Bitcoin Forum

http://assets.nsfwcorp.com/media/headers/friedman.png

WHEN CONGRESS BUSTED MILTON FRIEDMAN (AND LIBERTARIANISM WAS CREATED BY BIG BUSINESS LOBBYISTS)

BROOKLYN, NY: Last Friday, November 9, saw the big “Milton Friedman Centennial” celebration at the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute for Research in Economics. It was a big day for fans of one of the Founding Fathers of neoliberal/libertarian free-market ideology, and those fans are legion on both sides of the narrow Establishment divide —as Obama’s economy czar Larry Summers wrote in 2006, “Any honest Democrat will admit that we are all Friedmanites now.”

One episode in Milton Friedman’s career not celebrated (or even acknowledged) at last week’s centennial took place in 1946, the same year Friedman began peddling his pro-business “free market economics” ideology.

According to Congressional hearings on illegal lobbying activities '46 was the year that Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort George Stigler arranged an under-the-table deal with a Washington lobbying executive to pump out covert propaganda for the national real estate lobby in exchange for a hefty payout, the terms of which were never meant to be released to the public.

The arrangement between Friedman and Stigler with the Washington real estate lobbyist was finally revealed during he Buchanan Committee hearings on illegal lobbying activities in 1950. But then it was almost entirely forgotten, including apparently by those celebrating the “Milton Friedman Centennial” last week in Chicago.

I only came across the revelations about Friedman’s sordid beginnings in the footnotes of an old book on the history of lobbying by former Newsweek book editor Karl Schriftgiesser, published in 1951, shortly after the Buchanan Committee hearings ended. The actual details of Milton Friedman’s PR deal are sordid and familiar, with tentacles reaching into our ideologically rotted-out era.

It starts just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— to supplement other business lobbying groups which focused on specific policies and legislation.

The FEE is generally regarded as “the first libertarian think-tank” as Reason’s Brian Doherty calls it in his book “Radicals For Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement” (2007). As the Buchanan Committee discovered, the Foundation for Economic Education was the best-funded conservative lobbying outfit ever known up to that time, sponsored by a Who’s Who of US industry in 1946.

A partial list of FEE’s original donors in its first four years includes: The Big Three auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford; top oil majors including Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; major steel producers US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; major retailers including Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemicals majors Monsanto and DuPont; and other Fortune 500 corporations including General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich, ConEd, and more.

The FEE was set up by a longtime US Chamber of Commerce executive named Leonard Read, together with Donaldson Brown, a director in the National Association of Manufacturers lobby group and board member at DuPont and General Motors.

That is how libertarianism started: As an arm of big business lobbying.

Before bringing back Milton Friedman into the picture, this needs to be repeated again: “Libertarianism” was a project of the corporate lobby world, launched as a big business “ideology” in 1946 by The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The FEE’s board included the future founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch; the most powerful figure in the Mormon church at that time, J Reuben Clark, a frothing racist and anti-Semite after whom BYU named its law school; and United Fruit director Herb Cornuelle.

The purpose of the FEE — and libertarianism, as it was originally created — was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations.

This background is important in the Milton Friedman story because Friedman is a founder of libertarianism, and because the corrupt lobbying deal he was busted playing a part in was arranged through the Foundation for Economic Education.

False, whitewashed history is as much a part of the Milton Friedman mythology as it is the libertarian movement’s own airbrushed history about its origins; the 1950 Buchanan Committee hearings expose both as creations of big business lobby groups whose purpose is to deceive and defraud the public and legislators in order to advance the cause of corporate America.

The story starts like this: In 1946, Herbert Nelson was the chief lobbyist and executive vice president for the National Association of Real Estate Boards, and one of the highest paid lobbyists in the nation. Mr. Nelson’s real estate constituency was unhappy with rent control laws that Truman kept in effect after the war ended. Nelson and his real estate lobby led what investigators discovered was the most formidable and best-funded opposition to President Truman in the post-war years, amassing some $5,000,000 for their lobby efforts—that’s $5mln in 1946 dollars, or roughly $60 million in 2012 dollars.

So Herbert Nelson contracted out the PR services of the Foundation for Economic Education to concoct propaganda designed to shore up the National Real Estate lobby’s legislative drive — and the propagandists who took on the job were Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort, George Stigler.

To understand the sort of person Herbert Nelson was, here is a letter he wrote in 1949 that Congressional investigators discovered and recorded:


It’s an old libertarian mantra, libertarianism versus democracy, libertarianism versus women’s suffrage; a position most recently repeated by billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel —Ron Paul’s main campaign funder.

So in 1946, this same Herbert Nelson turned to the Foundation for Economic Education to manufacture some propaganda to help the National Association of Real Estate Boards fight rent control laws. Nelson knew that the founder of the first libertarian think-tank agreed with him on many key points. Such as their contempt and disdain for the American public.

Leonard Read, the legendary (among libertarians) founder/head of the FEE, argued that the public should not be allowed to know which corporations donated to his libertarian front-group because, he argued, the public could not be trusted to make “sound judgments” with disclosed information:


So in May 1946, Herbert Nelson of the Real Estate lobby, looking for backup in his drive to abolish federal rent control laws, contacted libertarian founder Leonard Read of the FEE with an order for a PR pamphlet “with some such title as ‘The Case against Federal Real Estate Control’,” according to Schriftgiesser’s book The Lobbyists.

What happened next, I’ll quote from Schriftgiesser:


The National Association of Real Estate Boards was so pleased with Milton Friedman’s made-to-order propaganda that they ordered up 500,000 pamphlets from the FEE, and distributed them throughout the real estate lobby’s vast local network of real estate brokers and agents.

In libertarianism’s own airbrushed history about itself, the Foundation for Economic Education was a brave, quixotic bastion of libertarian “true believers” doomed to defeat at the all-powerful hands of the liberal Keynsian Leviathan. Here is how Brian Doherty describes the FEE and its chief lobbyist Leonard Read:


And here is what the committee’s own findings reported—findings lost in history:


Or in the words of Rep. Carl Albert (D-OK): "Every bit of this literature is along propaganda lines."

The manufactured history about libertarian’s origins, or its purpose, parallels the manufactured myths about one of big business’s key propaganda tools, Milton Friedman. As the author of The Lobbyists, not knowing who Milton Friedman was at the time, wrote of Friedman’s collaborative effort with Stigler:


Which brings me back to last Friday’s “Milton Friedman Centennial” celebration at the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute, featuring a distinguished panel of economists from Stanford, Princeton and of course U Chicago, among them two Nobel Prize winners — James Heckman and Robert Lucas —all gathered together to “explore both aspects of Friedman's legacy: the impact of his policy insights and his enduring scholarship”...

Like everything involving modern economics and libertarianism, it was a kind of giant meta-sham, shams celebrating a sham. Even the Nobel Prizes in economics awarded to people like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Friedman’s contemporary fans Heckman and Lucas, are fake Nobel Prizes — in fact, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics; its real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and it was first launched in 1969 by the Swedish Central Bank and has since been denounced by Alfred Nobel’s heirs.

And yet — in the words of Larry Summers, "Any honest Democrat will admit we are all Friedmanites now." Of course, there are no honest Democrats. And there are no honest economists. And these are the people who are framing our politics, the people who have told Greece and Spain they have no choice, and the people who today are making sure that the number one item on Obama’s and Congress’s agenda is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare and cutting "entitlements" — and the only thing that divides the elites in charge of this mess is “how much of these moochers’ lifelines can we cut?”

::)

This article turned me into a keynesian. lolz....This couldn't be just another smear article.  It won me over.

PRINT THE MONEY LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW BEN!

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I didn't see any intellectual argument here. They were just describing his moral character. If it were 50% ad hominen you might have a point, but 100%, no, then it's biography.

Like everything involving modern economics and libertarianism, it was a kind of giant meta-sham, shams celebrating a sham. Even the Nobel Prizes in economics awarded to people like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, or Friedman’s contemporary fans Heckman and Lucas, are fake Nobel Prizes — in fact, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics; its real name is the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and it was first launched in 1969 by the Swedish Central Bank and has since been denounced by Alfred Nobel’s heirs.

And yet — in the words of Larry Summers, "Any honest Democrat will admit we are all Friedmanites now." Of course, there are no honest Democrats. And there are no honest economists. And these are the people who are framing our politics, the people who have told Greece and Spain they have no choice, and the people who today are making sure that the number one item on Obama’s and Congress’s agenda is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare and cutting "entitlements" — and the only thing that divides the elites in charge of this mess is “how much of these moochers’ lifelines can we cut?”

Cliff notes, anyone? Text wall; no time...

But first, I'll take a wild guess: it turns out that the pillars of Libertarianism: strong private property rights, pseudo-non-aggression religion, and freedom of market-makers, if left unchecked actually encourage corrupt business practices and creeping Fascism? :D

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:


The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:


The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

But how is Libertarianism not a big sham? I have never seen an example of a 'Libertarian Think Tank' that was not a big sham and doesn't engage in publishing deceptive data. Dig deep into these:

- The Heartland Institute
- The George C. Marshall Institute
- The Cato Institute
- The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
- Frederick Seitz

Of course, maybe the bad apples are heard the loudest. Such a shame if there was some legitimacy to Libertariansim.

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

That^.

Plus, turnabout is fair play:

BANKERS CREATED COMMUNISM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSnarO9iw8E

Calling out someone for using ad hominem never refutes or denies the statement which is made by the one using ad hominem.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

What he means is the statement that is intended to color the reader's perceptions. For instance, while "Hitler was an antisemitic asshole, so therefore his artwork was crap." says nothing about his skill as a painter, which while not earthshaking, was decent:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/The_Courtyard_of_the_Old_Residency_in_Munich_-_Adolf_Hitler.jpg/800px-The_Courtyard_of_the_Old_Residency_in_Munich_-_Adolf_Hitler.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/The_Courtyard_of_the_Old_Residency_in_Munich_-_Adolf_Hitler.jpg/800px-The_Courtyard_of_the_Old_Residency_in_Munich_-_Adolf_Hitler.jpg)

It still stands that he was an antisemitic asshole.

Sorry, but no. An example from Wikipedia:


You may accuse someone of using ad hominem in the above quoted statement. But you have refuted nothing. You have not refuted that George's proposal is ridiculous, nor have you refuted that he cheated on taxes.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

Neither has the speaker proven that the zoning proposal is ridiculous, or that he was caught cheating on his taxes. He's just slinging mud.

Acccusing someone of ad hominem is pointless, useless, and shows you have no argument to refute what was said.

It's not mud slinging if George's proposal is ridiculous. And it may not be the speaker's duty to prove everything back to first principles. And it might be worth knowing that George did cheat on his taxes.

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. It puts the school next to a toxic chemical factory!"

"Candidate George is not trustworthy. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."

You don't accuse someone of ad hominem, you accuse their argument of ad hominem.

No, it's still slinging mud. Even if he did cheat on his taxes, it doesn't affect the validity of the zoning proposal.
Ad Hominem:

Valid argument:

Valid argument:

Valid arguments back up the first statement with the second. Ad hominem attacks back up the first statement with personally damning and irrelevant information.

You just used ad hominem in your argument! My usage of grammar is not related to my argument about ad hominem. LOL.

EG: I'm not surprised FirstAscent isn't sufficiently well educated to avoid embarrassing himself by utterly failing to comprehend well known rules of debate.
It's so typical for a Libertarian hater to be ridiculously deficient in intellectual rigor, yet go on the attack nevertheless.

Totally missing the point. You have not made an argument against the ridiculousness of George's proposal. Instead, you've deflected the statement about George's proposal into an argument about the integrity of the speaker's statement, which is in fact ad hominem in itself.

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."
"Ad Hominem. Try again."
"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. It puts the school next to a toxic chemical factory!"
"That's better."

You don't need to make an argument against the ridiculousness of George's proposal when the original argument for the ridiculousness is ad hominem. Nor do you deflect. You simply shoot down the ad hominem, and tell the speaker to make another argument.

Was Bitcoin too?  ???

This is myrkul's argument against the speaker: "George's proposal is not ridiculous! The speaker used ad hominem when claiming George's proposal is ridiculous!"

That's ad hominem if I ever saw it.

You're still guilty of ad hominem yourself by attempting to imply that George's proposal is not ridiculous because the speaker used ad hominem. No way around it.

This is myrkul's argument against the speaker: "George's proposal is not ridiculous! The speaker used ad hominem when claiming George's proposal is ridiculous!"

That's ad hominem if I ever saw it.

You're not implying that George's proposal is not ridiculous, you're simply saying that that argument will not prove it to be, and they should, as I said, try again.

No, I didn't say that. I said, "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument."

Admit it, you just don't like to agree with me. :D

George's zoning proposal is ridiculous. He has no integrity.

Well anyway there are many people who identify themselves as "libertarian" or similar who don't agree with milton freedman at all.

 I'm with myrkul on the agorism front. Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight. If the better alternatives can't be built... well I guess as a society we aren't grown up enough yet and still need government. Of course a government can be like a clingy parent stunting the growth of society as well.

Well anyway there are many people who identify themselves as "libertarian" or similar who don't agree with milton freedman at all.

 I'm with myrkul on the agorism front. Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight. If the better alternatives can't be built... well I guess as a society we aren't grown up enough yet and still need government. Of course a government can be like a clingy parent stunting the growth of society as well.

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people pushing 10 billion plus. Problems which did not manifest before are becoming obvious today. These problems require uniform efforts and awareness to solve. Do you see all nations uniformly applying solutions cooperatively to solve these problems? No. Individual agents seek to maximize their own situation, often at the expense of others. They also optimize for the near future, not the long term.

I have seen nothing in Libertarian values which is any different than the analogous scenario outlined in the above paragraph.

Instead of saying: "That argument is ad hominem bullshit. Make another, valid argument.", why don't you instead say, "Why is George's proposal ridiculous?", and optionally "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

We don't live in a world of 300 million people. We live in a world of 7 billion people

Nobody on this thread said we live in a world of 300 million people.  

But go ahead, beat up that strawman.  Show him who's the boss using obvious, uncontested facts.   :P

Those are kinder, of course, but the first one amounts to the same thing (Make another argument.), while the second actually legitimizes the argument. Don't respond to fallacies except to call them fallacies.

The only real issue is the cost of energy (both pollution as well as the labor and infrastructure). It is a technological problem.

Did you read the bottom half of my statement to you? If so, then you'll understand that only the last suggestion in double quotes is applicable. The one that says: "I think his proposal is not ridiculous because it actually has the following merits..."

Well, that's no good. You're just letting that argument fly by uncontested. If you're going to be nice about it, use the first statement. "Why is George's plan ridiculous?"

In the case of this thread, we can't ask Bob the author that question (analogizing to the author of the article in the first post). We can ask ourselves the inverse question (why is George's plan not ridiculous) and discuss it. But flinging around accusations of ad hominem does not answer that question.

I don't agree. There is little to be gained by promoting excessive growth which in turn causes a reduction in useful information. The greatest potential for useful information lies within the planet's biodiversity and environmental complexity, which is inexorably being destroyed at ever accelerating rates. These resources go through non-reversible transformations which reduce their value for temporary usage. In other words, a humanity induced great extinction. What we gain through such processes are a new kind of information: reality TV and status updates. In other words, we're trading precious and non-renewable resources for an information glut of garbage in the cloud.

True enough. What, then, is the argument that this ad hominem article is attempting to make us swallow?

More to the point, the original poster posted an article. Let's assume a similar case where the article is this:


Let's say the author of the article is Bob. Since no dialog will actually ensue with Bob, because it's an article copied from somewhere else, and the dialog will only occur between forum members, it's pointless to accuse the author of the article of using ad hominem in his article. Such a statement about the article does not refute the notion that George's proposal is ridiculous. Not one iota.

The only valid argument against Bob's article would be to show how George's proposal is not ridiculous.

I never said someone said such a thing. If you wish to debate me, then try to debate what I'm saying.

You strongly implied such a thing by denying and correcting the 300 million figure (which nobody ever mentioned previously).

If you wish to debate persuasively, try responding to the topics at hand instead of setting up strawmen to knock down.

Framing the obvious as some kind of argument-clincher ("The earth has far more than 300 million people, SO U R WRONG & I WIN!!!1") doesn't earn you anything besides ridicule.

Most libertarians can easily explain why centralized planning fails to solve, and spontaneous order solves, the challenges created by vastly increased population density.

Your attempt to steal the argument by implying that libertarians can only deal with the distant, underpopulated past is old, unoriginal weak sauce.   :)

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

I'll let you go on and continue arguing against what you believe are the motives behind the words used in a conversation between two other people. Have fun.

Tell me again why you felt the need to mention the number of people the earth does not have, before going on to correct that mistake with the actual population?

I've heard the 'but but Freedom only worked back in the Bronze Age when there was hardly anyone around' line enough times to know when that card is being dealt.

FYI:  This thread is being held in a public forum, where all are free to read and comment.  If that bothers you GFY, GTFO, etc.   ;)

Ah, but that isn't really what happened, is it? There was no insult directed at a member of this forum, by another member of this forum, making it personal. Rather, an insinuation was made about a third party by another third party.

While that's a difference, that difference actually weighs against your suggestion.  Consider if Joe argues that fact Y supports conclusion X. If you're speaking to Joe, you can reasonably expect that he believes conclusion X and is willing to defend it on other fronts. You can move on to other arguments against X if you want. But with a third-party, it's evasive and dishonest to shift the topic of conversation away from Joe's argument. Especially since that other person may or may not care about conclusion X. They chose to make the conversation about the validity of Joe's argument and they are entitled to have you stick to the subject until you either agree with or invalidate Joe's argument if that's at all possible.

You could make other arguments too, of course. But if you're going to reply, they deserve at least some serious reply to the specific argument they made.

I never told you once, so your use of the word 'again' doesn't make sense. I will now tell you for the first time, since you will continue to imagine motives that suit your world view until I do. I did so to point out a period of time in the past where environmental decimation was not occurring at the rate it does now. Simple, isn't it?

Just build better alternatives to government provided services and eventually it will go away as it collapses under its own weight.

Unfortunately, not the case. I was just hearing the other day about a BBB initiative, funded by private money to give military people advice on handling their finances and avoiding being scammed. Ousted by a government program, the director poached for a much higher government salary.

I stand behind the entire conversation about ad hominem. It accomplishes nothing to accuse one of using it. It fails to refute anything. It is often ad hominem itself. All it does is call attention to a logical fallacy that is unrelated to the statement being made.

Like this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Afterall, his father's an idiot.

Bad logic, to be sure. But it makes no difference with regard to the truth of untruth of Joe's idea. The statement about Joe's father is irrelevant. Ad hominem points that out, but nobody cares.

Consider this:

Joe's idea stinks to high heaven. Oh, and by the way, I want a burger for lunch.

So he wants a burger for lunch. Good for him. Are you going to try and point out the untruth of Joe's idea stinking to high heaven by arguing about the speaker's hunger pains? If so, you're only engaging in deflection and nonsense. Instead, you should stick to the topic, which is whether Joe's idea stinks to high heaven or not.

You will accomplish nothing by discussing lunch, Joe's father, or whether the speaker mentioned lunch or Joe's father.

If on the other hand, you verbally insult me personally by engaging in ad hominem, then it might be worth my time to discuss it with you, but not because it has anything to do with the main point of argument, but because, by insulting me, I may wish to insult you back, argue the point of the insult, or plant a fist in your face.

That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

Which is what he feeds on, so that's OK.

Let's get back on topic.  The article says:

1. Big business created libertarianism

...

All the pro-libs here suggest that evil big corporations will suffer under libertarianism because they'll be out-competed by smaller "nicer" outfits in the free market.  So, why would big business promote libertarianism then?

Well, saying libertarianism is terrible because of point 2 would certainly seem to be an invalid argument. Point number 1, however, is very relevant. What would big business stand to gain from libertarianism?

I think the roots of libertarianism are older than 1950.

Much older.

To name a few:
Gustave de Molinari (https://mises.org/document/2716/)
Frederic Bastiat (https://mises.org/document/2731/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Our friend. A steadfast enemy of big business and libertarianism.

     
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Dude, that's was a quote deriding trade guilds, the precursors to unions. 

Dude, that's was a quote deriding trade guilds, the precursers to unions.  Still, big businesses really didn't exist in Adam Smith era, except for those with official state monopolies such as the East India Company.  He wasn't a fan, but I've yet to meet a libertarian who believes that big business is somehow worthy of special government favors.  I've yet to meet a lib that limited liability for corporations is a good idea, either.

Do you see what you did there? You swapped the subject from "big business" to "evil big corporations".

<snip>
Some more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
<snip>

Upside: Reduction in tax burdens, freedom from regulation.
Downside: Loss of state bailouts, state protection from competition, reduced gov't demand
<snip>

Trade unions are still evil... It's one thing to require membership to work in a particular shop. Another thing entirely to require membership to work in a particular profession.

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

+1
It's amazing how many people just trust the language of corrupt hypocrites with their "free trade" regulations, and then blame free trade for the resulting catastrophes. 

Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.
Friedman was an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.

Does wikipedia need correcting?

You mean some kind of mandatory state-endorsed trade unions, right?  Or are you saying workers which organize themselves are evil?  I doubt you're saying that ;) 

Not at all.  While Friedman wasn't a libertarian in any absolute sense, very few absolutists exist.  I'm not one, either.  While I'd lobby for a complete libertarian state if that were within the realm of possibilities, it's not.  So I'd still favor softer chains if that choice were offered.  It's like the MJ legalization issue; medical MJ or reduction of penalties is not the ideal, but it's still a set of softer chains.

"you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..."

[The] "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

THE CURIOUS ASSOCIATIONS with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits
do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple conclusion
that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the bronchus induce, though
after a long interval, the development of a cancer. If, for example, it were possible to
infer that inhaling cigarette smoke was a practice of considerable prophylactic value in
preventing the disease, for the practice of inhaling is rarer among patients with cancer
of the lung than with others.

The original, and ultimate proponent of smoking !=cancer was Ronald Fisher, who's theories underlie 95% of all scientific reasoning used today. Personally, I call all science based on p values into question.


http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

Fisher is being careful. He is the one calling "all science based on p values into question." In particular, he is worried about correlation vs. causation. As he should be. All science should be called into question all the time. That is the whole idea of science.

It is quite silly of you to associate his statistical theories with his views on smoking. Perhaps the silliest part is that you are criticizing him for doing exactly what you recommend.

...
We are quite in danger of sending highly-trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort.

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

To this extent, therefore, probability may be called subjective.
But in the sense important to logic, probability is not
subjective. It is not, that is to say, subject to human caprice.
A proposition is not probable because we think it so. When once
the facts are given which determine our knowledge, what is
probable or improbable in these circumstances has been fixed
objectively, and is independent of our opinion. The Theory of
Probability is logical, therefore, because it is concerned with the
degree of belief which it is rational to entertain in given conditions,
and not merely with the actual beliefs of particular individuals,
which may or may not be rational.

If you have prior information use bayes' theorem, if you do not, use p-values. If the evidence is strong enough they converge on the same result. Even Fisher says to do this in that last paper I quoted.

Oh okay, I thought you were going to propose something wacky. Sorry to have misjudged you.

What has he done to make me care about him? Plenty of people with big mouths and pieces of paper use it to advance their agendas, so that's not enough for me to care. The people who rely on argument from authority when there is time to reason are ultimately pawns anyway. They can be swayed to support whatever.

Much of climate science is based on faulty reasoning:

Significance Tests in Climate Science (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sws97mha/Publications/jclim_ambaum_rev2.pdf)

Perhaps the big businesses are right. At the very least, academics cannot be trusted to analyze their data correctly. I dunno, we would have to look at the specific landmark papers.

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!  

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the scientific consensus was, at one point, that phlogiston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston) caused and was released during fires.

Scientists can be wrong, even in great numbers. A wise man looks even at the consensus with skepticism.

There is a scientific consensus. A consensus is more likely right than wrong in today's age. Not always. but usually.

Please attempt to show some good science by those in opposition to the consensus.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

What does that leave us with? A warming of the planet. An industrial age which pollutes. A lot of falsified science denying climate change. A scientific consensus which in theory could be wrong.

Wow. You guys are so convincing.

If there's a chance that the 95 percent are wrong, then obviously there's a bigger chance your 5 percent of sellouts and document falsifiers and people receiving donations from Exxon/Mobil are wrong as well.

We pollute. Pollution isn't good.

Global warming is happening. Look at the arctic ocean, among other issues.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

I think AGW and CAGW are interesting ideas and deserve to be studied and properly proven or disproven by appropriate scientists in the field. Unfortunately, the issue has been hijacked by those who would have us living in the stone age and have been running around chicken-littleing about global warming/global cooling/peak oil/nuclear/the steam engine/the wheel/fire since forever. As such, I stand in strong opposition to any change which could radically alter our quality of life until and unless we have much more solid proof. (This is the true implication of the precautionary principle by the way).

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Pollutant: A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is claimed to be caused by CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. whether AGW is real or not, when supporters do this kind of thing, it harms their argument (though I've seen plenty of blunders on the denier side too to be fair).

Those who would declare CO2 (exhalations) a pollutant and take steps to combat it would have to advocate for the extermination the human race and all non-plant life on earth to be intellectually consistent. I have no doubt the sociopaths government is almost entirely composed of will do this, and begin genocide once they finish disarming all the law-abiding civilians of the world.

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

So, destroy all lakes and land then, before the extermination of all living creatures, the biggest "pollution creators". Got it.

Tyranny vs liberty.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Humans produce about 1 kg of CO2 per day per person. That is 365 kg per year. For the total world population that is about 2.5 billion metric tons per year.
The world output of CO2 emissions is about 30 billion tons. After we exterminate all human life, we still have the other 27.5 billion metric tons per year to worry about.
Environmentalists suggest we reduce the 27.5 billion tons to a sustainable level and allow humans to survive.

What is the objective of exterminating all life again?

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

In your "reality", humans cannot logically survive the chicken little BS apocalypse (propagated by tyrants and the mostly unqualified funding recipients and qualified sociopath tyranny-lovers thereof). It will happen no matter what means you propose and implement to deal with it, whether you come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions", or admit that only one will achieve your ends. Self-defeating, unless you're projecting your wish for my death and it's really you who wants to get beamed off this rock.

I reject your reality which requires aggression to achieve its brutal ends, and substitute our own. Either humans will continue living, or not. It's your choice whether you will politically support closeted mass-murdering tyrants who will enact THE Final Solution, or not.

I cannot be free until individuals like you cease to pollute the world with their thoughts. I suggest you participate in your proposed emissions reductions program.
We can use your example to persuade other volunteers.

Hmm..., I suggest you reduce your methamphetamine intake. You are exhibiting symptoms of paranoid psychosis.

Now I know what reputable and unbiased sources the brainwashed are getting their notions that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

full legitimate force of state authority

Get bored, without me?

It even gets better. Bitcoinbitcoin113's idol for climate science is Richard Lindzen. On the Atlas Shrugs site, we find this quote from Mr. Lindzen, himself:


Note that bitcoinbitcoin113 originally mentioned Richard Lindzen about a year ago, citing him as the original source of his climate change skepticism. I pointed out that he's a regular speaker for the Heartland Institute, and sold his services to the tobacco industry to claim that smoking shows no correlation with cancer before moving on to taking money from Exxon/Mobil to say things about climate science.

I have said it so many times, and I'll say it again. Show me something that denies climate science, and I'll show you connections to libertarian think tanks, sellout scientists, donations from Exxon/Mobil, deceptive fabricated documents, and bad memes spread by libertarian blogs.

Every fucking time.

And every person who gets on here and toots his horn about how illegitimate climate science is can't ever pull something original or intelligent out of his ass. It's all a bunch of seedy, stupid, second rate shit that can't hold up under any scrutiny.

I must thank all of you deniers (and Google) for making it so easy for me to find fault with the shit you guys post.

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

No, there isn't one thing I can do. There are many things I can do. One of them is to point out the propaganda and lies and ignorance among the crowd who use sites like Atlas Shrugs or the Heartland Institute or who knows what to get their 'facts' on climate change.

Oh, and it's already been explained what pollutants are. It's not just my belief. Stop reading the fringe sites to get your scientific knowledge.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

I don't get my scientific knowledge off the fringe sites.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical, sitting there polluting like mad, all the while telling everyone else that they should stop. If everyone who was so adamant about the environment stopped polluting, the problem would largely go away.

I'm up for a good argument if you can provide one. What you're saying now is pretty weak.

CO2 is a pollutant. You're polluting right now. If you cared as much as you say you do, you'd stop.

Really weak, in more ways than one. Elaborate.

So if I spew toxic gas into the air and it kills your family that is your problem? What if it takes 10 years to kill them via cancer? What if it takes 50 years and only gives your grandchildren birth defects? What if it takes 100 years and kills your great grandchildren? Do we draw a line somewhere?

How is pollution distinct from other forms of violence?

Edit: Also all you repeat is argument from consensus and argument from authority mixed with arbitrary references to what you deem as important events. Look I am not even anti-AGW, I am pro-rationalism. Modern science is widely recognized to be driven by publish or perish and anything that results from it should be scrutinized with a critical eye. That is all I was saying a year ago.

I must thank all of you deniers...
https://i.imgur.com/jy5Bc.jpg

I have a scientific background, I just don't want to wave it around.

I don't recognize the free dictionary as an authoritative source. However, your statements are still logically disconnected. We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:


It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Anything with an -ism is cult-like.  This is what happens to cult followers, they blind themselves to anything that might invalidate their belief system.

Like that the word "environmentalism" exists?

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:


It's irrelevant what you recognize as an authoritative source if you can't identify accurate definitions. Try the publication known as Nature. Not Atlas Shrugs, Richard Lindzen, or other such libertarian sources whose agenda is suspect with regard to scientific study.

Your critical eye was obviously on vacation the day you cited Richard Lindzen's mutterings. I was the one who did the scrutinizing to show you the garbage that exists out there. And I have to continue to do it in these forums.

Once again, I cant say for sure about climate science. But for all things biomedical (cancer, alzheimer, etc research), nature is actually one of the worst journals out there. You can never even tell what the hell the people did to get their results, let alone assess how valid their conclusions are.

Waving it around or not, you should at least try and seem like you have a scientific background if you're going to pontificate so clumsily on scientific matters. The result of our conversation went like this:

We pollute -> AGW is real does not follow.

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

I want to emphasize this a bit more. It is clear to me Nature does not care about showing your data (they accept dynamite plots), they dont care if you report the sample size, they allow using SEM rather than standard deviation in showing how uncertain the results are (SEM gets smaller if your N is bigger, ie spent more money). This is basic rational person stuff that is not enforced.

I could go on and on, that journal is crap and only lives on due to inertia of consensus and authority. I have really come to the conclusion that the last fifty years of science was just "experts" measuring how sure they are of their opinions. I am not alone, look it up.

Do this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

Well, FirstAscent, if you truly believe CO2 to be a pollutant, and you really want to help the environment, there's really only one thing you can do, isn't there?

Stop polluting.

The reporting of statistics of biomedical science involves three steps.
1.  Open SAS.
2.  Do as many statistical tests as SAS allows.
3.  Publish

In fact most biological sciences are like above, except for those in ecology, evolution, or computational biology.

Well, he can't, because <insert hypocritical reason here>.

Hehe.

I find it funny to see the anthropogenic global cooling, erm, warming, erm, climate change sycophants experience a shit fit / tantrum and start automatically blaming libertarianism for the fact that some people refuse to buy into their mythology.

"What?  YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MY GOD AND MY ORIGINAL SIN?  DIE, SCUM!"  seems to be what they have literally said here.

How much do you really know about climate science given your belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular?

Bitcoinbitcoin113,

I asked you the above question earlier.

Does wikipedia need correcting?

The science behind AGW does not purport to recognize anything but humanity driven pollution as the cause of AGW. Granted, one can call attention to the notion that there is not enough humanity driven pollution to cause global warming, but that's all. The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

I will make a guess as to what you know scientifically about climate change. I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science. That's my prediction. I'm challenging you right now, Mr "I have a scientific background." Show us. I will address what you share.

I believe you think you know a fair amount, and I believe most of what you know is bogus material that you have absorbed through fringe websites which are politically motivated to smear climate science.

I believe you are attaching way to much significance to your suspicions, likely because it fits what you wish for.

Gotta love your circular logic. AGW is happening because of pollution and it's pollution because it's causing AGW. By conflating CO2 emissions with pollution, you immediately prejudice the argument. The usual word games

Meh, I'm not climate scientist and I haven't particularly followed it for a while.

I don't have a belief in the failure of science and climate science in particular. I believe that there has been a failure in science education at the highest levels that has somehow persisted for over half a century resisting all attempts to change it, and this is one reason amongst many (possibly the strongest reason) to not use or accept scientific consensus arguments.

In other words, you're not qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter here. Try again.

You believe AGW is happening or not?

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered     http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html)
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

Bottom line:  CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Gotcha. We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate. 

The emails are damning enough to global warming believers but the source code that was also leaked from the servers of the now disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in England are far more damaging.
http://oneutah.org/environment/global-warming/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/ (http://oneutah.org/environment/global-warming/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/)
valadj is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result.

My point is that most people who do, including statist control freaks like yourself aren't. The difference is, I'm not trying to send us back to the stone age.

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

The question really boils down to whether there is enough humanity driven pollution to make AGW a reality.

Why can't Keynesians go make their own currency so they can stop trolling?

If AGW is not a reality then CO2 is not a pollutant (by your earlier definition which does not match that in the OED btw). Unless you are claiming that AGW is driven by things other than CO2 which *are* conventional pollutants.

Since you seem to have made some assumptions about my position, I will say that I think it seems likely that human CO2 emissions may be having some warming effect. What I have problems with are the idea that this is in any way "settled" (code for "Shut up, the sooner we can just stick you in a re-education camp, the better") that it is particularly significant (extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence and all that) and with the suggested solutions ("All you have to do is subscribe to the political dogma that we just happen to have been advocating since 1867").

Read it again. We were discussing pollutants. With regard to pollutants, which can be naturally occurring, or caused by humanity, the question is: are we putting out enough pollutants to cause global warming?

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.

You put words in my mouth again (surprise surprise). I'm suggesting both that we should be certain of what is occurring before taking actions that would certainly damage the wellbeing and health of millions, if not billions of human beings and that the solutions as proposed by the watermelon faction (that's you) are almost certainly not the correct ones.

You believe AGW is happening or not?

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action?

Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Why can't Keynesians go make their own currency so they can stop trolling?

"AGW?"  Puh-leez....

AGW is old and busted.  Because ClimateGate.  The new hotness is ACC.  Because if the weather changes, ManBearPig is real.

Do try and keep up:   ;)




Sigh.

I suppose it's a Good Thing that Occutards like FA are increasingly infesting even this former bastion of rationality.

That indicates word about Bitcoin is spreading among the Max Kremlin lefty airhead types.

So in the spirit of ecumenity, welcome to the real world FA! 

May Satoshi bless you in the future with less ignorance and greater understanding.

I was hoping to have a discussion with you about climate change, but it's becoming apparent that you can't. Anyway, where was that circular logic you were talking about? And where did I mention reverting society to the stone age? You have all these funny assumptions, and they're quite cliched, and frankly, worthless.

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.
Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

Climategate:  the trashy Australian data
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_the_trashy_australian_data (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_the_trashy_australian_data)
A question: what does this say about the data used by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology about their own predictions of warming catastrophe?

From CBS News:

    
Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg’s Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far… East Anglia researchers ”violated a fundamental principle of science,” he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. “They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable,” he added

Climategate: Why it matters
The scandal we see and the scandal we don't
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really?

The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions.

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work.

The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.
Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.

Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

Really? I make no claims of veracity of the following chart as I just grabbed it off of google indiscriminately but if you will post up a chart showing the inverse, I will happily consider myself schooled.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EhHtXBv2Jtk/UAIUlYibIiI/AAAAAAAAA-0/EREDApTXJdQ/s1600/Life+vs+Income.jpg


Are you aware of how disagreement works? My position is that this claimed damage has not been sufficiently and scientifically demonstrated.

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Thanks for the coherent explanation. I don't follow this stuff.

However, I still take issue with this exchange:
Response:
Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

The damage that is caused by global warming because global warming is causing the damage.  ::)

Good day, sir.

If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count.

You can't pick the libertarians or it is obviously an unfair comparison. I'm only familiar with the bottom of the barrel. (At least that is my charitable assumption)

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through.

Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it.

"Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much.

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Thank you for this hilarious post. First you apparently need to invoke singular events such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts or events so far back in geological time in environments so different from ours to imply the extinction event occurring now is not unprecedented. However, the extinction event happening right now is unprecedented. Context matters. And I doubt you're as educated on the matter as much as you dare think you are.

But the really funny part about your post:


You imply that the well being of humanity is not so important. Does not libertarianism support the lot of humans?

Amen to that.


Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.


Please go do this, and think about what the consequences really are of the last 50 years of science using a logical fallacy as its means of assessing itself. Think about what kind of social structure allows this to persist for over half a century:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0

Heavily studied and documented actually doesn't mean that much. It means something... it means that prevailing expert opinion is strong in that area. That isn't worthless, but it isn't anywhere near the objective "truth" that the romanticized scientist strives towards.

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.

Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment.

See, that's the funny thing. That's actually your stated goal. Well, not the entire race, just a whole bunch of us. That's why we laugh at you. You advocate killing millions to save "the earth," when what you're really trying to do is preserve the status quo, which is what keeps humans thriving.

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

...

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.

Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude.

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented.

That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five?

I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim.

You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own.

Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how.

Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. 

See what I mean? Only an idiot would mistake skepticism as lending credence to a conspiracy theory.

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm)

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

I failed to mention a couple other effects:

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

I added the new post because I saw you were online, and you might not have seen it otherwise.

To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations.

Dude, there's skepticism, and then there's blindness induced lack of common sense.

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship:


Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors (http://www.cchil.org/hospitalmedicine/images/resources/091308-030253pm-1005.pdf)) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted.

And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading.

I don't see how that follows from my critical reading of that paper.

LOL!

Dig deeper.

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

Citation please.  Or it didn't happen.  And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig.

Been there, done that.  Took home the trophy for top debater.   ;D

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?)

It may not follow from your critical reading of the paper. However, I don't see how northward migration is dependent on one individual's critical reading of that paper. Can you explain to me why northward migration in the northern hemisphere would not naturally occur due to warming?

Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?

You are wading into territory which may be beyond you. Examine your position, your goals, and your experience with the subject matter.

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

So then the literature actually doesn't matter, anecdotal evidence of looking at shit as you hike is much better?

I'm not sure what you meant by that. I can think of many explanations for northward migration of some species (so the evidence for this is the most important thing?) one of which is warming. I can also think of many reasons why warming would not result in northward migration, which probably influence different species in different ways.

Dude, I was always resigned that there would be no reasonable discussion with you. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. I just couldn't let your assertions stand uncontested.

You're a neuroscientist, or something like that. The authors of the papers you're reading know a little more than you about the subject matter you're studying. Not just data. They live in it. I have experienced it. I notice you didn't point out your experience with regard to it.

Now you're coming around to my side. Different migration rates result in a fracturing of ecosystem cascades. That also results in weakened ecosystem services.

How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion?

I have experience in looking at data and dealing with bias. I should say that after looking at a few more climate science papers these are much higher quality than the majority of biomed papers. Its hard to say much more than that without looking closer at the models and collecting the data myself ( as you say). I still see these damn p<.05 everywhere, and then future papers ignoring the uncertainty when quoting the results and incorporating the lesser models into their own larger ones, which makes me wary.


Real life isn't like that. It matters how different, how fast, what else is around to fill a niche, etc.

I think you should read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life, maybe a book by John Terborgh, and a few others. And maybe you should go climb a fourteener. It's not all data and plots. Some context helps. A general understanding combined with lucid explanation and real world examples will make everything logically obvious.

Either way, this is not going to help me accept an argument from consensus.

That's not how the brain works, and you should know that. Context and experience influence our views. More importantly, I sincerely believe, given my discussion with you, that you are lacking proper context. You can't possibly believe that your observations of a few plots puts you in a position to grade the quality of your opinion very highly.

I never claimed to hold a strong opinion regarding global warming (even go back and check a year ago). I hold a strong opinion about using scientific consensus as an argument and believing what you read in the news.

That's not how the brain works, and you should know that. Context and experience influence our views. More importantly, I sincerely believe, given my discussion with you, that you are lacking proper context. You can't possibly believe that your observations of a few plots puts you in a position to grade the quality of your opinion very highly.

If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.

If the metacontext wasn't important, you wouldn't abuse it so badly. I'm sorry (I'm not), I won't ignore the man behind the curtain.

I think, based on my reading of this thread, that FirstAscent's assertions are wholly unsubstantiated, and that the only "support" he has lent to his claims is "there's tons of studies, go look for them".  Since he is unwilling to actually provide direct evidence for his claims, I'm going to say that the burden of proof he needs to save face here is extraordinary, and he has not met it.  Of course, as usual, like any other individual without any evidence, he demands that others prove him wrong rather than proving his claims to us.  This is nothing but religious logic.

TLDR: FirstAscent is blowing smoke up everyone's ass while playing dialectical tricks.  Nothing new under the sun for anthropogenic climate sycophants.

<Yap yap yap>

I think you hit a nerve.  :D

Baseless, stupid, and hypocritical opinions will hit nerves.

Nah, a mature person shrugs off baseless criticism. Accurate criticism, however, hits them nerves hard, especially when it's criticism you are afraid is true. Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality?

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

Nah, a mature person shrugs off baseless criticism. Accurate criticism, however, hits them nerves hard, especially when it's criticism you are afraid is true. Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.

No, it's called agitation derived from arguing with the brainwashed.

See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax.

Honest questions. Answer them.

Ironically, it's actually a change back towards the original topic, and since it's so rare that such a turn is taken, I decided to honor it. Even though they're far from what I would call "honest questions," given how so many are either contradictory or blatantly biased.

They boil down to just one question, though: "Why isn't AnCapistan here now?" To which the answer is, of course: "For some reason ::), the plantation owners don't like the idea of the slaves setting up their own farm. And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

Get hold of some nukes and seize an island.

And since initiatory violence is against our principles, we can hardly attack one of those plantations to take their farm."

myrkul, what do you think of indentured servitude? I understand owning a human is not okay, but what about renting one?

Some of them are contradictory, such as "Why do they never get started? Why do they never last?" indicating that you are asking them from an agitated emotional state, but I will answer anyway.

There have been Libertarian societies. Even anarchic ones. Pennsylvania, for instance, had a period where nobody even tried to be boss. And not surprisingly, it was the most peaceful period of the colonial US. The United States of America were originally set up in a very libertarian framework. Lincoln decided that he didn't like that. (If you go back to the Articles of Confederation, it was even more libertarian, but a monopoly without the power to compel payment is a rather weak monopoly.)

Pieces have been tried, and worked quite well. They failed, of course, because they were only pieces. Medieval Iceland had a private justice system. That failed when it got bought out, because the judges didn't have the competition required to keep them honest. Pennsylvania failed to stay an anarchy because the Quakers were pacifists, and wouldn't fight back.

The complete package has never been tested, primarily, because these flag-waving gangs have claimed all the territory in which it could be tried. Although it could be said that Somalia, outside the major cities where government control was and is the worst, is a fairly thriving anarcho-communist region.

To be honest, Libertarianism, and especially AnCap, are very young philosophies, at least in the "complete" form we see them in today. The first person to place the final piece of AnCap was Gustave de Molinari, in 1849. How long has the idea of "democracy" been around?

So if you're going to pursue this train of argument, you might as well go nag Miguel Alcubierre about why we don't have starships around Proxima Centauri or Gliese 581 yet. The answer will be the same: "Working on it, have a few hurdles to jump first."

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

Notice how I explained why?

If you start up a reactor before you install the fuel system, and it fails because it ran out of fuel, is the reactor a failure?

All you cited were failures. Notice how not a single one lasted?

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example? 

How long do they have to last before you'd consider them a viable example?  Democracies don't last either, none have survived more than 200 years without significant internal strife, including the US (which isn't a democracy anyway).  Monarchies have better records than that, if sustainablity is the high mark of a society.  The longest lasting democratic republic, and the closest thing to an civilization without a central governmental authority, was The 'Old' Swiss Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy) which lasted from 1307 to 1789.  Of course, even they had a period of civil conflict, so it's not a perfect example either.

What makes you think that the US will last longer?  Hell, I don't even expect the EU to finish the decade.

I would judge success based on a combination of several criteria:

- Significant in size relative to other democracies/nations/governments. In other words, not some tiny colony.
- Significant immunity to being overruled, changed, annexed, or taken over by another nation.
- Significant duration relative to other long enduring democracies

Furthermore, discount examples of isolated geographies in a historical world of low population and slow travel and communication times.

Then it will prove impossible to present you with a viable example, probably ever.  Hell, I can think of no form of government that realisticly could.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

Really?

How about this: Why do we have a bunch of democracies and no systems like what the libertarians dream of? Where are they? We have a large sample set of non-libertarian nations. Why not the inverse, if it's supposedly so effective?

What I see is an impotent idea. Look at the world. It's self evident.

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.  There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.  Any force, foreign or domestic, capable of developing to a certain level is able to overtake it.  If the US was still under the Articles of Confederation, I think that we would have lost the war of 1812 and lost our independence.  We almost lost anyway, despite the advanced level of federal order that the US Constitution provided.  AnCap theories of government do not provide well for the collective defense of the founding ideas, be that a physical defense from foreign powers or the defense of ideas.  Hell, neither does libertarianism for that matter.  It's a contradiction that we all want to live in a free society, but also wish to be protected from risk for ourselves and our children.  What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the socity with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

A couple hundred years ago the same could be said about democracies by people who supported monarchies. Dumb argument.

We are in the age of Statism. Like all other "ages", it seems it is the only way. This too shall pass.

First, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not the person to really argue this point.

Still, the answer is in the data.  The reason that the do not dominate our world despite their effectiveness is that they are not sustainable.  The Penn State example is perfect for this.  It was very anarchist and it was effective, it just didn't provide any resistance to other ideas, and thus ultimately, to the rise of governments.

There are other examples, but my point isn't that AnCap theories (or libertarian theories) on government should be discounted simply because they aren't perfect.  Nothing is.  Do you disagree with the root premises of AnCap?  I don't, I think that they are obviously correct, just not (as examples highlight) likely to result in a society with a vested interest in it's own long term viability.

What matters, really, is what kind of government can provide the maximum freedom for the society with the minumum of interference from government, while also being able to protiect that society from existential threats.

Presumably the drivers think the contract was already breached by the company, which therefore rendered the drivers' side of the bargain "null and void" or something similar.

To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission.

The lack of a robust State to maintain pesky "pro little people" laws, which would introduce distortions into the Libertarian economy?

"To reiterate, the servant cannot legally leave the master's house without permission. "

Who, exactly, makes things legal and illegal?

If the story was that workers who tried to leave their employers houses were being rounded up and imprisoned by private security companies, that would be a different story but apparently, it isn't.

When I arrived, I spoke with Mr Peter Ng, the owner of A Team Repatriation Services, and he told me that the workers were being terminated because they had ‘attitude’ problems. The workers were all huddled together in a room with mats on the floor for them to lie on. They could move about freely in the premises but were not allowed to leave it. When he refused to let them out even after I had negotiated with him, I decided to call the police for assistance.
The Police and the Ministry of Manpower Respond
When our boys in blue arrived, they laughed at me and said that this company was operating a legitimate business.

Cunicula, which parts of the contract are you referring to specifically?

18. Can I ask my MAID to clean my windows? I live on the 13th floor. Can cleaning windows be justly considered a domestic chore?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

But is it worth arguing if one outcome of this obsession with clean windows may be the death of a young woman in the prime of her life? On August 3, 1999, The Straits Times reported "Maid falls 13 floors and dies".
On June 26, 2001 The Straits Times published a photo submitted by a Singaporean woman showing a maid precariously perched on the window sill six storeys above the ground. A fall from the 3rd storey will certainly kill. A fall from the 2nd storey may not always lead to death, but it may incapacitate the victim for the rest of her life.

Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

It looks like the issue here is the poor treatment of the workers, not the terms of their employment.

So the maids or their families are paid restitution if/when they get injured or killed as a result of their employment?

What are you talking about? Poor treatment is one of the contract terms, see above. Forcible repatriation is legal and is in the contract.
High-risk window cleaning is legal and is in the contract. No time off ever is legal and is in the contract.

No, that's not in the contract silly. I thought libertarians enforced contracts. You just want to make up phony laws about restitution. Restrict markets. You fucking Statist you!

I agree with Sisi. What is wrong with having bit of dirt on windows? Make it compulsory for employers of maids to buy work place insurance for them. Remember maids are someone's daughter's and sisters as well.

What do you think of compulsory insurance purchases? Reeks of Statism doesn't it.

It is a simple matter to trick illiterates from Myanmar into signing incomplete contracts. We do it every day. ;D

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 

There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

That makes some sense when there is a lot of money to be had and the conditions are at least livable (I have known several Brits who spent a couple of uncomfortable years in Dubai and came back with their pockets stuffed with money). If you're living as a prisoner for a pittance and hanging off the outsides of a skyscraper cleaning windows with a rag and a spray-bottle, there's more to it. Myanmar currently has 90,000 internally displaced people and a large ethnic group that the government refuses to recognize as citizens (not illegal immigrants by my reading either). Plus a lot else besides.


Personally, I'd describe aspects of what you're telling me as downright evil.

Secondly, Libertarian/AnCap morals don't seem like real morals. If you can turn it into a 'recipe' or 'principle' or "set of instructions", then you could train a non-understanding person or computer to follow those instructions correctly. Since a computer is not a conscious being, it is incapable of being either moral or immoral. Therefore it follows that these disciples' views are actually amoral.

Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think.

Perhaps my example was too simplistic. By 'program' I meant create and then unleash an autonomous system that would not be subsequently changed. This is analogous to AnCap's or Libertarianism's non-aggression principle, which someone once created, but now it always stays the same. To 'run' the NAP program you just follow simple instructions. The 'programmer' would be some philosopher who probably died long ago.

However, you inadvertently allude to another point: the morality of "just following orders" (just like a good, obedient soldier.) Arguably it's actually worse if a human blindly follows someone else's code, than a computer (or human body-part) where at least there's a responsible person in charge. Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think. They are abdicating responsibility for their actions, and couching their actions in terms of "being morally righteous because XYZ philosopher said so, here's the link".

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...