Tab Content
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 08:10 PM
    Allowing them to discharge their debts in bankruptcy is a taxpayer bailout, to the extent that the US government/holds guarantees those loans. Apart from that, bankruptcy is general is nothing but legalized robbery of creditors. The only real solution to the student loan problem is to lower the cost of education. 1. Eliminate all federal and state subsidies (loans or grants) 2. Eliminate accreditation (or eliminate degree requirements for professional licensing, same effect)
    2 replies | 40 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 07:41 PM
    r3volution 3.0 replied to a thread Stocks: Market Crash Looming in Economy & Markets
    High of 2.957 yesterday, back down to 2.93 at the moment Since 2/2 (-666 day when this correction started), we're down about 4.5% in stocks and up about 4% in yields
    3024 replies | 374050 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 07:01 PM
    And he was supporting Trump in the primary, before a single vote was cast (i.e. it was Trump over Rand, not Trump over Hillary). Anyway, yea, cancer, which is unfortunate, but I'm done with him politically: same with Woods and Rockwell.
    239 replies | 2749 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 06:51 PM
    Don't forget the mustachioed fellow on the left:
    13 replies | 118 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 06:18 PM
    Some of Rand's harshest critics at RPF became Trump's greatest cheerleaders. summer 2012 - summer 2015: "Rand's 99% libertarian record isn't good enough, he endorsed Romney after Ron dropped out, purity or bust!" late 2015-present: "Trump's 99% unlibertarian record doesn't matter, he pisses off TV characters I dislike, MAGA!" Tom Woods, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and a number of others jumped off the same cliff. Sad!
    239 replies | 2749 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 05:46 PM
    Anyone with a basic understanding of economics should be able to see the structural problems in this economy that Schiff talks about. Getting the timing right is another matter, and he's been wrong about the timing (for the collapse of the bond bubble et al) for several years. That said, I think we're getting close. I don't think the Fed will be able to do a repeat of QE1/2/3 without crushing the dollar and bonds. And I don't think we'll have to wait very long to test that prediction, maybe a year.
    36 replies | 652 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 05:29 PM
    The end result (multiple ethnically homogeneous states in lieu of one multi-ethnic state) isn't so bad, but the process of getting there is. Iraq and Libya, with or without any further foreign intervention, will be in a state of civil war for years to come. The thing about nationalistically minded groups is that they're really only interested in their self-determination; they tend not to respect other groups' alleged right to the same. This makes for less than amicable divorces.
    7 replies | 241 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    Today, 05:21 PM
    Tax costs and welfare benefits aren't equally distributed. What will John do if there's a politician offering to lower his taxes while increasing his welfare benefits?
    29 replies | 358 view(s)
  • 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.
    29 replies | 358 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.
    29 replies | 358 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.
    29 replies | 358 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 | 397 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 | 172 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
    3024 replies | 374050 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 | 397 view(s)
  • r3volution 3.0's Avatar
    02-20-2018, 05:32 PM
    Whatever you say
    239 replies | 2749 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.
    239 replies | 2749 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.
    239 replies | 2749 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.
    29 replies | 358 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.
    239 replies | 2749 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."
    7 replies | 241 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 | 3670 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 | 3670 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 | 3670 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 | 3670 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 | 3670 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 | 3670 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
12,428
Posts Per Day
8.58
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:22 PM
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...

08-28-2017


08-27-2017


08-26-2017