Lurker > red sox 777

It was a test case filed by people in California who preemptively wanted the courts to say the feds could not enforce federal marijuana laws against medical marijuana patients in CA, IIRC. They lost, but as far as I know the feds have never used the ruling to actually go after people for mere possession.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

As far as the scientific consensus on global warming goes, I think most scientists would agree that they don't understand the climate system of the planet very well, and can only make rough predictions, but that they are confident global warming does exist, and humans do have some significant role in it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Oh yes, that's not surprising to anyone who thinks about it. It's their grandchildren who are the first ones to regret leaving the old life behind.

The other thing is that once modern society stops giving things to remote cultures, it's much harder for them to live in modern society. The anthropologists that visit this group of people can give them refrigerators, but if they don't? How are these people supposed to buy refrigerators on the market? They have learned no modern skills that would enable them to earn a living in modern society.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm pretty sure President Obama is for the non-prosecution of marijuana use. At least deep down he is, but he must keep up appearances for the public.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

He's not prosecuting marijuana use though. States do it. California basically does not, and you don't see federal police coming in to shut down the ("medical") marijuana dispensaries.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I haven't noticed that though. For example, I believe in global warming, and am not a socialist.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

What? Most scientists haven't expressed a public opinion on small government vs. big government.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, the scientific theory of global warming is just that we are warming the climate, not that it's necessarily bad for humans.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Actually, we only need the first two. The latter two are about what we should do. And if the first two are true, it would not be surprising if the latter two are also true.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

This is off topic, but I just want to cry. It's been 10 years since 2002, TEN YEARS. And I didn't even realize it until a month and a week after July 1, the 10th anniversary of these contests.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Because Obama wants to keep his rich people and corporations happy. And because 45% sounds a lot worse than 40%- 45% is almost at 50%, and 50% is very different psychologically.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And now Barack Obama comes on the TV telling us that that choice between him and Romney is huge because they are diametrically different.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, it's obvious what they want on the platform. Stuff people to whom $15 is nothing want.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Moreover, a war only takes one side to start, unlike a contract, which requires two! You do not need two parties to think war is the best resolution to their problems, only one!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

What companies have ever gone to war? The only one I can think of that would even come close is the East India Company, and they were SO far in bed with the government that it would be corporatism bordering on fascism. The Pinkertons were really more of a police agency that had some decent power in various localities, but not a huge national presence at any given time.

If companies took on the characteristics of nations (like the East India Co.), they would go to war. Right now they can't because they don't have the power to use violent force, because a government would stop them, and they know the government is more powerful.

You're right that the MORE efficient government wins the war, but the war itself is inefficient for BOTH sides. Tell me, in which 20th century war exactly was the winning party far better off than they were before the war? There are no "winners" in war. Everyone loses.

The United States, in both World War I and World War II. Those two wars made our empire.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Power, yes. Weaponry, no. War is incredibly costly and inefficient. That’s why it’s the specialty of governments, because government is the only institution that doesn’t care about costs or efficiency. The idea that private companies would go to war over trifling matters is laughable. Really really think about it for a second. Let’s say that Microsoft and Apple have a dispute over some patent. It would have to be one HELL of a patent for the two companies to decide that the most profitable way to resolve their dispute is with a goddamn war. How many hundreds of millions of dollars do modern wars cost? Private companies can’t afford to throw that kind of money away.

To the victor go the spoils. There are plenty of things that are not trifling that companies (or nations) go to war over. And governments that don't care about costs or efficiency lose wars, governments that do care about them win wars.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, keep in mind that you will still have the right to defend your property yourself. In the event that a known violent criminal accosts you, and you happened to use force in your defense (say deadly force even), it is highly likely that a private judge would find you innocent of any wrongdoing. Now, I won’t say that a large criminal gang is impossible in such a system, but I would say that it’s unlikely. Such a gang would have to be completely vertically integrated to supply literally all of its needs. I mean, even Tony Soprano still had a regular non-mafia psychiatrist, right? I guess the creation of a TES style “thieves guild” would be possible, but I would say highly impractical.

You can defend yourself, but what good is that when 10 armed criminals invade your home? To defend yourself, you need equal or greater force, which you can only get by teaming up with other people. But once you do that, you have......dun dun dun......government!

As for vertical integration, you don't need it when you just use force to take what you want.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Setting aside the fact that there are MANY governments worldwide which don't even pretend to be voluntary, the idea that "you could leave or not work" is pretty facetious. How exactly is an 18 year old with no resources supposed to leave the country? I've explained in these topics MANY times the incredibly complicated and costly efforts the US government makes you go through in order to renounce your citizenship (which is required to escape the tax net).

In exchange for the right to be on our land (remember, all land is owned by the King!), you agree to pay taxes. Valid contract, binding, next. If you don't agree to the contract, that's fine, you can leave or pay the penalty (going to jail). Is it onerous to get out of? Yes. But it'd likely be just as difficult with voluntary associations to get out of a voluntary association. Especially as we can view governments as just a large voluntary association.

And sure there are governments that pretend not to be voluntary, but what they say doesn't even matter. Under voluntarism, they are the arbitrators of their own contracts, are they not? What external authority is going to stop them? None. If you were born in the wrong place, well you got unlucky, didn't you? No more relief is possible that if you got unlucky on the roulette table.

If this is true, then it's a net wash anyway, so we have nothing to lose by trying it, right?

Sure, but of course we're already doing it.

Also, he explains later in the book that inherent "pre-anarchy" property rights would be assumed to be valid, unless an active dispute was already in progress while the transition to market anarchy is taking place. It makes no sense whatsoever that just because we transitioned to market anarchy, some random dude would show up and claim he owns your house. In any case, if he did, he would have to file suit against you and the odds of his winning would be incredibly minimal.

Rothbard actually deals with this much more specifically in Man, Economy, and State. Goods that are originally "unowned" become "owned" by some combination of occupancy and use.

In other words, a legal system of property rights does exist, and it is not "natural." One cannot get away from the arbitrariness of setting property rights.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

From an economic point of view, to the extent that a voluntary association fulfills the role of government, it also creates to that extent the harmful losses of efficiency of government.

Indeed, you can argue that the world is already governed by voluntarism, and free market forces have shaped it into 200 or so voluntary associations we call governments. If you want to leave one of them, you can. Don't tell me that you can't escape taxation, because everything you earned you earned subject to the laws of that country, which you voluntarily subjected yourself to. If you didn't want to be taxed, you could have left earlier or not worked. If you got your property from someone else, they agreed to those laws.

Regulators are inefficient not because they work for government, but because they regulate.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

South Korea >>> North Korea, yes. I don't think we are arguing semantics.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

So, since you were saying that EVERY government is voluntary, was it pointless for the founders of America to revolt against the British? Did they not then use the same process that they were under before?

Was it pointless for South Korea to resist invasion by the Communist North because after all, both were voluntary systems that would probably end up in the same result anyway?

All these were natural free market forces acting within the system of voluntary associations. The point is that the system of voluntary associations is not a panacea. Actions by players within that system can still be good or bad (read: efficient or inefficient, or moral/immoral, pick your poison).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Doesn't sound like college dorms to me.........the only thing in common that I can see is the providing shelter part. But you pay with money, not with loss of freedom.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

No, I do not. I don't have to, because I'm reviewing a book, not writing one.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The way I see it, reputation ultimately still cannot overcome force. If it's just one violent person, then ostracism by the rest of society will work. But what if this person gets a whole group of people to join him in using violent force? Now we've got a sort of gang- and the rest of society has no way to deal with this. Sure, they can refuse to do business with them, but this gang will simply respond by taking things by force. Don't want to sell me food? Fine, I'll just take it.

Unless, of course, there's another group out there using force in reply. But then, the bigger and/or smarter group will probably win. Now we've got bigger and bigger groups of people using violent force. Something like rival mafia families. But still, there will ever be the reality that having a bigger group leads to victory. So we get bigger and bigger groups. Clans. Cities. Duchies. Kingdoms. Empires. Government.

There is an old saying: Power abhors a vacuum. It is true. The absence of power can only be a temporary state, because someone will seize it soon enough.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Because it happened before. The current system of governments around the world evolved out of voluntary associations. Why? Because the market said so. Because the sum of all free market forces said that this was a good system- and that having 200 or so voluntary associations was better than having hundreds of thousands of them.

Could we do better? Maybe. But probably not by instituting the same process that gave us the current system.

And if you think about it, there's very good reasons large associations would crowd out small ones. Look at business- large companies have great advantages of scale and efficiency over small ones.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

This thing is about as utopian as the Communist workers' paradise. It shares the same flaw: who enforces property rights? Yes, he's saying voluntary associations can do so, but that's not a satisfactory answer because it only works if everyone agrees on what is whose in the first place. You can't contract to exchange things if you don't agree on who owns them, and your solution to that question can't be provided by an arbitration agreement in that very same suspect contract. Why? Because property rights are held by the owner against everyone in society, and you are only contracting with one, or a few, or even a lot of people. But nowhere near everyone.

It's not surprising it took the author 8 years to sell 1500 copies of this.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Yes, I just don't think his system will work. Doesn't mean I don't want more freedom.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

What I'm saying is that if we adopt the system of voluntary associations 100%, what will the world look like in 100 years? It will probably look much like what it looks like now: voluntary associations will get larger and larger from entirely natural market forces until they become governments.

There's no natural way to set property rights, which means we must choose an arbitrary way of setting them. It does us no good to pretend that there is some natural way, because we are searching for something that is just not there.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

More freedom. Less regulation. But you see, substituting private regulation for government regulation doesn't help you that much, because regulation is regulation. My position is that the voluntarism described in that book is utopian, because it will naturally degenerate back into big government. Just like Marx's Communist paradise will naturally degenerate into big government.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/30/1059937/-Teach-Your-Child-How-to-Survive-Being-Arrested-at-School

Here's an interesting article, and from a leftist source no less.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

She's running against Scott Brown? Well, don't count her a senator just yet.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'd always imagined Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada was somewhere in Northern Nevada in the past, but it turns out it's south of Las Vegas in that corner of Nevada wedged between California and Arizona. Inhospitable desert.

Anyway, people like Harry Reid designed the tax code to be a giant game where smart people can pay as little as possible by playing it well. If Mitt Romney is a very good player, then good for him.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Oh, you did? I forgot we'd ever talked about this before, sorry.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea either. Auditing the Fed is fine, but who is doing it? Congress? The Federal Government? A fine way to make things worse. The only good regulator is the free market.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Dead on arrival. That's the only way it got so much support in the House. They know it won't pass the Senate, so they can safely vote for it so they can say they did to their voters.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The law. State sovereignty has been eroded to the point that any law/regulation you come across in daily life is as likely to be federal as state (or the federal government using states as their agents).

Walk into a store and you'll see notices posted about federal and state employment laws. Buy a song on itunes, and you're presented with pages upon pages of contract language, most of which is made relevant by our laws. Buy food and it has to be regulated by the FDA. Buy stocks and your broker has to be regulated by the SEC. Go to college and get financial aid from the government.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, about the first $10k is exempted now from the standard deduction and exemption. Then there's student loan interest, charitable giving, capital losses, and the big one: mortgage interest. I'm sure there's plenty of households making 50k a year and paying 0 taxes.

Which makes you think, can the government force you to buy a house? Seems like they can (call the penalty a tax, the more expensive your house is, the less the penalty).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And? This just furthers my point that Obama and Romney are not substantially different. If we assume they agree on the entire taxation system in the United States EXCEPT that when it comes to the top marginal rate, they have a 5% difference, then their overall position on taxation is something like 99% identical.

True dat. The Romney campaign needs to do some kind of national advertising campaign to make people aware that Obama is a 1%er. I think a lot of people out there don't know, or at least don't realize it unless they think about it, which they don't unless someone prompts them with question. Think about it......

Barack Obama, son of a national finance minister. Went to Columbia University, then Harvard Law School. Worked at Sidley Austin (cue photo of their luxury offices) where he worked to help X large company do Y evil thing. Ran for Senate in Illinois, (ghost)-wrote books that generate millions of $ in sales annually. Largest campaign donor: Goldman Sachs.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Ah, but this is an indirect interaction with government, not a direct one. The business owner is interacting with government, you are not.

Indirect/direct is a false dichotomy. It affects me, does it not? Who pays for a large company's $800/hr attorneys? The customer. Plus, if I were to do what I'm supposed to do and read contracts before signing them, it would affect me a lot by making me read for hours every time I want to buy anything.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Meanwhile the middle class wastes its resources in the class war attacking the poor. That's a big reason of why the middle class is losing the war with the rich. It's like they're wasting all their resources trying to conquer Somalia while leaving their own borders defenseless against Russian attack. Or the middle class gets riled up and attacks itself with new taxes and regulations thinking that it is attacking the rich. But of course the new taxes and regulation were drafted by the rich and they only inflict damage on the middle class.

Oh middle class, you are hopelessly outmatched. Smuffin, don't worry, the top 1% will continue to win and win and win. You can take joy in your team's victory.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The income tax is by far the most direct way in which most citizens interact with the federal government. On this matter, there is exactly 5% of difference between Obama and Romney. And yet somehow, we're supposed to believe America will be destroyed if one is elected in lieu of the other. How about this cheery little proposition for you: America will be destroyed if we elect either of these men who aspire to the office of thug-in-chief.

Is it really? 50% of the country doesn't pay income taxes, after all. And for many people who file taxes, they pay very little or nothing after subtracting all their deductions.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, the marginal tax rate you speak of is paid by very few people- basically it's a levy on the 5% after the top 1%- the top of the middle class. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and small businessmen. But not the bankers and lawyers at the top of their field (such as Harvard grads Obama and Romney) nor very successful businessmen (because then they have large businesses that are better able to maneuver around the tax code). Yes, class warfare exists, and the principal action in it right now is the continued attack by the rich on the middle. In war, you attack the most dangerous parts of your enemy's position, which is why the taxes are focused on this group (the 2nd 5%). These are the people most able to fight back, so you want to render them powerless.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The casual arrogance of the top 1% comes easily to Obama (yes, he is top 1%, and was long before he became president). The feeling is that extraordinary people like himself (note: extraordinary does include work ethic, but is not limited to it) do not need pep talks, and all real innovation comes from extraordinary people anyway.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Duh, but the American Dream isn't about the mean statistics and correlation of factors. It's about the extraordinary, and the outliers. A person will on average be as wealthy as their parents, but as long as the opportunity is there to far exceed that prediction using good ideas and hard work, the American Dream remains intact.

Then it's the oldest lie told by the middle class to itself. The problem is that as most people see it, it is not about the outliers. People think that if they work hard, they will be successful. But working hard does not make you an outlier, and it will not make you rich by itself.

Big government policies tend to limit that opportunity, and strengthen the inertia of wealth (rich get richer, poor get poorer).

Yes.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

It's obviously not. Obama is way smarter than that, and has lived a life in which he's made himself what he is through his own hard work and intelligence. If anything, he's saying America should be more like that, but isn't.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And as for measuring luck, it's actually quantifiable. Here's an example. Suppose I'm a card counter in blackjack with an expected profit of $10 per hour. I go to a casino and win $300 in 3 hours. I "earned" $30 and I had $270 of good luck. The next night, I lose $200 in 5 hours. I earned $50 and had $250 of bad luck. Luck here is the difference between your mathematical average result and your actual result.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also it was terrible that the message of his speech was that if you are successful, you just got lucky. That you aren't smarter or more talented than anyone else just because you are successful.

Maybe I am too young, but all my life I have noticed that I have been successful simply by virtue of the fact that I am smarter than my peers. My brothers grew up in the exact same circumstances as me, obviously, but why have I been exponentially more successful than them at every point in my life? The only explanation is that I am smarter.

But the hidden message here is one that permeates throughout our entire big government society right now - that if you're poor and unsuccessful, you're gonna stay that way. If you're not successful because you are smarter, but instead because of circumstances, what does that say about the unsuccessful people? That they should give up trying to be unsuccessful because they can't match the rich guy's circumstances? That no matter how smart they are, the best they can hope for is the rich guy paying more taxes so that you get more handouts?

The message SHOULD be that if you're smarter and more hard-working, yes, you can be successful, no matter your circumstances. That is the American Dream, isn't it?

Maybe that's what the message should be, but it's not our reality. Statistically, the thing that best predicts your wealth is.....your parents' wealth. Sure, we've got plenty of exceptions (see Barack Obama vs. his brother in Kenya), but it correlates far better than anything else- at least that we can measure.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I state right now for the record, that I will help ANY person in need who comes to me and is willing to sign a sworn statement that they are in need solely because of their own faults and shortcomings and not due to "society or "bad luck" or any other such thing..

And after thinking about it, I probably lean the other way. I'd be much more willing to help someone who I thought had run into hard times because of what I feel is bad luck. There is a big return to helping such people, because they are likely to turn my investment into success (even though I won't get any money back as it is a gift, I still get happiness from seeing them succeed).

Example: Someone who lost their money on a interesting but unsuccessful business venture is someone I might be interested in helping. Someone who lost their money buying iphones for everyone in their extended family is not.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Anyone who thinks that the "American Dream" (for whatever the **** that even means) is "if you work hard you'll be rich" is a ****ing idiot who doesn't understand economics AT ALL.

Working "hard" (there's a specific and quantifiable term if I've ever seen one!) is irrelevant, and I can't imagine that Americans historically believed that would be enough for wealth. That's an effort-based measurement. It's the equivalent of a participation trophy. How hard you work doesn't matter, what matters is how much benefit you can provide to your fellow man. THAT is what determines your salary in a free market.

No wonder the lazy and incompetent are so drawn to socialism. It's the only way they can get their participation trophy.

If more people understood that, things would be so much better. But I hope you realize it doesn't really square with your following statement about helping people who admit things were their own fault and not the product of circumstance. That's more in line with the hard work -> wealth line of thinking.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If he means government is responsible for success, that's obviously wrong. If he means circumstances beyond our control, he's right.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.