Tab Content
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 12:28 AM
    Man, this voting stuff sure is complicated ...
    68 replies | 678 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:56 PM
    So ... ... the public was never told ... ... the mayor only recently found out about it ... ... and it's run by something called "Persisten Surveillance Systems Inc." ... ... but it isn't "surveillance" and it isn't "secret" ...
    7 replies | 193 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:19 PM
    Because ... No, he doesn't. Otherwise, he'd not have completely abnegated that "opinion" with what he said immediately following it. "I support localism with respect to X. But if federalization of X ends up being an issue, then I would come down on the side of federalizing X." :rolleyes:
    217 replies | 3183 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:08 AM
    NOT INTENTIONALLY UNADMONISHEDLY MALEVOLENT
    24 replies | 770 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:40 AM
    Have some more neg-rep, tovarisch.
    116 replies | 1868 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:50 AM
    For that, I put you on list with Moose and Squirrel.
    116 replies | 1868 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 11:21 PM
    Really? You're asking us to help you dig up crap you can use to expose Ron Paul as the "king of useful idiots" ... ? neg-rep (with more on the way every time I see you spew this crap ...)
    116 replies | 1868 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 10:11 PM
    Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. Don't mind me ... I'll just be over here eating mud pies with Ron Paul & Co. while you're busy conjuring up all those ex nihilo policy changes for us. :rolleyes:
    33 replies | 676 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 07:45 PM
    Just saw the pilot for the new series "reboot" of The Tick. It's a bit darker and more "serious" than one might expect. Amazon hasn't decided yet whether it will pick up the series. Here's a clip ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN5ZhMHslN8
    1129 replies | 57732 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 03:51 PM
    That the State is evil and inimical to human well-being is illustrated as much by the Jonathan "J.P." Perrys of the world as it is by the Stalins, Hitlers and Maos ...
    8 replies | 181 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    114 replies | 1823 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 02:19 PM
    Go tell it to Nancy Pelosi ... :rolleyes: There is NOTHING about saying "NO" by default to as-yet-unread 5000+ page monstrosities of legislation that prevents you from "explain your position" on whatever the relevant topic is. First, you simply point out just how colossally stupid and grossly irresponsible it would be to vote in favor of any special-interest-authored legislation that you have not even read (no matter how big or small it is). Then you "explain" what standards any legislation that you do read would have meet in order get your support (regardless of whether that legislation concerns "free trade" or "health care" or whatever else). Otherwise, you are just peddling and further empowering the nonsense that a so-called "free trade" bill must actually be "for" free trade merely because that's how its authors and backers opportunistically and self-servingly name or describe* it ... or that a so-called "affordable care" act must actually be "for" affordable care merely because that's how its authors and backers opportunistically and self-servingly name or describe it ... (or any of myriad other examples of the same bullshit ...)
    13 replies | 292 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 01:26 PM
    No you don't. You claim to have a bill that you say is going to do those things. The Affordable Care Act said it was going to make care affordable ... Yes.
    13 replies | 292 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 01:04 PM
    Seems to me the only proper stance towards any piece of legislation with as-yet-unknown content ought to be "NO" by default. The TPP is 5000+ pages long. Johnson is never going to read it "for himself" - and neither is anyone else. As a potpourri authored by special interests, it was never intended to be read, only passed and enforced ...
    13 replies | 292 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 11:47 AM
    Welcome to RPFs! Your first two posts are great. Hope you decide to stick around!
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 11:34 AM
    Keep up the great work! LMAO @ Matt presuming to lecture us on such matters. Haters gonna hate ... When it comes to substantively advancing the cause of liberty, I'll take the chops of Ron Paul, Daniel McAdams, et al. over those of "Teh Collinz" any day.
    33 replies | 676 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 11:02 AM
    Covered. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: @ Teh Collinz. Damn! Bryan and that megarep hammer of his ... :eek::D:toady: I am approve your shenanigans.
    33 replies | 676 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 10:47 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nils Dacke again.
    98 replies | 1225 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 10:18 AM
    No they don't. They want power and they mean to have it - and use it ... Their "social justice" bullshit is just rhetorical cover. They don't give a damn about "justice" of any kind. Some of their dupes might, in a vague and mawkish sort of way, but they are just ballast. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions by useful idiots."
    98 replies | 1225 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-24-2016, 09:11 AM
    Tweedledum and TweedledeeAgreed to have a battle; For Tweedledum said TweedledeeHad spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow,As black as a tar-barrel; Which frightened both the heroes so,They quite forgot their quarrel.
    25 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 07:16 PM
    I think Step 3 has something to do with orcs ...
    114 replies | 1823 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 06:59 PM
    If you're going to read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, I recommend using Robert Murphy's study guide while you do so. You can find it here: https://mises.org/library/study-guide-human-action-treatise-economics If you're going to read Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard, I recommend using Robert Murphy's study guide while you do so. You can find it here: https://mises.org/library/study-guide-man-economy-and-state If you're going to read them both, I recommend you read Man, Economy and State first (because Human Action is the more difficult text and assumes the reader is already familiar with or knowledgeable about certain topics, whereas Man, Economy and State makes no such assumptions and builds things "from the ground up").
    11 replies | 267 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 05:09 PM
    The "Block circles" device doesn't purport to be any kind of dispositive "test" like the Nolan chart. It's not nearly as "neat and tidy" as the Nolan chart pretends to be; nor was it designed as a recruiting or proselytizing tool, as the Nolan chart was. It's just an informally illustrative device he's used in a few presentations I've seen over the years, as part of Block's answer to people who ask him whether folks like Milton Friedman are "really" libertarians or not. Just off-hand, I can't find any of the videos in which he uses the device. I did find this brief clip (part of a longer interview) in which he identifies Hayek and Friedman as libertarians, though he doesn't go into the "circles" thing. (However, it should be noted that in other more formal and rigorous contexts, such as this paper, Block denies that Friedman is a "libertarian" and identifies him as a "classical liberal.") I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-ŕ-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.
    89 replies | 1157 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 03:12 PM
    :confused: "As in Walter," what? If you are referring to his "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, that is a matter of strategy, not of substance. As foolish or counterproductive as that (or any other) strategy may be, I was referring to categorically anti-libertarian policies (such as a tax of any kind). This was made clear in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, which you elided: "One may be a 'libertarian' and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But " Strategies are value-neutral and are not susceptible to being denoted as "libertarian" or "not libertarian." So far as I know, Walter Block does not endorse any kind of tax or other categorically anti-libertarian policy.
    89 replies | 1157 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 01:49 PM
    It's true even if "libertarian" does not mean (only) "anarcho-capitalist," per the following ... So would I. As I said several days ago in another thread: But it doesn't imply any such absurdity. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises are people. Taxes (of any kind) are not. The kinds of considerations that define people as being "libertarian" (or not) are not the kinds of considerations that define things like "taxes" as being "libertarian" (or not).
    89 replies | 1157 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 10:18 AM
    No they don't. In fact, they serve only to further entrench and exacerbate the problem - as does the EPA, for another example. In fact, the EPA (of which Johnson approves) is one of the primary tools government and business colluders use to limit (or even eliminate) the liability of polluters and prevent property owners from being made whole. All that any of these gimmicks do is allow NAP violators either to "get away with it" altogether or to foist any resulting expenses upon consumers and taxpayers at large. That is exactly what will happen with any so-called "carbon tax" (or "fee" or whatever other euphemism Johnson et al. might care to use). Consumers and smaller producers - much to the detriment of both, and especially the latter - will end up paying, while the feds make bank and the politically-connected bigger producers benefit from the anti-competitive effects (among other things), thereby strengthening even further the unholy alliance between big government and big business. Why any of this is to be considered "practical" or "pragmatic" by libertarians is beyond me ...
    89 replies | 1157 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    08-23-2016, 09:49 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again. Dear Gary Johnson, There Is No "Free Market" Carbon Tax https://mises.org/blog/dear-gary-johnson-there-no-free-market-carbon-tax-1 Tho Bishop (22 August 2016) There are few things less popular in American politics than raising taxes, which is why there is a longstanding tradition of American politicians finding ways to avoid using the “t” word. While it’s not surprising to see these sorts of political shenanigans from two parties that have a history of using Orwellian word games to grow government (like the charmingly named Patriot Act), it’s extremely unfortunate to see Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson resorting to the same tactics.
    89 replies | 1157 view(s)
More Activity
About Danan

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,580
Posts Per Day
0.95
General Information
Last Activity
02-19-2016 06:54 AM
Join Date
01-30-2012
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. Occam's Banana Occam's Banana is online now

    Member

    Occam's Banana
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...