http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2675Correcting the error of ignoring the cost of non-violence.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-23 12:48:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2675Correcting the error of ignoring the cost of non-violence.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-23 12:48:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2754Another exercise in Propertarian morality.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-23 12:43:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2738An example of the incorrect application of the principles of the physical sciences to that of the social sciences. Teasing Karl Smith on his musings.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-23 12:36:00 UTC
http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2733A Propertarian Analysis of Reductio Libertarianism.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-23 11:53:00 UTC
In yet another debate with crooks masquerading as libertarians. I ask “Define Moral.” Bob replies “Moral = “Absence of coercion. Immoral = Presence of coercion (force or fraud).” Then he teases me a bit for my usually turgid analytical analysis: “What’s your definition, Curt? We assume it’s gotta be a pretty complex definition or it’s not particularly impressive, correct?” To which I reply: “Yes, you have the correct definition for interpersonal relations. However, the same method of analysis applies to shareholder relations. The problem lies in the process of decision making for transfers of assets, which are determined by the shareholder agreement. ie: “constitution”, whether discreet and written, or traditional and structured, or traditional and unstructured. Moral crimes include crimes against shareholder assets. ie: transfers that are possible because of increasing degrees of ignorance, and therefore without interpersonal coercion. Such transfers are not only possible, but easy and invisible, by the act of transferring opportunity costs: “For example, imagine an island where having a child that you cannot support, and therefore must rely upon charity to feed, is an immoral crime. It is a forcible transfer of wealth, because the shareholder agreement forbids allowing a person or child to starve — and therefore the parent, by having a child, forced other shareholders to pay for the support of that child, otherwise the other shareholders would break the agreement themselves. This is an involuntary transfer. Humans organize. Organizations consist of shareholders. Shareholders have responsibilities to avoid transfers. Any Propertarian analysis must include shareholder agreements and shareholder properties, because people do in fact create and live by those shareholder methods and processes. To ignore such organizations is unscientific. Or, worse, an immoral attempt to privatize opportunities, or externalize costs onto others. 🙂 “So I would state it like this (or as a graph):
“Is that OK? Because it’s right you know….. :)”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/putin-decides-to-retake-presidency/story-e6frg6so-1226060709096Пусть Бог живет царь. Радуйся! Путин, король! Пусть Бог спасет нас всех!
(God save the king. Hail! Putin, Czar! May God save us all!) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-22 22:45:00 UTC
Allora used to tell me “Don’t Stomp On The Bunnies”. It’s good advice. :\
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-22 20:52:00 UTC
‘…a sovereign and contiguous state’. A state will allow collection of taxes, the creation of armed forces.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-22 16:23:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/72336836390944768
Reply addressees: @ristro @BreakingNews
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/72323401129275392
IN REPLY TO:
@ristro
RT @BreakingNews: Obama: Palestinians must have right to govern themselves in a ‘sovereign and contiguous state’
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/72323401129275392
I didn’t get the Rapture jokes. Now I do. Unfortunately. Sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-19 17:53:00 UTC
What about exporting technology (how-to) rather than products?
Source date (UTC): 2011-05-18 15:57:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/70880758461513730
Reply addressees: @LibertarianMike
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/70875721186295808
IN REPLY TO:
@LibertarianMike
Nothing is more absurd than this doctrine of the balance of trade.” — Adam Smith, 1776 #quote
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/70875721186295808