Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  What's the Harm
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: What's the Harm  (Read 10489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2009, 12:59:14 PM »

http://whatstheharm.net/

Epic logic fail!

This site assumes that people's money (or whatever else they lost) doesn't really belong to them, and their subjective allocations of it are therefore harmful.  In reality, a person's property is his reward that incentivized him to create that property in the first place, which most often required doing something productive (under NAP).  No human economic system is free from human error, but the free market has proven itself to be the least irrational system ever conceived by man.  Sure, individuals can make foolish choices and lose big, but each person is responsible for the consequences of his actions, which encourages scepticism and rational risk analysis, and people who over time prove themselves less capable of acting rationally end up with less and less property, and thus less control over the economy.  Dictating to people how they can or cannot spend their money will devalue it, and economic productivity would simply plummet.

Besides, the worst stories on that site seem to be the very ones caused precisely by what this Web-site is pushing - forcing people to trust a centralized "authority" to do their thinking for them!  Take, for example, the "collapse of Myanmar's economy:  General Ne Win's astrologer and numerologist told him his lucky number was 9 and he would live to be 90 if he was surrounded by 9s. He reissued the currency in multiples of 9 causing mayhem and new insurgencies. He resigned within a year."  I bet that government's propaganda, if translated and adjusted for cultural and economic differences, wasn't in any substantive way different than the nanny state regulations that site promotes!


Where have I said anything about using [coercion]?  I haven't.  [...]

Rule #1 of statist propaganda - never admit that you're backing your arguments with force.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 01:12:00 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Scott in Winnipeg

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2009, 01:44:10 PM »

http://whatstheharm.net/

Epic logic fail!

That site says nothing of the sort. It is merly pointing out the dangers of magical thinking.

Rule #1 of statist propaganda - never admit that you're backing your arguments with force.


You have no evidence that I am advocating force, because I'm not.
Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2009, 01:50:52 PM »

Anyone who believes that is just as gullible as the "victims" of those scams.
Logged

Scott in Winnipeg

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2009, 12:37:06 AM »

Anyone who believes that is just as gullible as the "victims" of those scams.

Anyone who beleives what?
Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2009, 01:45:33 AM »

When someone says something on a forum without an explicit quote box, it is implied that they're responding to the post above theirs, in that case your claim that you're not advocating force.  No truly sceptical person should believe you.

Logged

Rebinial

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2009, 01:58:10 AM »

I have to ask again (although I have a good picture) do you really think the Constitution is the worst document ever made?  Cuz I think I might have fallen in with the "wrong crowd" here if thats the case.  I happen to like it.... ( OH and excuse my webneticate pls)
Logged

AL the Inconspicuous

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2009, 02:02:38 AM »

Um, where did that come from?  :?

The U.S. Constitution was clearly brilliant for its time, but it has clearly failed to keep government power in check in the centuries since.  Natural Rights are a scientific concept - they don't come from a piece of paper, they come from economic facts, and the human knowledge in pursuit of those facts has been improved upon, most notably by the so-called Austrian School of economics, and then people like Murray Rothbard.

(Side note: deja vu cause I was saying that on a socialist forum 2 days ago, and they were so afraid of this idea they locked the thread, banned me, and then unlocked it...  lulz...)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 02:07:40 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Rebinial

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2009, 02:10:58 AM »

you are clearly more learned than me.  It (impressions that it may be outdated and non-valid) came from things I have heard on the broadcasts.  I do happen to think the Constitution is not only  brilliant for its time but is still valid.  I am not Jewish..I do not necessarily validate the Jewish state but I DO believe they have a right to their state like I have a right to my state New Jersey ( oaky not my state but you get my point) I just dont get what all these arguments have to do with FREEDOM! And maybe my problem is that I think about things in context of Constitutional Freedom
Logged

Rebinial

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2009, 02:19:11 AM »

Dude..clearly we use clearly way to much in our arguments =P
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2009, 03:19:45 AM »

you are clearly more learned than me.  It (impressions that it may be outdated and non-valid) came from things I have heard on the broadcasts.  I do happen to think the Constitution is not only  brilliant for its time but is still valid.  I am not Jewish..I do not necessarily validate the Jewish state but I DO believe they have a right to their state like I have a right to my state New Jersey ( oaky not my state but you get my point) I just dont get what all these arguments have to do with FREEDOM! And maybe my problem is that I think about things in context of Constitutional Freedom

The problem with the Constitution is people keep re-interpreting it to better fit their political agenda.  Its not supposed to work that way.  That means this, and this means that, until it is meaningless.  The constitution is now officially blank, because it offers us no protection if it can be argued point-by-point to have broad, vague meanings or sharp, authoritarian contradictory interpretations for situations it was never intended to govern. 

We are supposed to "enjoy" a basic system of law, which would protect us from harm at the hands of politicians who bend to the whims of their constituents.  They get inducted, and in turn compensate the special-interest electorate by granting various desires.  This is not majority, its not even close.  No majority ever demanded the excessive taxation we have to endure.  No majority ever demanded a vast system of complicated road laws, or laws governing our usages of our own bodies, property, or money.   

The few things a majority DOES want is completely unattainable.  Enact a special session to remove a politician.  Never happen.  Enact a special session to strike down a tax or a law, not in a million years.  They could easily adopt a system whereby The People would vote like American Idol, pitting two issues in competition, one wins, two winners compete, one winner comes from that, and so on, until one serious State or National concern was raised.  This would go to the house, our Reps would voice our position by majority, and it would be acted upon.  Fucking simple.  Do that for five years, the politicians would be shitting buckets trying to keep us happy. 

Instead, they bend, manipulate, and cajole the various implications out of the Constitution, and the BOR, until its all whitewashed and nobody cares.  The inmates are running the asylum and we don't even bother to give a fuck, because its so impossible to make any effect.  Its like some fucked - up show happening on Mars, and they televise the findings to us on billboards  YOU CAN'T DO THAT.  YOU CAN'T DO THIS.  YOU MUST ADHERE TO THIS LAW.  YOU MAY NOT DO THIS WITH YOUR BODY.  YOU MUST PAY THIS MUCH OF YOUR INCOME.  WE WILL USE THAT MONEY TO DO CRAZY SHIT.  And we're like "ok".  Its fucking retarded.  Those people are not on Mars, they are in Washington, and I know exactly wheret hat is, its only four hours from where I sit.  But it might as well be Mars, or some fictional TV show.  Because you can't touch it, or talk to them.  And they don't give one red fuck what you or anybody wants, anywhere in this country, except for a select few that are tappin their ass and putting them in the drivers seat to continue doing this crazy fucking shit. 

So, no.  I don't like the Constitution all that much.  I did, at one time.  But its fucking worthless, and it is causing us more harm than good.  Because the people entrusted with keeping the purity of its purpose are using it for purposes other than it was intended. 
Logged

Scott in Winnipeg

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2009, 01:25:29 PM »

When someone says something on a forum without an explicit quote box, it is implied that they're responding to the post above theirs, in that case your claim that you're not advocating force.  No truly sceptical person should believe you.



Why? What evidecne do you have? This is a huge red herring, since I am only talking about having factual information on which to make your lifes decisions.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2009, 01:34:30 PM »

When someone says something on a forum without an explicit quote box, it is implied that they're responding to the post above theirs, in that case your claim that you're not advocating force.  No truly sceptical person should believe you.



Why? What evidecne do you have? This is a huge red herring, since I am only talking about having factual information on which to make your lifes decisions.

If Libman were a bird, he would be a red herring.  It's really not worth it to argue with him. 
Logged

CaL DaVe

  • No hay igual.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2037
  • Que onda guero?
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2009, 02:51:11 PM »

Eating baking soda isn't going to harm anyone.  It is retarded and pointless though.

Unless you're running cross country. In that case, it prevents a buildup of lactic acid.
Interesting, never heard that before and I was very competitive in XC racing and track in High School.  I'll do some research on that now.

I did some reasearch back when I was on the crew team in college. About a tablespoon of Sodium bi-carb is only really usefull when doing short term intense activity and it only lasts a couple of seconds in about 10 min 'race'.  Any more than a tablespoon and you are looking at some severe nausia cramps and diarriah.

I tried it once and saw some minor improvement in my 2k time but felt sick afterward. Your best bet really is to suck it up and actually train at your anabolic threashold to increase your tolerance. This way you can go longer and harder before you start to feel the burn of lactic acid.
Logged
Pocho

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2009, 03:19:41 PM »

The problem with the Constitution is people keep re-interpreting it to better fit their political agenda.  Its not supposed to work that way.  That means this, and this means that, until it is meaningless.  The constitution is now officially blank, because it offers us no protection if it can be argued point-by-point to have broad, vague meanings or sharp, authoritarian contradictory interpretations for situations it was never intended to govern.

If I may suggest, the book _Hamilton's Curse_ by Tom DiLorenzo is a wonderful discussion on the personalities surrounding the Constitution and its ratification, and what followed after.

To way over-simplify, from day 1 Hamilton and the other Federalists were "re-interpreting it to better fit their political agenda."

In fact, having read much of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, it turns out that Hamilton was detailing, while saying "this could not happen", exactly what he was going to do once the document was ratified.

I've come to the conclusion that ratifying the Constitution turned out to have been a very bad idea. Not that any central government wouldn't have eventually grown to Leviathan, just that the Constitution actually helped it along, all the while lying through their teeth that it was "restraining" the Federal government.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

alaric89

  • Guest
Re: What's the Harm
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2009, 04:05:36 PM »

I got help from a chiropractor when nobody else could. Went from unable to walk properly to fine in about a hour. Was out of work a week before he helped me.
I live in a socialist country so it was the more free choice for me. I payed cash, was happy with the exchange.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  What's the Harm

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 34 queries.