 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Tom Foppiano
Show Posts Topics
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.
31
Check out Dale's new comic. It's pretty damn funny.......
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2011/02/15/anarkitty-on-the-constitution/
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2011/02/15/anarkitty-on-the-constitution/
32
General / Tomato plant
« on: January 29, 2011, 02:16:46 PM »
This picture is of a nice tomato plant that was legally grown in CA. Do you guys in NH have nice tomato plants?
33
The Show / Criticism of Death Penalty Argument
« on: January 17, 2011, 09:22:23 PM »
Good day Ian, Mark, and the rest of the FTL crew. I am a new listener to your program and am very pleased with what I have heard so far. Despite my not agreeing with some of the ideas presented on the show, I find the vast majority of the pro-liberty message broadcasted daily to be quite refreshing. Simply put, where else can I hear a radio show consistently rejecting the statist spin and accurately describing taxation as theft and reminding us all that the democratic process simply entails the use of violence against peaceful persons? Answer: nowhere…..at least not for three hours every night on stations across the country. So, please understand that I love the show.
Normally, when I disagree with something said on the air, I pay little attention to our differences and don’t think about it much, but some statements regarding the death penalty were too important for me to disregard. While attempting to convince callers that the death penalty did not deter murder, Ian repeatedly referred to some type of documentation, or study, or something similar, that correlated high murder rates with states that use the death penalty. Basically, there appears to be more murders per capita in states that use capital punishment. Now I do not dispute these facts and I agree with Ian that the government should not be allowed to kill persons who are already in custody, but this study does not prove anything and contrary to Ian’s claims “science” is not (necessarily) on his side.
My objection to this type of reasoning is that it is not scientific and offers no proof whatsoever. Using the scientific method to discover truth, one can use logical deduction or set up a scientific experiment. If a scientist wants to create an experiment, he or she can only have one independent variable that changes while all else remains the same. If this person wants to test the impact, or lack of impact, of putting 100cc’s of sulfuric acid on one month old tomato seedlings, he must keep all other variables constant. The temperature of the air, the humidity, the atmospheric pressure, the soil used, the type of tomato plant, the watering amount and schedule, the quantity of lumens (light) per square meter, and all else besides the application of acid must remain the same.
The problem with comparing murder rates in Texas to those in New York, or Delaware, Nevada, or any other state is that the use of the death penalty is not the only difference, meaning that there are numerous independent variables. There are literally millions and millions of differences between all of the states and no correlation can prove anything. Imagine if a person claimed that high income taxes do not reduce GDP per capita, but increase it. This person could compare California to Utah. California’s 2009 GDP per capita was $42,325, while Utah’s was $30,875 and California’s income tax topped out at 9.55% and Utah’s income tax rate was 3%. Does this mean that income taxes have a positive effect on GDP per capita? Of course not, but if one makes the death penalty argument using this type of reasoning, he or she would be inconsistent if they did not argue that state income taxes increase wealth.
One thing that sets Austrian economists apart from other schools of thought is that they don’t believe that statistical analysis can be used to deduce economic laws. Rather than looking at numbers to discover truth, they approach the science of economics using logical deduction. Using this type of reasoning, it is hard to think that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Austrians think that an increase in price will lead to a reduction in quantity demanded (there are some debates over Giffen goods). Think about the death penalty as being an increase in the price of murder. Under these assumptions, fewer murders will occur than there otherwise would have been if capital punishment was not used. Now, it may be true that the law will deter only one person every 100,000 years and a utilitarian may think that the law does more harm than good……and I would agree. But, to say that it does not deter murder seems illogical to me. Again, I am anti-death penalty, but I think that any increase in punishment price (ceteris paribus) will lead to fewer of acts being punished.
Thanks for reading and please feel free to criticize my arguments. I have been wrong many times in my life and I may be wrong again.
Normally, when I disagree with something said on the air, I pay little attention to our differences and don’t think about it much, but some statements regarding the death penalty were too important for me to disregard. While attempting to convince callers that the death penalty did not deter murder, Ian repeatedly referred to some type of documentation, or study, or something similar, that correlated high murder rates with states that use the death penalty. Basically, there appears to be more murders per capita in states that use capital punishment. Now I do not dispute these facts and I agree with Ian that the government should not be allowed to kill persons who are already in custody, but this study does not prove anything and contrary to Ian’s claims “science” is not (necessarily) on his side.
My objection to this type of reasoning is that it is not scientific and offers no proof whatsoever. Using the scientific method to discover truth, one can use logical deduction or set up a scientific experiment. If a scientist wants to create an experiment, he or she can only have one independent variable that changes while all else remains the same. If this person wants to test the impact, or lack of impact, of putting 100cc’s of sulfuric acid on one month old tomato seedlings, he must keep all other variables constant. The temperature of the air, the humidity, the atmospheric pressure, the soil used, the type of tomato plant, the watering amount and schedule, the quantity of lumens (light) per square meter, and all else besides the application of acid must remain the same.
The problem with comparing murder rates in Texas to those in New York, or Delaware, Nevada, or any other state is that the use of the death penalty is not the only difference, meaning that there are numerous independent variables. There are literally millions and millions of differences between all of the states and no correlation can prove anything. Imagine if a person claimed that high income taxes do not reduce GDP per capita, but increase it. This person could compare California to Utah. California’s 2009 GDP per capita was $42,325, while Utah’s was $30,875 and California’s income tax topped out at 9.55% and Utah’s income tax rate was 3%. Does this mean that income taxes have a positive effect on GDP per capita? Of course not, but if one makes the death penalty argument using this type of reasoning, he or she would be inconsistent if they did not argue that state income taxes increase wealth.
One thing that sets Austrian economists apart from other schools of thought is that they don’t believe that statistical analysis can be used to deduce economic laws. Rather than looking at numbers to discover truth, they approach the science of economics using logical deduction. Using this type of reasoning, it is hard to think that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Austrians think that an increase in price will lead to a reduction in quantity demanded (there are some debates over Giffen goods). Think about the death penalty as being an increase in the price of murder. Under these assumptions, fewer murders will occur than there otherwise would have been if capital punishment was not used. Now, it may be true that the law will deter only one person every 100,000 years and a utilitarian may think that the law does more harm than good……and I would agree. But, to say that it does not deter murder seems illogical to me. Again, I am anti-death penalty, but I think that any increase in punishment price (ceteris paribus) will lead to fewer of acts being punished.
Thanks for reading and please feel free to criticize my arguments. I have been wrong many times in my life and I may be wrong again.
34
General / Huffington Post
« on: January 12, 2011, 03:14:41 PM »
So I know that I should be shot for using this website, as it is loaded with state worshiping Nazis, but I do enjoy commenting on the articles and pointing out that the left is no different from the right. The problem that I am having is that anytime I write that government action is violence, the moderators will not allow my post. It is crazy. I write 3-4 sentences explaining how taxation is the government using violence against peaceful persons and the post does't show. But, when I write other things that are pro-liberty, they are allowed.
Anyone have a similar experience? (probably not since you don't want to torture yourself by reading from some of the most violent rhetoric ever)
Anyone have a similar experience? (probably not since you don't want to torture yourself by reading from some of the most violent rhetoric ever)
35
General / Congresswoman shot in head
« on: January 08, 2011, 03:28:21 PM »
I am sad to write that violence has been initiated against a seemingly innocent group of individuals and a congresswoman AND a Federal Judge. Aside from the initial violence that took place in Arizona, I am concerned with the law(s) that I presume will pass to "remedy" the situation.
For instance, if a scary looking weapon was used in the killings, the Federal Assault Weapons ban may be passed again.
What do you guys and gals think may come down the pipe way?
For instance, if a scary looking weapon was used in the killings, the Federal Assault Weapons ban may be passed again.
What do you guys and gals think may come down the pipe way?