Tab Content
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:27 PM
    Why is that safe to say? What leads you to that figure? It seems very high to me. My estimate would be more between 1% and 0.1%. But, I would be very willing to change my mind on this estimate based on reality and evidence. So if you have any....... I'm all ears!
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:15 PM
    But what's so bad about hypocrisy? Does it really matter if the system is "hypocritical" in some way? Do we care about that? If so, why? Well, again I don't know that we should necessarily care about hypocrisy (but I could be convinced!). I don't want to be hypocritical (I don't think. Depending what that means), but I don't necessarily care if other people are being hypocritical. Let's say that all that matters is results. Just hypothetically. What result would we be trying to optimize for here? I think a sensible thing to optimize for would be "fewest number of innocent people killed per decade." So, what kind of system would minimize the innocent-person-killings (IPK)? I think an argument could be made that brutal, public executions of murderers would be that optimized system we're looking for (or would be looking for, were we trying to optimize for that variable, IPK, discussed above). I think it would work pretty well. If we were to test out various systems in a parallel experiment on similar populations over a hundred year period, I think chances are good that a brutal punishment system would come out on top or near the top. Eliminating IPK is a goal that we're very far away from. So minimizing it seems like a worthy interim goal. If we could bring it down from 150,000 per decade to 75,000, that would be massive improvement! We cut in half! That is not morally perfect, but I think that would still be a worthwhile accomplishment. Let's say we got it down to 10,000. Wow! If 90% of those 10,000 innocents killed had been killed by the State in erroneous executions (or misguided: witches, drug dealers, etc.), that's too bad, but that still would be a massive improvement in IPK. Then maybe at that point it makes sense to hone in on the 9,000 IPKs done at the hands of the State and whittle that number down, whereas previously maybe it made more sense to focus on the much larger number of IPKs done by private criminals. If what we actually care about is minimizing IPK, then we should do whatever sequence of actions will bring down that number as rapidly and as permanently as possible.
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:59 PM
    Yeah, I think you did the same Google search I already did. :D The description of his work didn't seem familiar, though. I don't think it was him. Upon a little further searching, maybe it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard I'm thinking of. Anyway, does Quantum Reality cover pilot wave theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie? Is it one of the eight?
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:55 PM
    I am very much in favor of this reform. I love it. No lawyers in the courtroom (unless a party to the dispute). No one can ever be a judge who has ever done any legal work for a fee. On penalty of death. ;)
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:19 PM
    Right, I know. Yeah, there's no reason the whole thing should be so expensive. One of the advantages of execution should be that society doesn't have to pay for the killer's upkeep for the rest of his life and thus avoids wasting resources. Gotcha. Now I understand. It isn't just a "what if they wrongfully execute someone?" problem, it's a centralization vs. decentralization problem. And I, like Occam and like you, am definitely going to come out on the side of decentralization. If nothing else, for the unrelated practical strategic benefits: decentralization in and of itself will make it easier to accomplish the broad liberty agenda, even if decentralization on a particular issue does nothing to further libertarian goals, or even contradicts them.
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 AM
    North Korea is the object of a long(-ish; couple decades) term vilification campaign. The media has been pumping out the anti-Nork propaganda for years now. Whenever you hear "North Korea has nuclear weapons, and is ruled by an insane, crazy, unhinged dictator" the obvious, unavoidable subtext is: "And it would be good if we or someone were to put a stop to that." When you call someone Hitler, you're making it OK to kill/war against that person. Because it's always OK to kill Hitler. Right? So, to answer your question: Everyone. So if we do have a war against the Norks, most Americans will be basically fine with that. They'll be supportive. It will be popular. I just don't predict that happening at this time.
    25 replies | 683 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:39 AM
    I know professional physicists. Just had one over to dinner last week. Everybody likes philosophizing! Now should one keep it separate from one's scientific work? Probably (at least somewhat). But I think most are aware of the Many Worlds story (I say story, not theory, because it's not a theory until you can disprove it) and many subscribe to it. And, as you say (and as I said) it is even more popular and influential out among the people at large. For the past decade it has been gradually becoming an important part of our culture, and an unfortunate, corrosive one in my opinion. A grand new element in the West's secular religion, joining nature-worship, Freudian-Kinseyanism, egalitarianism, and all the other wonderful tenets we've come to know and love. ;) Sounds really good! You might know, then: who was the theologian-physicist I was thinking of who proposed the "God decides" explanation? I don't recall his name. Anyway, the pilot-wave theory is getting some new attention lately, thanks to NASA's EM drive. One explanation the researchers proposed involves the pilot-wave theory. Interesting stuff!
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:16 AM
    Do they really have such an abysmal record? I'm not so sure. They might. I just don't know. How many innocent people have states in the USA executed over the past couple hundred years? And then how many innocent people have mobs killed in the same time-frame and geographical area? What's the percentages? Philosophically, people are people. Right? Whether they've organized themselves in one way, or another. So your limited objection to certain executions seems to basically be procedural. You want people to use the best possible procedures in order to ensure those deserving death receive it, and the undeserving do not. Is that right?
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:56 AM
    Exactly. I mean, we've gotta choose our cause celebres carefully. Look at Black Lives Matter: every hero they pick turns out to invariably be a horrible criminal gangbanger who, any normal person would look at and say, probably totally deserved to get shot! We don't want to be Black Lives Matter. This guy was a criminal scum. I have only so much sympathy to go around. The general populace has even less. Let it go. Executing murderers is not a problem high on the to-do list of important things to solve so that our country isn't destroyed.
    134 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:36 AM
    Well, that would be nice. But, I have a little bit different view. Call me romantic, but as I study and look at history, most of the advancements made, most of the steps forward for the European Mind have come from single individual geniuses. The story of history, at least all the edifying parts, is not the story of the masses, it is the story of Geniuses. You need not despair at the impossible task of energizing 50 million people. That goal is insurmountable, but it's also not required. All it ever takes is one. Just one Voltaire. The one to call to action is yourself. I, for example, have built a financial institution that will enable us to use gold as money. Michael Maresco rode a bicycle across the country. AF won northern NH for Ron Paul by buying newspaper ad space. Bill Greene went through the lengthy process of becoming a part of the Electoral College and cast his vote for Ron Paul. Lew Rockwell founded the Mises Institute and has been running it for the past 35 years. Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) is building us a new, free internet; he's been working on it since 2002. Pericles wrote a book -- that takes a lot of effort. The point is: these men are working hard, over long periods of time. It takes a sustained focus and effort to accomplish anything. It takes a long time. Libertarianism and Conservatism are K-Selected philosophies. We are K-Selected. So how are we going to win? By being K-Selected! The way to win is to play to your strengths. Push your advantage. Be true to your nature. And that means, in case you're not familiar with r/K theory: thinking long term. Working long term. Not being impatient. Fighting the war, not the battles. I always try to be helpful, or at least supportive, when anyone has a Project, when anyone's actually trying to do something. So, whatever your ideas are/were, give the thread a bump and if I see it I'll try to help.
    42 replies | 727 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:43 AM
    What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there. Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it: "Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?" The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand. Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:17 AM
    OK, thank you for the accuracy correction. That's what one gets when writing without bothering to look things up. I'm just happy there's still someone here (out of the three people or whatever who read the post) smart enough to notice and willing to correct the error! I would have to push back slightly on this point, though: If that doesn't count as dominant, I don't know what does. It clearly has strong mind share among professional physicists, as well as (and I would say even more-so) among the general laymen who have heard of it. Let us call it the "currently ascendant story."
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:08 AM
    No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 08:20 PM
    Right. And yet, there was -- and hopefully still is! -- a thread tying us all together. In our particular case, it was the great project of Murray Rothbard, as implemented by the hard work and tireless integrity of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, that binds us. Murray's great integrating vision was able to see the wholesome or worthwhile elements in a panoply of American traditions, movements, and intellectual Giants, and then his genius was able to stitch them into a system that could have great appeal to them all, to all these seemingly unrelated groups. Furthermore -- and this is where his genius goes beyond sheer inventive cleverness and reaches that rare height of the universal -- Murray's final creation in no way feels like a patchwork quilt, but like Michealangelo's Sistene Chapel, a unified and coherent whole, much greater that the sum of its parts. But without the parts, already existing, already active and alive, it wouldn't have worked. Movements, especially political movements, cannot simply be created whole cloth out of nothing. They grow and morph out of existing movements. So, you need to figure out: what is your John Birch Society? Who was your Lebanese Mencken, your Jefferson, your Spooner? Where is your Young Americans for Freedom to proselyte in, your National Review to write in (and feud with), your Ayn Rand to love (and laugh at)? These are the kinds of questions you must answer if you are to discover whether it is possible to construct a Libertarian Movement in Lebanon. And again, I wish you the best in doing so.
    42 replies | 727 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 04:12 PM
    My guess is that it will be no big deal, actually. Just theater.
    25 replies | 683 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 02:43 PM
    No problem! I also would suggest dumbing down any message you want to present. A lot. Really, really a lot. The average IQ of your country is about 80. Average. None of these people can even understand the pronunciation of the word "libertarian," much less why they may want to pronounce it. I don't even know why they would. They probably wouldn't! So actually, I would suggest one of two possible paths (not that you can't do both... if you have unlimited time and resources): either radically dumb the message down, or radically intellectually juice the message up. This second option is that you just ignore all the people in your country who are completely incapable of understanding libertarianism (as well as being incapable of pronouncing the word, which is going to be just downright annoying for you) and focus on the upper-class elites, who are capable. Option One: Make Lebanese libertarianism synonymous with something really popular to the plebes in Lebanon. In your case, possibilities would be: Islam, and.... OK, just Islam. That's pretty much the only horse you've got. So hitch 'er up! Option Two: Make Lebanese libertarianism extremely exclusive and high-level stuff that the elite and only the elite will be attracted to, or even have the equipment to understand. By refusing to compromise, water down, or even simplify, you will gain a cachet of exclusivity. By utterly refusing to attempt in the slightest to seem attractive to, or even palatable to, or even non-horrifying to, or even comprehensible to the idiotic masses, you will draw at least some curiosity from one group: powerful, intelligent, contrarian/independent young men in wealthy families with high IQs. If your ideas are as sensational as you think, this group will then adopt them. And, turns out.... that's the only group you need! True story.
    42 replies | 727 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 12:48 PM
    No insult. If you want to not lose, you have to not think like a loser. Did I say you are a loser? No. Are you, in fact, going to be a loser? That is for you to decide.
    42 replies | 727 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 11:55 AM
    Step One: Start thinking like a Winner: Corollary: Stop thinking like a Loser. All the best!
    42 replies | 727 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 08:14 AM
    There is, however, more than one interpretation of the practical (real) data. The big question is: when an uncertainty resolves (a quantum state collapses), what decides which way it resolves? What decides whether the electron goes left or right? Who decides whether the cat lives or dies? One answer is the now-standard, vanilla Copenhagen answer currently ascendant story: both happen. "We haven't found any causal factor that would make that choice one way or the other, so both must happen! The universe splits (actually, duplicates)." A quite extreme measure to take to solve the problem! So you get an extremely large number of parallel time tracks (aka "the Multiverse"). A second answer, just as reasonable and coherent actually, and advocated by at least one great quantum physicist, is that God decides. This answer was.... not generally popular. So, instead of accepting the possibility of a cause we have not (yet) observed, we end up with a universe that's having infinite babies. Interesting. The first answer just fits more satisfyingly to the modern Zeitgeist. After all, it makes humans completely impotent and freedom and free choice utterly meaningless, and that is always a plus, believe me. Anything that makes you a victim with no control over your environment is very appealing to the r-selected mind. The Multiverse just happens! You may think you can choose excellence and beauty and self-improvement, but actually even if you do there's another copy of you that will choose the opposite. Ha, ha, loser!
    56 replies | 1299 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-24-2017, 07:44 AM
    You use a Midas Liquid Gold Card. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509813-The-Return-of-Sound-Money This is a card which you can use anywhere, to pay for anything, backed 100% by gold. Believe me, I know what you mean. I am not one of those.
    162 replies | 2384 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 12:26 PM
    True. But I think if you read the intro page, it might answer that objection. https://Midas.gold/intro
    55 replies | 2127 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 10:59 AM
    Indeed. I do not presume to decide anything for anyone else. Please kindly do not imply that I do. Thanks. :) By the way, The Gold Standard , have you seen my new project enabling you to put yourself on the gold standard?
    55 replies | 2127 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 08:23 AM
    I'm very sorry to hear, HB. May his spirit soar. This is the song I want at my funeral:
    15 replies | 338 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 08:11 AM
    It seems very cool, it seems very promising. I'm just trying to get more.... concrete. You write, "In the future you may see little risk in putting $100 into it." How do I actually put it in, though? I mean, I actually have a hundred dollar bill in my pocket right now. And, let me look.... yep, a five, too. Do I just "consider" the hundred and part of the five as earmarked as my reserve for Metric? I mean, I haven't mailed the money to anyone. It's still in my pocket. Is that a problem, or is that how the system's designed? You also wrote: "Currently "just_dollars" has three members. wizardwatson (me), poopeater69 (an old friend of mine), and helmuth_hubener. Currently only me and poopeater69 are connected. Therefore, we can pay each other because there is a path of connections between us. If you were connected to me you could pay me or poopeater69." OK. How could I pay you? I understand the commands, but... after I run the command, it seems that in real life, you do not have any more money than before. And my money is still just as much in my pocket as it was before. In order to *actually* pay you, wouldn't I have to put the money in an envelope, stamp it, and mail it to you?
    20 replies | 634 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-20-2017, 07:43 PM
    What is it designed for, then? I'm trying to understand. Could you give us a specific example or two of something one could do with Metric? I know you have already answered this, but don't get frustrated: I didn't understand. If I didn't understand, I'm pretty sure no one understands. Just a simple, simple, simple explanation of what in the world we could use this for!! :). Pretend I'm ten years old.
    20 replies | 634 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-20-2017, 07:08 PM
    So, it "advises" the different banks who needs more reserves, is that it? Does the amount of reserves advised take into account different withdrawal rates, or literally "even out" everything as you say, attempting to make all nodes have equal reserves? A busy city branch, for instance, might need more reserves than a quiet country one.
    20 replies | 634 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-20-2017, 04:27 PM
    I have the same problem, so can't. But Amen! This is why I built Midas. This is what drives me. These rats and their system must be destroyed. And I'm going to do what I can to destroy it.
    22 replies | 1376 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-20-2017, 12:56 PM
    True, physically. But legally, you are the owner. Excellent! ....??? The whole point? That is the only benefit of gold, to you? Because you can hold dollar bills in your hand too; they satisfy that standard. If you (a) want to use gold as money, and (b) you absolutely demand to hold it in your hand at all times, if that is your standard, then you have created a Catch-22 for yourself. You will need to first convince everyone with whom you wish to do business to accept gold. That is not practical. So, you're stuck with no solution.
    31 replies | 738 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    04-20-2017, 10:48 AM
    Just make that ball land on red and you'll be able to buy plenty!
    31 replies | 738 view(s)
More Activity
About Reece

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
121
Posts Per Day
0.06
General Information
Last Activity
02-18-2016 08:31 PM
Join Date
05-07-2011
Referrals
0

1 Friend

Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...