safer and happier."


What are your thoughts on the last bit. How do I respond to his point about the legislatures being elected via democracy? It sounds like a slippery slope to me. But I'd like to hear what your thoughts/reply on it are.

What is the response to this (especially the bolded part)?
#207
In the comments you said: "It would actually have to find investors. The horror! The horror!

WTF do you think CDs and money market accounts are?" regarding the banks lending out money in the full reserve banking system.

I'm having trouble connecting the dots, but how is it that investment spending loans don't create inflation (or at least not as much) when the money is loaned out?

That is, how is investment spending different from on the services, or capital goods bought with said spending.  If, say, for example, I invest $10,000 in a company, doesn't that money become the salary of people who build the goods, or sell the resources and end up in the bank, just like it would with consumer spending?
#208
General Discussion / Another UHC Woo
June 06, 2009, 03:07:01 PM
Me:  "There's no reason to switch into an extreme vision of any health system, public or private, because BOTH are flawed alone."
Before the government starting meddling, we had near universal insurance coverage with the bills being about the size of the phone bills of that time.

DeadlyChinchilla:  "Because phone bills haven't gotten any bigger since then, either, apparently. *sigh*

Before the government began regulating healthcare, many people were scammed and they often DIED for stupid reasons. You want to go back to that "draw a card" style of healthcare because it was cheap? Honestly..."

According to one of your latest videos, all the problems of healthcare can be traced back to government.
I take it what he talks about isn't an exception.
#209
General Discussion / More WWII arguments:
June 02, 2009, 01:33:49 PM
Even more stuff from another dude on YouTube:

Me:  "I agree with Dan, with a huge exception.
We didn't need to go into WWII or WWI for that matter."


Him:  "'We didn't need to go into WWII'

if you had been president, you would have just forgiven japan for pearl harbor?"


Me:  If you were president, would you have used an interventionist foreign policy that led to WWI, and that helped Hitler rise to power, while arming the allies, giving the Japanese reason to attack us?
All of which could have been avoided, and saved countless lives?


Him:  "- US policy did not lead to WWI, i can't think why you would say this

- many factors helped hitlers rise, however i would put the US govt's contribution lower than many other factors (clemenceau at versailles and german cultural obedience to authority spring to mind)

- the Japanese attacked pearl harbor to ensure their oil grab in SE asia wouldn't be hindered by the US fleet"


(I don't know about the Japanese said of this story, but I think given the information Shane gave me to deal with that conservative friend of mine, (which I posted as a reply to this latest dude's comments), the Japanese stuff should be irrelavent, maybe.)

Him:  - none of that explains how US policy led to WWI

- i mentioned versailles already, and clemenceau, not wilson, was the key mover behind vengeful repayments

"Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany"
- versailles was a significant factor, but there were many other factors, the causation for this and other events, such as the russian revolution, is not as straightforward as your comments seem to convey.
#210
Any thoughts on the first video?
#211
Any thoughts?
#212
Even more stuff from another dude on YouTube:

Me:  "I agree with Dan, with a huge exception.
We didn't need to go into WWII or WWI for that matter."


Him:  "'We didn't need to go into WWII'

if you had been president, you would have just forgiven japan for pearl harbor?"


Me:  If you were president, would you have used an interventionist foreign policy that led to WWI, and that helped Hitler rise to power, while arming the allies, giving the Japanese reason to attack us?
All of which could have been avoided, and saved countless lives?


Him:  "- US policy did not lead to WWI, i can't think why you would say this

- many factors helped hitlers rise, however i would put the US govt's contribution lower than many other factors (clemenceau at versailles and german cultural obedience to authority spring to mind)

- the Japanese attacked pearl harbor to ensure their oil grab in SE asia wouldn't be hindered by the US fleet"

I don't know about the Japanese said of this story, but I think given the information Shane gave me to deal with that conservative friend of mine, (which I posted as a reply to this latest dude's comments), the Japanese stuff should be irrelavent (maybe).

Him:  - none of that explains how US policy led to WWI

- i mentioned versailles already, and clemenceau, not wilson, was the key mover behind vengeful repayments

"Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany"
- versailles was a significant factor, but there were many other factors, the causation for this and other events, such as the russian revolution, is not as straightforward as your comments seem to convey.
#213
[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/odK7xSG8bhg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/odK7xSG8bhg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

This strikes me as cherry picking laced with bogosity.
While it is true that Islam is a threat, I think he's got it wrong on how to help.
"There is not economic model to support..."
Uh, the free Market?

As for the problems they point out about Islam's explosion in population, the best thing would be to decrease government power so that there isn't any for the Muslims to grab.  Such that any terrorism or force used would qualify as an initiation of force, and be bumped down by the government.
Also, this would be a problem of democracy.  It's further reason why a constitution republic is a better form of government.
Because the majority doesn't rule.

What's more, maybe they (Muslims) wouldn't be coming to these first world countries in droves if we hadn't been messing around with their countries making things worse, or subsidizing them and their enemies, allowing them to prop up their inefficient theocratic, totalitarian states, giving them less incentive to stop and convert to a free market society the way the christian societies of Europe and the USA did.


Also this video seems to be a variation of the demographic winter stuff
Debunked by LadyAttis in this video:

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hGh2MULJTWw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hGh2MULJTWw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]
#214
General Discussion / Miranda Rights?
May 31, 2009, 03:51:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsA3ni5fVAY ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America" by SafeArmsReview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWX40D42hM ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America Part 2" by SafeArmsReview)

I got this response:
"THAT IS NOT TRUE!

The Supreme Court overturned Michigan v. Jackson which has nothing to do with Miranda. Basically all they did was say that just because you have a court appointed attorney that does not mean that the police can not contact you in an attempt to question you. All you have to do is cite miranda and refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present and interrogation must stop.

Quoted from the ruling:
Jackson's marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs. Even without Jackson, few badger-ing-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because theCourt has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S., at
474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant "has invoked his [Miranda] right," interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146, no subsequent interro-gation may take place until counsel is present. Id., at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson's rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confes-sions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not ";pay its way," United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907–908, n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.

Complete ruling here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

EDIT: I just wanted to add that it is possible that this will mean that the police will be able to talk intelligence challenged individuals into waiving their right to have counsel present before questioning although they already have an appointed attorney. Basically all this is going to do is allow the police to trick more dumb people, or those with no knowledge of their rights."

What do you think?
I feel like someone's lying to me about this...
#215
General Discussion / A question for Shane:
May 27, 2009, 06:33:15 PM
(Or anyone else willing to post):

I find myself constantly posting arguing on this board, and/or PM'ing them to Shane.
I would prefer to not suck up so much of your time though.
Do you know of books, and other sources etc, where I can load up on knowledge and sources for studies, etc so that I can make like thunderf00t speaking about creationism and debunk these crazy socialists myself without relying (too heavily) on you?
I've got the following books on my HDD (with the ones in blue being the ones I've read):
1. Economics In One Lesson Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (read most of this, plan to read the rest).
2. Why Government Doesn't Work by Harry Browne
3. How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't: A Fish Story by Irwin Schiff (Read twice through.  I loved it.)
4. "I, Pencil" by Leonard E. Read (Read this.  It was very nice.)
5. Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency by Ron Paul
6. Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle by Dr. Mary Ruwart (read the first few pages, will definitely read).
7. That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat
8. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard
9. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
10. Mises and Austrian economics: A personal View by Ron Paul
11. What has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
12. Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises (1929)
13. Socialism An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig Von Mises
14. Human Action A Treatise on Economics-4th edn-1966 by Ludwig Von Mises
15. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Ludwig Von Mises
16. America's Great Depression 5th Edition by Murray N. Rothbard
17. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray N. Rothbard
18. Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard
19. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig Von Mises
20. Economic Depressions Their Cause and Cure by Murray N. Rothbard
21. The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard
22. The Case for Gold-A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission by Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman
23. America's Great Depression 5th Edition by Murray N. Rothbard
24. The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig Von Mises

Oh, and for those curious: All of these are the free online editions from Shane's videos, and from the Mises Institute.
For the "Fish Story", there's tons of free versions of it online.

Being the cheapskate that I am, I plan on seeing if I can borrow a few of Harry Browne's books (e.g. How I found Freedom in an Unfree World) from a library.

Granted,
I found a free copy of Harry Browne's book Why Government Doesn't Work online.
Put this in the URL: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/
Then click on this:  "119977.pdf 04-Jan-2009 22:35 1.2M"
That's where I found it.
If I read it from there, would that be pirating/stealing?  Same question for the idea of downloading it?
(PS: I hope I'm not violating site rules by posting this.  If I am, I apologize, and I'll remove it if so.)
#216
What software will I need to play it?
My computer can't play .iso files on its own.
For example, I tried downloading VLC media player to play your "How Evolution is Scientific Series" DVD after downloading it as you instructed via bittorrent.  However, after using the player, for some reason it wouldn't show show video and/or graphics after I changed my screen's resolution while playing the DVD to make the video fit my entire screen w/o quality loss.
I tried putting the screen resolution back to what it was before, and that didn't work.
I tried reinstalling the software, but that didn't work.
After (stupidly) getting rid of the DVD file, figuring something was wrong with it and I'd have to redownload it, I tried using the media player on other video files I had:  They had the same problem.
So that player doesn't work.

So what kind of player (freeware) would the people here recommend?
#217
A friend of mine has this to say about the Draft: "Military: if another World War erupts, I'm sorry, but national security takes precedence over your perceived right to not have to fight. No country = no freedoms."
"By his definition, the Second World War wasn't worth fighting--we had to have the draft because our 'volunteer' forces were inadequate to fight off the Wehrmacht and the Japanese military."
"Look, if there's a war on the scale of the Second World War again, whoever it is that would be trying to conquer us would doubtless be worse than temporary restrictions on liberties."

What was said about the National ID card:
"No national ID card: again from the perspective of national security, it's hard for me to argue completely against it, even knowing that.
Besides, we already have a single point of failure against identity theft--it's called your Social Security Number."

Regarding free trade: "Government barriers to free trade: I don't have the faith in the free market that you and Shane do, to be perfectly honest.  I understand that, in theory, things should work out swimmingly if free trade proceeded unrestricted, but it's the human element that I don't trust."

Welfare: "Replace government welfare: definitely cut back on it, that's for damn sure.  Replace it entirely?  ...I don't know."

The first statement about: "I'm sorry, but national security takes precedence over your perceived right to not have to fight. No country = no freedoms." was extremely offensive to me, and should be to any libertarian.
#218
General Discussion / Another annoying socialist
May 02, 2009, 04:03:25 PM
On this video: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Z74Akf1WUbU&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DZ74Akf1WUbU
He goes by the name of infinit888 and seems to think that personal experience/anecdotal evidence trumps empirical data.

infinit888: "the USA's poor are as well of as Europe's middle class!"
My parents are middle class. So you're saying that the poor in America have their own house (paid off) , 2 cars (paid off), health care, vacations and can pay their son to go to college. Right maybe in fairytale land.

Me: I cited sources and evidence for my claims.
Get over it.

infinit888:   "I cited sources and evidence for my claims."
Sorry I was addressing a specific claim made by you. Namely
"the USA's poor are as well of as Europe's middle class!"
Nowhere in the video posted by shanedk does he present any 'evidence' or 'sources' to back up that statement.
My evidence (albeit not directly verifiable by you) falsifies your claim.

Me:  "Sorry I was addressing a specific claim made by you. Namely"
Irrelevant. Personal experience doesn't trump empirical data.
"Nowhere in the video posted by shanedk does he present any 'evidence' or 'sources' to back up that statement."
I gave other sources: "The Swedish Myth Debunked".

infinit88:  "Personal experience" - Oh so you're telling me that the economic situation of my parents which can be objectively quantified (empirically) is 'personal experience'. Come on now really? Did you just make that argument?
"I gave other sources:" - Looked at it and A) it makes no mention of what you've said and B) the data used is from the 1990 so it isn't really up to date anymore.
Further realize that not all Europeans live in Sweden.

Me:  "Oh so you're telling me that the economic situation of my parents which can be objectively quantified (empirically) is 'personal experience'. Come on now really? Did you just make that argument?"
It's called anecdotal evidence.
It doesn't count in a debate. Deal with it.
"Looked at it and A) it makes no mention of what you've said"
Which claim are you talking about?
"Further realize that not all Europeans live in Sweden. "
Irrelavent.
They still have the socialism.

infinit88: "It's called anecdotal evidence." - Yeah in the same sense like me telling you that GFP emits light at 509 nm is anecdotal evidence. What you are trying to say is that you think I'm lying or delusional. Fair enough but then be a man and come out and say it.
"Which claim are you talking about?" - Try to keep up. Need me to quote you a third time?
"Irrelavent." - No, completely relevant. You were talking about Europeans not Swedes.

Me:  "Yeah in the same sense like me telling you that GFP emits light at 509 nm is anecdotal evidence. What you are trying to say is that you think I'm lying or delusional. Fair enough but then be a man and come out and say it."
*facepalm* Personal experience, and the observation of ONE family doesn't mean that all of Europe is that.
"Try to keep up. Need me to quote you a third time?"
Calm down.
You mean the claim about Europe?
You still haven't debunked it.

"No, completely relevant. You were talking about Europeans not Swede"
Sweden is IN Europe.

Look at what the people in Europe have (e.g. land per capita, number of TV's a household, disposable income (listed in the video), etc).
The USA trumps Europe in most (if not all) of these respects.

infinit888:  "No, completely relevant. You were talking about Europeans not Swede"
Sweden is IN Europe."
No shit sherlock but not all Europeans are Swedes.

"*facepalm* Personal experience, and the observation of ONE family doesn't mean that all of Europe is that."
I've never made that claim. Again you said:
"the USA's poor are as well of as Europe's middle class" (USA's poor = Europe's middle class)
So for me to debunk that statement all I need is 1 middle class European which doesn't fall into the category you define as 'poor' Americans. (USA's poor =/= Europe's middle class)

Me:  "So for me to debunk that statement all I need is 1 middle class European which doesn't fall into the category you define as 'poor' Americans. (USA's poor =/= Europe's middle class)"
No it doesn't.
You haven't provided ANY hard evidence.
That's not hard evidence, can you verify it with a source?
God...

"No shit sherlock but not all Europeans are Swedes."
I never said they were, you socialist cocksucker.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so it looks like I'll need another resource besides "The Swedish Myth Debunked" to help my claims that Europe's middle class are around as well off as the poor in the USA.

Any volunteers?

Any help would really be appreciated....
#219
General Discussion / Yet another economic dogmatist
April 26, 2009, 06:48:44 PM
Forgot about the Anarchists for the time being.  I already figured out what was wrong with most of their arguments.

This douche that's currently spewing economic bogosity like a Keynesian economist.


Me:  I fail to see how an increase in savings would "lead to a recession."

macrofocus1988: Nothing personal Surhotchaperchlorome, but you're opinions on economics are clearly based on your own personal feelings and impressions, rather than any actual academic knowledge of the science of economics. I guarantee you have never taken a class on economics in your life. again, nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious.

Me: "but you're opinions on economics are clearly based on your own personal feelings and impressions, rather than any actual academic knowledge of the science of economics."
Bullshit and appeal to ridicule.
I cited sources. Look at some of my other posts.

"I guarantee you have never taken a class on economics in your life. again, nothing personal, but it is blatantly obvious."
FYI: I took Macroeconomics and got an A.

macrofocus1988: econ 101 my friend. When people save they don't spend. When they don't spend the economy contracts. when the economy contracts enough a recession happens.

Me:  *facepalm*  Watch the video (Shane's video about the recession and how to get out of it and his video about the Trade Deficit) I provided in another comment.  The video that clearly shows that overspending is the CAUSE of this crap in the first place.

macrofocus1988:   I do love your sources though. two random youtube vids featuring some random guy talking in his basement and another random guy with flash charts. talk about credibility. i am impressed. My opinions are based on hours reading books written by nobel prize winners and college professors. No need to state the obvious about that comparison

Me: Basically ad hominem attack.  He (referring to Shane of course) gets his information FROM those people and government figures, dipshit.

macrofocus1988:  there is no way I can disprove this, but two of your statements make me seriously doubt that.
1. that we should be back on the gold standard and
2. how does saving lead to a recession

both of which blatantly show ignorance. if we went back to the cold standard, the money supply in our economy would be handcuffed to the value of gold owned by the treasury, e.g. to a fraction of the US money supply in 2009, e.g. a fraction of our econ. activity. your opinion is glaringly incorrect

Me: 1. Before the gold standard, inflation was nonexistent. The government wouldn't be able to just print out money at will, which would make so the dollar doesn't get even further devalued, and would make less of a mess.
2. We're going to be in a recession regardless.
If we cut back on spending and get back to savings again (increasing investment), allowing the LR A Supply curve and A Demand curve to re stabilize.
So you're the one with glaring ignorance, asshole.

macrofocus1988: dude, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Saving and investing are two totally different concepts--again, crack open an econ textbook.

you were right about one thing. inflation was virtually non-existent under the gold standard. but the problem was that in the 1800s our economy outgrew our supply of gold. The only way our money supply could keep pace was to shed the gold standard and issue currency based on fiat.

Me:  "Saving and investing are two totally different concepts--again, crack open an econ textbook."
You need to look at how banking works.
When a person puts their money in the bank, the bank can lend it out to people thereby investing it.
I'm not talking about hoarding money under a mattress. Read "economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt And watch one of the videos from afq2007 about Keynesian economics for verification.

Redefine the dollar as a smaller amount of gold.

macrofcosu1988:  either you're putting your faith in yellow metal with very little actual utility, or you're putting faith in the good word of the US government. In essence both are the same thing. the debate about the gold standard became obsolete over 100 years ago. just saying.


Me:  "either you're putting your faith in yellow metal with very little actual utility"
Irrelevant.
Paper dollars don't have much utility per se either.

"the debate about the gold standard became obsolete over 100 years ago. just saying."
Maybe it's about time it was brought back to the table.
#220
I had a while back.  I can't say I'm very proud of this, but it still irks me to this day.
If you don't mind, I'm going to post it here.
Warning in advance, this is very very long.
I was originally going to put it in the comments of your video about the free market (the latest at the time of this posting), but soon realized doing so would flood the comment section.  And quite frankly, one of the last things I want now is to be banned from your channel.
This debate was between me, DeflocculatedDentist (Anarcho-Communist) and GypsyJamFest (Anarcho-Capitalist).
(Shane, if you don't want this hear, I apologize in advance, but I wanted to put this hear so you and the other members could maybe dissect it; especially the stuff near the end):

Me:  Anarchism = epic fail

DeflocculatedDentist:  You = (more than likely) epically clueless (about anarchist political theory)

Have much time have you put into learning about the subject?

Me: Enough to know that it doesn't work.
I go by something called evidence, not desires.
I like my theories to make correct predictions and to work in the real world.
I'm funny that way.

DeflocculatedDentist:  What evidence is that, exactly?
Have you ever read up on anarchist Catalonia, Whiteway Colony, etc.? I think all the historical examples of anarchist societies would completely disagree with your so-called evidence.

The three million years of human tribal societies before civilization would largely disagree with you as well.

Me: Says the person who doesn't provide any sources. :P
But seriously, there are a few problems with Anarchism that in TJ's video weren't figured out.
1. If a person wants to kill another person (say a Blood or a Crip in his example), in an Anarchist society they could do that. TJ (TheAmazingAtheist) explains it in greater detail in his video "ANARCHY"
2. (this is more for the Anarcho-Capitalists, but I think it still applies). Road cost trillions (con)

1. How are activities illegal in an Anarchist system?
2. Fair enough.


GypsyJamFest:  1. anarchy is based on the non-aggression principle any intiation of force would be illegal and how this would be enforced depends upon which anarchist camp u subscribe to and wat ur personal opinions are
2. roads existed b4 governments supplied them, governments get their money from us ultimately so apparently we can afford it, and anything the gov. does is extremely expensive if done privately it's often cheaper and of better quality walk down the street if it looks like shit 9/10 it's public
wel DeflocculatedDentist gave the anarcho-communitst theory i personally prefer free market anarchism the best theory i've found is the DRO system it's an orginazation that works alot like an insurance company u pay monthly or whatever for protection those employed by the DRO are peace keepers they are trained professionals who can use their skills in their defense or the defense of others but they can't initiate force they basicly help defend u from attack continued....
they have no power or authority over anyone unless u give it to them so if someone wanted to hire me as a protection force they could it's just a shitty idea b/c i'm not a pro same w/ investigating crimes, etc. initiation of force will be illegal regardless whether or not a group adopts a sadist philosophy just b/c the majority wants something doesn't mean they can oppress a minority i think we all agree the holocaust was a bad thing

Me: Interesting idea.
But prices might be a bitch.
Insurance is expansive.

GypsyJamFest:  so are taxes i hope it in effect becomes a wash and besides like i said things funded privately tend to be cheaper but no one can really know for sure how expensive this may be unless we put it into practice



DeflocculatedDentist:  idk if this comment was directed to me or not...
(1) Um, no. This problem is only a problem for anarcho-capitalist theory. The legal system would be replaced with the community's (a) trying to solve the problems so that the crimes don't occur in the first place and (b) maintaining egalitarianism. What would stop a community from stopping a person who is rampantly fucking the rights of others in the ass (like murdering, raping, etc.)?
(2) Mass transit is better; i really don't see a problem

Me: The one from GypsyJamFest, or from me?

1. OK, how would this be done in huge complex social systems like cities?

2. So basically you're suggesting Anarcho-Communism/Social correct?
If so, how do we go from a society with no property rights, or economic freedom to one that has total economic freedom?
That makes no sense.
(If not, disregard that point).


DeflocculatedDentist:  From you, but after I read the next one i understood what you were doing. It only tells me I have one comment.

(1) Cities are divided up into smaller communities. However, I want them to disappear (eventually) anyway. That's mostly for the communities themselves to figure out, but they can come together just as easily as, if not more easily than, people in rural or small communities.
(2) What do you mean by economic freedom? I believe in economic democracy. You should probably msg me...


DeflocculatedDentist:  Oh I see how these are working ok. Private property wouldn't exist, they could do whatever they want with the land. You REALLY haven't read anything on anarchism; I can see that now.

Laws are a group or rules enforced by an institution. Tribes have general agreed upon rules. Most tribes operate in an egalitarian manner similar to anarchist theory.

Me: Pretty much.

It's a shame they aren't the norm today. :P
I guess somewhere along the line, the system of society became too complicated for them.
Again, look at TheAmazingAtheist's video of "Social (so called) darwinism" for a debunk that we need laws.

DeflocculatedDentist:  I am in no way advocating Social Darwinism. I am not sure if you were saying that I was or wasn't, but I don't feel like watching the entire video to find out.

Me:  I never said you were.
I'm just saying that your point is discredited in that video. Also, going back from our social institutions today (Despite how far we've advanced socially, economically, etc) to the days when it was considered ok to rape woman to keep them as war booty sure sounds like SD'ism to me.

We need law and institution, however little (I'm a Libertarian, for the record), for the sake of honest court systems, sound money and property rights for the economy.

DeflocculatedDentist:  I highly doubt it was. My point was that an egalitarian-based "legal" system would suffice.  I actually specifically said that the maintenance of egalitarianism would inevitably call for the stopping of rape. Do you actually read what I say? This would be a lot easier via messaging.

DeflocculatedDentist:  Laws have to be enFORCED. Therefore, they are inherently based on violence.

Laws do not fix problems, they just threaten that problem with violence. The economy is directly related to crime. Maybe creating better economic situations would do a bit better in stopping crime than threatening those who commit them with violence w/o fixing anything.

Me:  Also, I looked onto Wikipedia and read about those societies.
They only lasted a few years at most.
Some system.

DeflocculatedDentist:  Whiteway Colony still exists, though not explicitly anarchist, and was founded in the late 1800s; anarchist Catalonia was defending itself from Franco, the nazis, AND the USSR from the inside. The USA and Britain were also providing aid to the fascists. Yeah, it actual WAS some system since they managed to hold them off for that long, better than the fucking monarchy could have done. I seriously recommend reading "homage to catalonia" by george orwell. That book is fantastic.

Also, please remember that, at one time, everything modern society is (supposedly) based upon was viewed the same way anarchism is now. The problem with democracy was that it was supposedly lawless and chaotic, because power being in the hands of the people would mean that the people would do whatever they want. That is the exact same critique as the critique of anarchism, which IS democracy.

Me:  Interesting.
Thanks, but I don't read crap. :P
This concludes the first part of the debate.
The rest was via the PM system.
I'll post that as a reply to this comment.