Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 11:38 PM
    I apologize for quoting myself, but contemplate this: What makes the market work? Is it a set of rules written somewhere by the SEC or some other useless agency? No, it is self-interest.
    28 replies | 334 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 11:29 PM
    Therein lies the problem. Constitutions are ink on paper. Any system which relies on the sovereign(s) being bound by ink on paper will not last. If one wants to affect the behavior of those with the ultimate decision-making power, one must rely on self-interest.
    28 replies | 334 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 10:28 PM
    The problem with this plan is that this electorate has the same perverse incentives as the universal suffrage electorate. For instance, if we have 100 million of these non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters, 51 million of them have the same incentive to loot the other 49 million as the majority in a universal suffrage system have to loot their own minority. In other words, non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters have an incentive to become welfare-receiving-and-non-tax-paying-voters. Of course, the difference is supposed to be that, as soon as the 51 million non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters vote themselves welfare, they lose the right the vote, and their recent victims reverse the policy, but that doesn't really work in practice. First, if that did happen (the 51 million voting themselves welfare did indeed lose the right to right), you'd just have a "second round" of the same behavior (i.e. 51% of the 49 million would now do the same thing to their own minority as the 51 million had done to them), and so on. It's incredibly unstable. Second, and most importantly, it's not at all likely that the 51 million (the majority of the electorate, with control of government) would allow themselves to be disenfranchised in the first place. Ultimately, all constitutional provisions, including those defining the electorate, are a matter of legislation and (perhaps more insidiously) judicial "interpretation." Guess what kind of judges the 51 million will have appointed: the kind who will disenfranchise them once they vote themselves welfare, or the kind who won't? And this is apart from any genuine amendment process, which might also undermine the system (with the welfare-seeking majority of voters obviously having the edge in seeking such an amendment). Recognizing that incentives drive politics and that those with the best incentives ought to rule is crucial, but this system won't quite work.
    28 replies | 334 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 07:47 PM
    Marx was an outspoken racist, even an anti-Semite, oddly enough. Hitler could just as well well have authored that; he said many similar things. Anti-capitalists have always tended to hate Jews, since they were visible symbols of financial activity.
    46 replies | 391 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 07:20 PM
    I too am fatigued by the insanity of political discourse these days, but there's a serious problem with this article: Oligarchs overthrowing our democracy and enslaving us (and ruining the environment) with deregulation and austerity... This is a decidedly leftist worldview.
    5 replies | 257 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 06:48 PM
    Well, at least it's for roadz.
    9 replies | 171 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 06:14 PM
    r3volution 3.0 replied to a thread Stocks: Market Crash Looming in Economy & Markets
    10Y looks to be on the verge of new highs Walmart tanked today on earnings report, I'd like to know if it had anything to do with debt service cost
    3023 replies | 374028 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:37 PM
    The culture war is aiding the advance of communism, but not in the way right culture warriors think. If you want to halt that advance, your best bet would be to ignore the culture war. This advice will, of course, be ignored.
    46 replies | 391 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:32 PM
    Whatever you say
    198 replies | 2406 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:29 PM
    Call it what you like, you attempted to excuse his bad behavior by saying that at least he (allegedly) had a good motive.
    198 replies | 2406 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:18 PM
    You said that you thought his aim was to "hold off more drastic measures," which you obviously think is a good thing. ...and to say that someone's trying to do something good is what we call a commendation.
    198 replies | 2406 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:16 PM
    There is no such thing as a right to vote, for anyone. The only rights are property rights, and the form of government which is best is the one which is most likely to protect property rights. If that's universal suffrage democracy, so be it. If that's democracy with suffrage restricted to net tax payers, so be it. If that's not democracy at all (as I would argue), so be it.
    28 replies | 334 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:01 PM
    You said it was a bad idea, but also that you thought Trump was doing it for the right (i.e. pro-2nd-amendment) reasons: hence, Trumpsplaining. It's still the old 64D chess type argument, but with the caveat that, while he's trying to play 64D chess, he's not doing it very well. The result is that instead of condemning an allegedly pro-gun GOP President for restricting gun rights, you actually commend him for his valiant, albeit misguided, effort to strengthen gun rights. It's a subtler form of bullshit, I've give you that.
    198 replies | 2406 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 04:53 PM
    If Assad is ousted and Syria is 'democratized' the result will be the same as in Iraq or Libya, or - going back further - the Habsburg Empire, the European colonial empires, etc. As was recently discussed in another thread, multi-sectarian democracies are problematic. Most take this as an indictment of multi-sectarian states, but it should be taken as an indictment of democratic states. In the case of Syria in particular, the whole problem originated in foreign interference, but, nonetheless, if there had been a genuine democratic revolution in Syria, of domestic origins, we'd be seeing a similar carving up along ethnic/religious lines. In other words, there's more to consider here than just "foreign intervention = bad."
    6 replies | 224 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-19-2018, 06:28 PM
    If you think about it, it makes perfect sense that gun control would come under a GOP administration. The GOP base would go absolutely ballistic (perhaps literally) if a Democrat did it, because they'd be suspicious of the motive. Whereas, if a GOPer does it, they're more inclined to rationalize it away as some kind of necessary evil, as FOX is doing now. It may be that nothing happens, but we're closer now than we've been in years, IMO.
    16 replies | 329 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 05:48 PM
    I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya..
    8 replies | 215 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:38 PM
    So you assert, but that's not true, as I just explained: Your "territory" is simply a bundle of individual property rights appropriated by the group. None of them were unowned, none of them can have been homesteaded. That you bundle them together and give them a new name doesn't change that. If you want to claim that the group has these rights, so be it, just don't claim that they homesteaded them in a manner consistent with liberal theory; they clearly did not.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 01:06 AM
    The underlined is a euphemism for more concrete rights: like the right to my money. I most certainly had that right. If the group gained it, I lost it. What the group gained was not unowned, and hence can't have been homesteaded. It doesn't matter how you play with the language, this argument simply doesn't work. A communist can refer to the state's ownership of everything as a "right to set national economic output," and deny that the state acquiring this right entailed anyone losing anything (since no individual ever had a "right to set national economic output") but this is sophistry; what is actually going on is an appropriation of private property rights, whatever you call it.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:45 AM
    The point is this. The group's alleged rights conflict with my own. When the group acquired "territory" (which includes its right to my money), I lost something (my right to my money). So then this doesn't make sense.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-17-2018, 12:16 AM
    No, that's not what I mean. Can "Smith has the exclusive right to eat the apple" and "Jones has the exclusive right to eat the apple" both be true? Or, more to the point, can "I have the exclusive right to use my money" and "the group has the exclusive right to use my money" both be true? No, it's deeper than that.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:59 PM
    Can rights conflict, as a matter of logic? You've put forth several explanations (e.g. quasi-homesteading, quasi-contract) for how the group acquired it alleged rights. I'm pointing out how those explanations are inconsistent with liberalism.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:44 PM
    Is this a voluntary exchange, like paying dues to a country club one chooses to join? And your theory for how the group comes to homestead "territory" doesn't work, as you just acknowledged. So, again, using whatever language you please to label the rights of the group, how did it acuire those rights?
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:33 PM
    So then, if my money was already owned (by me), it can't have been homesteaded by the group, can it have? In other words, the group appropriates some of the property rights of individuals. The question is: how? Not by homesteading, since one cannot homestead already owned things.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:18 PM
    Gotcha, but the only issue in contention here is immigration policy, so I'll focus on that. Now, prior to the group acquiring this alleged right to my money, was my money unowned? (...not a trick question, the answer is just as obvious as it appears to be...)
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 11:11 PM
    The "territory" which the group allegedly homesteads is a bundle of rights relaying to immigration policy, correct? e.g. the right to collect taxes for the purpose of financing that policy, correct?
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:48 PM
    I'm not "hand-waving" it away; I'm stating as plainly as humanly possible that your argument is illiberal. Have you ever read any liberal work that touched on the homesteading principle, e.g. any of Rothbard's ethical writings? Have you ever found in any of those works any reference to your idea of a group "homesteading" already owned property? No, of course not, as that's contrary to the whole idea. And, to reiterate, I'm not trying to "disprove" your arguments, to show that they have no basis; I'm only trying to show that they're inconsistent with liberalism, have no basis in liberal theory.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:32 PM
    Your "territorial ownership rights" are simply property rights in the land and/or people: property rights which you've taken from their rightful holders and given to the majority. And why? Simply because the group exists, not because it homesteaded or contracted to obtain these property rights. There is no meaningful difference between what you're advocating and what any democratic socialist advocates, except that you've limited the socialist argument to immigration issues. It is very obviously a way to justify what you know to be an exception to the liberalism which you otherwise advocate.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:25 PM
    Excellent Talking about 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is all well and good, but this is the heart of the matter.
    6 replies | 391 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:20 PM
    Words have meanings. The idea that the majority collectively own things simply in virtue of being the majority is called socialism. The idea that this is immoral on its face and stupid in practice is called liberalism. I'm not asking you to change your position, just to be intellectually honest about it.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-16-2018, 10:08 PM
    I know, hence you're not a liberal. On this particular issue, you're a socialist.
    287 replies | 3652 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,420
Posts Per Day
8.57
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 12:39 AM
Join Date
03-06-2014
Referrals
0

01-22-2018


01-08-2018


12-30-2017


12-02-2017


09-23-2017


08-27-2017

  • 10:31 AM - Hidden

08-22-2017


08-06-2017


07-31-2017


07-18-2017


07-14-2017


05-27-2017


05-11-2017


11-19-2016

  • 06:12 PM - Hidden

07-25-2016


06-16-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 218 1231151101 ... LastLast

02-21-2018


02-20-2018


02-19-2018


02-17-2018


02-16-2018



Page 1 of 218 1231151101 ... LastLast