• Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-23-2020, 04:18 PM
    Yes. Scam. Forex is impossible. Anyone says otherwise belongs in jail. The reality is almost nothing works. Here a not so secret secret. The overwhelming majority of people who make money working for themselves trading do so shorting penny stocks. There are other strategies that work but if you just make the simplifying assumption that anything other than shorting parabolic moves in junk stocks is a scam that will save you years of grief.
    5 replies | 248 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-22-2020, 05:12 PM
    "He's (Romney) going to put y'all back in chains.
    53 replies | 695 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-21-2020, 05:26 PM
    Must be thinking of someone else.
    13 replies | 368 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-21-2020, 04:46 PM
    This always happens with unemployment benefits. When you pay people not to work many people will chose not to work. There was a decent argument for this to flatten to curve for few weeks but the House wants to keep this through the end of the year. And the Twitter left will scream about how heartless and stupid anyone who wants to cut these off is. Leftists are the most economically illiterate people alive. Morons all of them.
    13 replies | 368 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-19-2020, 04:24 PM
    There should be inflation in food prices because production slowed from the virus. This is a huge supply shock like the oil crisis in the 70s. More interesting, the country faced a threat larger than the Great Depression two months ago and the Fed launched a nuclear missile at the problem. I said the Fed was far too timid in 2008. This time the Fed basically said they would do whatever it takes to prevent a drop in incomes when the country opens up. I was very high on their action two months ago. People seem to have a lot of confidence in the Fed and as of right now the Fed looks like geniuses. Home demand has barely dropped. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/111702900 I truthfully can't believe this is going go smoothly but if they hold firm this Fed action might go down as the greatest policy achievement in US history. I will eat crow if they get this wrong. I wonder if Schiff, Ron, Jim Rogers, Zerohedge will do the same if this somehow turns out to be V shaped recovery.
    11 replies | 575 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 10:00 PM
    You did. 100% certain Completely different. Not at all the same actually. My definition of individual rights is the standard libertarian definition. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people. What is amazing is you do support violating individual rights on a mass scale in order to promote your view of general welfare. Restricting a business from purchasing goods from China is a massive rights violation. You have a willing buyer and a willing seller you are all too happy to get between.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 09:36 PM
    You said laws against sodomy were constitutional. They aren't. They are tyrannical. And yes you are a bigot. Nope. I don't. Never have. And you will find zero instances of me making such claims. The phrase general welfare is not something I believe in. I support protecting individual rights. This is completely tyrannical nonsense. No half measure I have ever supported as a lesser evil is 1/1 millionth as anti-liberty as this paragraph.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 07:51 PM
    I support "unlimited" government in the context of protecting individual rights within a constitutional framework. What that means can't always be defined as in the examples I gave like the environment, pandemic, instances like banking or nuclear weapons where risks are unbounded so the courts will decide the nuances You support unlimited government in order to further your national socialist views. Whether that is limiting the speech of corporations like Twitter, Google and Facebook because they have different political views. Restricting immigration to push wages up. Tariffs to favor industries. Using government to persecute gays with sodomy laws.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 06:50 PM
    Like 90% of your posts related to policy violate the Constitution. You would be the first person on the chopping block in that guy's world.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 06:42 PM
    I am for an even stronger Constitution than most of the people on the forums and certainly Ron Paul. I don't think any local or state government should be able to outlaw drugs, prostitution, sodomy, contraception or any other activity without a victim. Like Mises, Hayek and Friedman I don't subscribe to the NAP except as a guideline. The issues arise when you have externalities which don't have a tidy solution. A pandemic is one issue. Pollution is another. Rothbard would shut down factories that pollute because pollution is aggression. Osan would say pollution is no big deal and one of life's risks. John Stossel would say regulate polluters. I would say you should let people pollute but tax them for incurring a cost on people to discourage pollution. Which one of us gets the death penalty in your vision if government? All four of us are using aggression in some form? What about owning nuclear weapons? The crazies on this forum think that is just great idea and limiting their ownership violates the right of self defense from government? Sane people would say letting Anwar Al Awaki (or anyone else) is probably not too smart because of the huge tail risk that involves How do you make a decision like that without cost benefit analysis? What about banking? There are large systemic risks under most systems. Rothbard would say fractional reserve banking should be banned as a result. Milton Friedman would say fractional reserve banking should be allowed but banks should be compelled to buy deposit insurance? Do both of them get the death penalty for a proposal that violates NAP? Does the current Constitution say anything about regulating banks?
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 03:11 PM
    Here's the problem. Many issues are complicated. I think anarchy is the worst tyranny imaginabinable. Many here would say it is the only freedom. Milton Friedman posed the very question: what if two people disagree on freedom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc Your solution is to put them to death for treason. I, on the other hand, would say putting people to death for disagreeing on freedom is totalitarian and insane. Your conception of freedom would require infinite rules and contingencies for every imaginable situation. I would prefer a few big picture rules (not totally unlike the current Constitution) and let courts decide on difficult issues.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-17-2020, 01:37 PM
    I think you are being sarcastic but if not, he would NEVER win a governor's race even as a Republican. He would be a sacrificial joke candidate that Republicans put up in a lot of these gubernatorial and senate races like Pete Hoekstra and this John James guy who will lose by 20. Obviously someone chirped in his ear about this to influence this decision. Wonder what that the context was. This makes absolutely no sense. Gave up his House seat for nothing then changes his mind at the last minute for the LP nomination, which he certainly would have gotten. What does he even do now? Work for his family? Maybe the Cato Institute pays him something to do I have no idea what.
    33 replies | 875 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 01:51 PM
    It has worked quite well for the United States for 244 years and counting. Works well in Hong Kong, Switzerland. Lot of places. Seems very pragmatic. But maybe your doomer vision is correct and the US is about to collapse and anarchotopia is around the corner and will work just great.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 01:45 PM
    Except utilitarianism is the the complete opposite of utopian. I am a pragmatist and only care about what works in the context of a libertarian framework. The anti-government anarchists in this thread are utopian. Anarchy is an imagined ideal that has no possibility of working.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 01:36 PM
    Singapore isn't the freedom ideal but it does refute what you just said. Singapore was ruled by a dictator for decades who made every decision on cost/benefit and utilitarian grounds with no legal check on authority. The country is a technocracy. Worked and continues to work quite well. No catastrophic destruction yet. Per capita GDP was $300 a year 50 years ago and is $80k now. But maybe you are right that catastrophic destruction is right around the corner.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 01:25 PM
    None. Cost/benefit decision Yes. Cost/benefit decision. It is morally justifiable now. I am strongly against it because I think the economic cost of a trillion dollars a month outweighs the value of lives saved. Not to mention I think it is dubious how many lives are saved by the lockdown. Kind of silly questions, stopping aggression is always justified. It just depends on the trade-offs.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 01:01 PM
    Nothing is being redefined. Literally no major libertarian thinker agrees with you. Not one. I am just using the libertarian view of aggression given that this site has a prominent libertarian as the namesake. Rothbard gives the standard/correct view on pollution being aggression. He has the ridiculous view that it should be completely disallowed without economic consideration. The one view he doesn't have is that pollution is just swell so deal with it.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-15-2020, 12:45 PM
    Has even one person in this thread supported the continued lockdown?
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 09:02 PM
    Walter Block understands the issue. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/walter-e-block/forced-vaccinations/ "Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer." "However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist." It is amazing what a terrible understanding of liberty so many on this forum have. Yet at the same time think Justin Amash is a sellout because he thinks a bunch of even less informed, "Keep your big government hands off my Medicare" Tea Party goobers, shouldn't physically intimidate politicians.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 07:17 PM
    Elected government officials? Protecting individual rights is the legitimate function of government. If you pollute carcinogens into the air you impose a cost on people. Your pollution is aggression. People will die. But proving your pollution caused any one individual to die would be impossible. You would only be able to determine that with aggregate numbers. On the other hand, you might be producing something of great value that can only be produced by creating pollution. So a balanced approach of environmental rules taking into consideration the economy is the logical way to approach the issue. Pretty much every non-Rothtardian libertarian takes the approach to pollution. A pandemic requires the same thought process.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 07:02 PM
    Actually my take is if nothing else very nuanced. By definition, a cost-benefit approach is nuanced. Your "muh freedom" is simplistic. Your entire first paragraph is my exact argument for why cost -benefit is the only reasonable way to approach the issue.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 05:40 PM
    What a fucking retard. Trump is dumb as fuck. And anybody screaming about liberty in the Justin Amash thread and then supporting this should mocked endlessly. Couldn't think of anything less libertarian than this. Besides being awful economic policy, it is bad foreign policy. I can promise you Ron Paul isn't supporting this.
    22 replies | 384 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 12:49 PM
    I am against the death penalty in general but sure, punishment would be justified if you could prove it. The death penalty was sarcasm. If you knowingly have a deadly virus and you expose other people, you are imposing a cost on them. Libertarians are for making people pay for the costs they impose. If you knowingly give someone HIV, you should be locked up for life in my opinion. Coronavirus shouldn't be that severe but monetary penalties might make sense if you intentionally expose older people like going to a nursing home while infected.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 10:50 AM
    Just re-read it. It makes sense. Here's the thing. You don't understand liberty at all. Perhaps that is why it is confusing.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 10:30 AM
    So death penalty for giving someone the virus and killing them it is. Punishment is the only way your view is coherent with liberty.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-14-2020, 10:08 AM
    This isn't a freedom issue at all. Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits. If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.
    365 replies | 9445 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-13-2020, 07:29 PM
    I thoroughly enjoyed this.
    6 replies | 341 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-13-2020, 06:59 AM
    Yeah? What vested interest? Which seems more likely: that every major study is wrong and all these doctors are medical researchers are in on some giant conspiracy to promote vaccines, or Alex Jones and Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy are idiots?
    42 replies | 1166 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    05-12-2020, 07:54 PM
    Yeah because there is a real long history of vaccines killing people. https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/do-people-in-the-u-s-actually-die-from-vaccines.html/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/
    42 replies | 1166 view(s)
More Activity
About Krugminator2

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,652
Posts Per Day
1.72
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 12:17 PM
Join Date
08-01-2014
Referrals
0

05-14-2020


04-10-2020


04-01-2020


03-24-2020


03-23-2020


03-18-2020


03-04-2020


03-02-2020


01-07-2020


08-05-2018


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


06-10-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 117 1231151101 ... LastLast

05-21-2020


05-17-2020


05-15-2020


05-14-2020



Page 1 of 117 1231151101 ... LastLast