MrFingers

My two cents: My opinion on guns can be summed up as: 'If you cannot guarantee that the bad guys will never be armed, then you have to empower the good.' I think that is fairly self-explanatory. By good I mean your average, population majority, law-abiding citizen who just wants security for his family and to mind his own business. By bad people I mean anyone who aims to harm the good people, be that petty criminal or tyrannical government or foreign invasion. As Americans we now have little risk of foreign invasion, a tyrannical government, and a police force to help protect us, so I should explain why it is still important to keep the right to bear arms. 1) A foreign invasion on American soil is very unlikely, but without question that is at least in part because there are more private guns in America than adults, making oppressive occupation almost as uninviting as Switzerland. 2) We are more at risk of tyranny than I think most people realise. It would be very wise to consider the following before making a judgement on America's chances of falling to tyranny; Not only are there many many cases of democratic societies becoming victims of tyranny and facism in the last couple centuries, but it is happening in real-time right now, and, without exception, one of the first steps of all these tyrannical governments was to disarm the populous. It would be a blind mistake to assume our current system of governance is so perfect that tyranny is impossible. 3) Whilst the police force is a privilege of our relatively advanced civilisation, it is not without flaws. I think you'd have to be a very naive person to think that the police will always protect your family for you, or always be doing the right thing. Basically, the right to bear arms is synonymous with the right to protect yourself. It empower individuals to protect themselves from criminals and governments, domestic and foreign. It is a vital characteristic of freedom that each individual has the power and responsibility to help themselves. It should not surprise you that all the worst gun crimes in America happen in gun-free zones, where the good people have been disempowered. It should not surprise you that gun control laws are ineffective in fighting gun crime when the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law. Nor should it surprise you that when people start blaming the tool for murder rather than the person responsible that our morality starts to fray. Gun laws hurt law-abiding citizens by infringing on their ability to protect themselves, and I will illustrate with a case-in-point; A woman, who is now a Texas congresswoman, went to a diner a couple years ago with her parents for lunch. By law the woman had to leave her gun in her car. A man entered the diner and started executing people. This woman watched both her parents die. Her reaction is one of logic and not blind passion. She recognised that the law preventing her from carrying her gun fatally crippled her ability to defend herself and her family, with devastating effect. As Adolf Hitler once said: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

I use avenue grid for downtown areas, and non grid outside so I can direct traffic along an artery pattern.

Read all that quite a while ago. Good stuff

I wrote about this earlier: As you probably know, there is a large amount of money currently being lost in the credit markets and specifically the sub-prime mortgages. I thought some of you might be interested in the reason why this is happening from an Austrian perspective. You might have seen people blaming the money lenders for making stupid loans. That criticism is partly right, the loans are stupid, but it's not the money lenders who are to blame. The money lenders make these risky loans because the price of borrowing money was cheap and there was a large enough spread that it was worth the risk. And why was the money so cheap to borrow? Because the central banks set artificial interest rates. If you set artificial interest rates, you set a false price on borrowing money, and thus give misinformation to the market place. That is why the mal-investments were made, money lenders would not have taken the risk had the money not been cheap, and thus the potential profits so large. The trade-cycle directly stems from this. An economic "boom" is often, and almost always at least partly, because the central banks flood the markets with cheap money that gives a false illusion of prosperity. An economic "bust" is simply the re-liquidation of that badly invested money. Usually the central banks try to fix this problem by reinflating the money supply yet again which simply builds more bad investment on top and distracts people with the illusion of prosperity again. The only way to fix it is to let the bad investment liquidate. If we see the metaphorical economic house of cards come down in the next year or two, it would not surprise me in the least. A post note on the English bank run; This is because the banks do not hold 100% reserves for their deposits. It's basically warehouse fraud, again enabled by the erosion of our banking system by crooks. People realise that their money in the bank has been lent out ten times over to other people and rush to withdraw theirs before anyone else. The bank quite literally doesn't have your money anymore. As I said, it's fraud, but you will always see people defend this system, either because that's all they know or because of political manipulation. So what the government did was bail out the company to the tune of... i think

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Who gives a flying monkeys about your worthless moneyquote> Well clearly they give enough monkeys to take it and use it to distort markets, make war, etc. and as for property be greatful for having some, I can think of 4.5 billion individuals who would like even just a chance to have a piece of property let alone of actually having a piece of property. quote> So I don't deserve the property that I earn through my talents and hard work? And who are you to decide that the fruits of my labour should be shared with everyone else?

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I read the article and of course it is a wonderful idealist dream to have a world that operated in such a way. I cannot see the human race living in such a society, the fact is, human beings are selfish and when given the chance to better themselves and succeed then they will. No matter how generous some of us are many would take the opportunity to better themselves and family. quote> I'd agree with you on that, however, I see an anarcho-capitalist society as the most fair and best way to implement those human characteristics for good. The defence issue is highly idealist and I can never see that working in any way whatsoever. I do see the advantage, in effect it would end all war in some respects, that cannot be relied upon as some people will always crave war. quote> You don't think that people who crave war would have an easier time achieving their goals in a society with centralised power rather than decentralised? I think that is easily the most important lesson of the 20th century... I can forsee in the future the removal of national government, but not government as an institution. I can see a 'world government in the distant future, but I cannot see earth without any government at all. Especially as we develop the means to go beyond our planet and solar system and maybe encounter new planets and races. We would need a united government for such a thing to be successful.quote> I'm not so sure. I think the lack of centrally led direction is healthy because it means that there will be lots of smaller directions taken which means a more darwinistic selection process of the best route, rather than a leadership which may make huge blunders, or worse, intentionally subvert.

Originally posted by: fukudaexactly, i don't remember having ever heard that greed or selfishness were morally good, let's wonder why? quote> lol, so it's greedy and selfish to not want want my property to be taken from me by force and spent inefficiently on government programs that by and large produce negative effects. nice! that's leftism right there No, at all, I was talking about imcompatible things, like your example Anarchism is suicide, it will only work in an utopic world, it's the best way to destroy a country btw, stop flooding please, use the edit button quote> capitalism is not even really a system, the word was invented by Marx as a derogatory term to describe the act of voluntary exchange between individuals. anarchy is simply an entirely voluntary society. how is that incongruent?

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Ok, MrFingers, I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but could you consolidate your posts a bit? You're really flooding this thread quite a bit. Please make use of the edit button. quote> I'm replying to people individually, is that against the rules?

Originally posted by: El BurroYou mean to de-regulate all Commerce so they have the freedom to do whatever they wish? Thats almost as, if not more radical that quintessential Marxist Ideal. I can imagine an unregulated Capitalist society would break down very quickly, order could only be contained with Privately owned Police forces and even that could esculate into them funding their own Armies; they've got to protect their assets somehow. I could imagine companies going to war with each other over prices... eliminating one and other untill there is one Company left standing... by then then it would be a Corporate Police State, a horrible Orwellian nightmare, far worse than even the most fanatical Communist state. quote> Read my article on anarchy, it explains how this is actually a very passive system, and certainly much much more so than centralised power governments. Full command economies are, yes, but as China demonstrates, a mix is certainly worth considering.quote> Point taken, I don't know much about China, but I suspect there is more to it than meets the eye.

Originally posted by: krbe MrFingers, I find it interesting that you bring up Somalia as an example of how "well" a country without a central government functions. Even if the studies findings are true, local warlords still enforced their varity of the law; virtually meaning several local dictarorships based on the presence of AK47s. Many Somali refugees have fled to Norway, and some of them ended up in my old hometown, amongst them a diplomatic family and a Somali colonel from the old army. Now, one would think that rich diplomats and colonels would have the appropriate contacts and monies to survive in the new economy, but it really all depended on which clan you'd belong to. Also, in this "free market" you could risk being taxed up to three times just to get from Mogadishu Airport to Mogadishu by three different warlords. depending on the region and the warlords control, you also risked payments to them to see a doctor, to sell groceries and so on -- after all, they were in control. The reason I know this is that this "liberal haven didn't suit everyone is that my mother worked for the Red Cross which ran some programs for the Somali community -- few would talk, but the colonel and the daughter of the aforementioned diplomat at least provided some insight into how a clan system worked. And if the Xeer law requires everyone to be insured in case of misconduct -- how is this different from the central government stealing from you?quote> If you are going to bother spending 10 mins writing this, you may as well spend 10 mins reading the article which basically answered most of that. (that is the article I linked to at the bottom of my anarchy piece)

Originally posted by: fukudaCitizenship is not free, by taking your country's citizenship you signed a contract. State's money is not growing in trees, the money that is retrieved to all citizens with taxes is reinverted into them. A country is a society, not a playground to earn money. quote> So your attitude is that if you don't like your property being stolen, bugger off. That's fair enough, and probably what I'm going to end up doing anyway. anarcho-capitalist? something like capital-communism? Because enterprises are also based into hyerarchy, so they are not anarchist at all. You should know what happens to anarchist societies anyway, anarchism (and communism too) was founded following the wrong idea that humans have no nature and they can be "reprogrammed" only by changing their education. Humans are also hyerarchic animals by nature, so all the "anarchic" countries have finished into dictatorships or foreign invasions (no state is a perfect opportunity to invade a country), this was predicted by Plato by the way (The Republic, book VII, Plato) quote> Are you mad? How can you confuse communism (total state control over the economy) with anarchism (non-existent government)? Btw, to my old philosophy teacher and my favourite philosopher, the Austrian School members are referred as the "postmodern clowns" quote> speaks volumes about your teacher.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I forgot to also add that you are clearly from the Austrian School.... Several of you theories are wildly overstated and without basis. You continue to fail to provide alternatives and indeed shun mathematics and econometrics, which does mean that a lot of your theory cannot be tested nor validated, one of the main reasons you continually fail to get permission to post in economic journals. I'm pretty sure you have heard of Caplan, he has some very interesting views on such matters, as I'm sure you are also aware of. Edit - I did however like your article on the rich in society, I actually agree with you on that point. We are a very misunderstood section of society. So that was nice to read. quote> Thanks I'm a theoretical physicist by study, Austrian economics is my side passion. I don't consider economics a science, I consider it a common sense subject. I think that is important actually because it dissuades meddling from those who try to quantify and regulate. I have no interest in engaging in mainstream economics, I studied it for 2 years in high school and found it deadly boring and incomplete, until I discovered the Austrian school recently.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft. And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal. All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth.quote> Pure theory....I can never see a private company providing the revenue and facilities for a national military for example, that is simply ludicrous. The implications for such a thing are too horrendous to think about. Whether though lack of investment and procurement leading to a nation being vulnerable or the compaines going to war themselves. It is no in any way practical nor viable. How would you solve this situation and if you in any way mention the government I would like you to detail how exactly you wish them to pay for it with "stealing" your private property, which to be frank is total and utter bull**** The same would also apply to roads. Private companies that had the chance to supply such things in a a truly free market would result in cost cutting, under investment, fatalities. If you really believe such a system would work then I do believe you really are living in a bubble. The use of private companies in infrastructure construction and maintenance only works in the current market due to accountability and government/local authority regulation. A truly free market is still theory and has never been put into place and is unlikely to work given corporate corruption and greed in addition to a myriad of other factors. quote> I'm still not sure why you don't associate involuntary removal of private property with theft, maybe you can explain that logic to me. It doesn't matter who's doing it, what they do with it afterwards, or when they take it... to me that's still, and always will be, equivalent to theft. I wrote another article on a general outline of how law and defense would work in an anarchist society, and just published it now on that site: http://www.nolanchart.com/article1236.html You are right though, it is still theory. However, command economies are proven failures so maybe this deserves consideration beyond just "it's theory and will always be just that". About corporate corruption, I found the following quite cogent: "Private corporate power exists only because it is protected by the state."

Originally posted by: krbe Originally posted by: MrFingers I did say it was slightly off-topic. read the first line. That's because most western countries are not genuinely free societies.quote> And is the US a free society? Of course not. You have free education, you have SEC, you have all kinds of different polices, the FDA, loads of government supported banks, you have the Federal Reserve, the FAA on so on... Why should one instituion more or less matter? Do you really think that the Bank of America is buying other banks before bankeruptcy because it's smart? Naturally not -- they would have been far cheaper after bankeruptcy, but neither the government nor the bank industry can afford that an institution in the one "rock solid" pillar in the capitalist West goes bust because of the trust issue.quote> Well that's an issue of central banking and fractional reserve banking It's the inflation/deflation duo that evil men use to ill-gain property through those mechanisms... which are essentially theft and fraud respectively.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Lets discuss government theft shall we. Firstly lets establish some things. Do you work or go to school. Use your nations public transport or road networks, depend on your military to defend your nation, the police to protect you, your property and family, the fire and emergency services to assist you when required. Also, depend on air traffic control when flying from city to city or another country, enjoy buying cheap food (taxes to subsidise farmers) and countless other things. You see without the government 'stealing' your private property, as you call it, you may as well live in the dark ages. quote> As long as it is property involuntarily taken, it is theft. And you bring me to my own conclusion that an anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal. All those functions you describe are possible through the free market, the necessity of the state is a myth. Sorry to burst the bubble your living in.......but YES inflation is indeed primarily based on the costs of living. The vast majority of economists have determined that inflation is indeed linked with price levels. Other factors have been looked at, such as 'monetary supply' and supply side economic theory. Now a minority of economists that come from the Monetarist or Keynesian school do disagree to an extend with the importance played by price, however they do not disagree completely that inflation is not price related but have given their own theories. I am not going to get into a full debate about inflation as I would be here forever and would simply be arguing proven facts to some either misinformed or lacking any detailed economic knowledge whatsoever. If you wish to continue an economics debate or indeed inflation, then I am indeed ready to pour criticism on any misinformed or inaccurate economic theory and correct you quote> "Monetarist" isn't a school and I was under the impression nearly all mainstream economists suffer from Keynesian bull*****. Anyway, I'll simply refer you to an article I wrote earlier: http://www.nolanchart.com/article803.html However, I don't go into when and how the definition of inflation was corrupted. If you are interested, let me know.