Bitcoin Forum

Is anyone aware on this forum about the promise of LFTR technology? 

http://superfuelbook.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Go to Youtube and search LFTR.  Watch about 6 hours of the videos that are available. 

Then go to this site:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

and read as much of the documentation as you can muster.

Then come back to me and explain why the "Free Market" or "Private Enterprise" or "Free Enterprise" hasn't been able to build another one of these, after the prototype, in the past 40-ish years.

You can do that after you admit that the technology also solely exists because of Government funded research to begin with.

 ;)

I have no idea about the particular technology you mention, but your implication is dubious no matter what it is.

What we can do has been governed closely for a few millennial, it's not remotely like being free.

Government invested in and then abandoned some great technology and that's the fault of restricted individuals?

Because government has constantly subsidized the alternatives, probably.

If government creates a financial disincentive to research thorium energy, then we don't have a free market.

Looks like the laziness of the Internet-Libertarian archetype persists above all else.  Gotta play D3 or Skyrim or whatever other digital narcotic is presently in vogue.  Please, for the love of all that is good, do the requisite, minimalist research on the links that I was kind enough to provide before commenting on this thread.

The bottom on my disappointment-meter has fallen out.

 :'(

*yawn*

It has fallen out again.

Is anyone actually going to take the challenge to learn something new?

Take a look at all of the government invention in LFTR's area. Look at all of the hoops that would have to be jumped to privately bring it to market.

Weinberg new that the aircraft reactor was a joke, but he was able to use those funds to research something more socially useful.

Allow me to steal %50 of wealth from an economy and I'm sure I'll produce some amazing technology too.

Why don't we give the government all out money so they can R&D us into the future!

I'm pretty sure the nuclear fission market isn't completely free of government interference. After all, who knows what the free market might do with the technology. Sell atom bombs in gunshops, probably. We wouldn't want that, now, would we? ::)

Well, both governments and markets are prone to failure because they are man made and cannot be perfect. I don't think government R&D and science is completely useless though, it gave us the internet after all.

There is a difference in the way private enterprise does research and development vs. the government. As a result, there is a difference in the types of projects which get funded. The first sentence in your statement above actually hints at that difference.

But I suppose private enterprise spends their money well, right? So tell me, what did RJ Reynolds spend their money on when they created a science department with Frederick Seitz at the helm? What does BP spend their money on?

Here's a nugget to ponder: how much does the government spend for toilet seats vs. Boeing?

Tip-toeing around the fact that the government research created the thing in the first place, yes, you are accurate.  The question you should be asking is: "why is this so?"  And keep asking yourself that question until comes a little bit more broad than "the gov't did it!".

With intellectual acumen like this, sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

 :D

+1

(Some technologies upon which the Internet is founded did indeed come from Government research.)

My take on it:

• Uranium has weapons applications, thorium doesn't (means government has a major incentive to subsidize uranium over thorium).
• Government subsidizing uranium over thorium crowds out R&D for a thorium industry.
• If there's already a mature uranium industry in place (a lot of inputs are required to get the final product), why bother spending to develop thorium?
  
• Coal and natural gas are much cheaper.
  

Also, libertarians aren't the only ones prone to wearing ideological blinders.

These all have inherent problems:

- Petroleum
- Natural gas
- Coal
- Wind
- Solar
- Tidal
- Hydroelectric
- Fission
- Fusion
- Geothermal

What the Liberals and Libertarians need to take into account here is that if LFTR (or any other sufficiently able and efficient power source) was developed then literally trillions of dollars of existing energy sources would be radically devalued, if not destroyed.  That is, the same physical material in the earth would command much less wealth; and the giant pyramid of securities, bonds, stocks, debt and profits would all be radically shaken and at risk of being annihilated if technology (and mankind) were allowed to progress.

Can you imagine anyone buying some 'coal futures' or coal company stocks if LFTR was turned online and re-proven as a viable technology?  This strikes at the heart of your much cherished "free market", that the big fish in the industry (oil, coal, natural gas, existing nuclear, etc) will do everything they can, with their trillions of dollars of cash and assets to ensure that this doesn't happen anywhere and that we are closed into a closed system and a collapse-paradigm as is ensured by not being able to access the fruits of our creative potential as seen in technology.

It really is quite simple to understand.

Who said anything about there being a free market in existence? Especially in terms of energy industries... these are the most regulated and subsidized industries on the planet. It seems like you are arguing with some strawman who you will not find here.

If you had a trillion dollars would you risk it on an unproven technology with unlimited upside, or invest it in something safer? Eventually someone will take the risk, but it sounds like you are assuming that every idea there is hype about actually works as planned.

At least you're starting to understand that you are overmatched.

sighs.

Short sighted market operation bringing you the most cost effective solutions while externalizing the cost of anything and everything that can possibly be externalized.

In other words.  Business has a narrow focus and any resultant costs from their operation that are not immediately realized and easily avoided will be avoided.

The market is not without serious flaws.

Externalities are only an issue when government gives a business a license to pollute.

That's the free market at work for you, absolutely. Short sighted and exploitative to the end.

I never really understood why people thought like this, businesses consist of people like you. Is there something stopping you from starting a business that considers long-term costs of its actions?

Overmatched in numbers?  Most assuredly.

You just recommended watching a bunch of youtube videos as research... that is a clear signal you know less about this subject than you think.

LOL.

Do you not recall our conversation where I brought up Frederick Seitz? The point isn't what business I might start. The point is what others do to destroy it for the rest of us in the meantime.

In "failure", I mean what it has been meant in the past regarding the term "Market Failure", that is when the Market fails to provide the most socially useful results even if all actors pursue their own (myopic) 'best interests'.  That is what the term means and that is what I meant by it.

Because coal is incredibly bad for people's health and the environment. What is the point of profit when we do not have a planet to live on? ::)

Besides, fossil fuels are guarenteed a costant rise in price as the supply dwindles and demand grows with population growth. The sooner we can switch to renewable sources of energy that are not limited to an ever decreasing supply, the better for not only the environment but the economy.

Rather than this type of worthless banter regarding what you think I think and what I think you think I think we know, why don't you just spend some time watching those videos or reading the documentation on the website?  Is that too hard?  You people (the general forum audience) are so damnably lazy.

+1

Also that a private cabal/cartel has the nation's throat in their grip by being able to control and manipulate energy prices and availability.  I want freedom and freedom means self-sufficiency, national energy independence.

So in essence the real issue people have is is with short-sighted people being in charge of stuff.

Is this closer to the idea of "freedom" of this forum:

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWgXvtWE6KJsZbtrhpINWFeU3jbN635WktycpP0zsygv4CLxUaXQ

That's an issue, to be sure, but why would you come up with that based upon what I said to you unless you were trying to be clever and engaging in misdirection? Ironically, isn't that what my post was really about?

More like this (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom?):

I came up with that because I am looking to discover why we differ in opinion, and believe that the best way is to go back to first principles and underlying assumptions held by each party and see where they differ.

Neutron bump.

This shit has always puzzled me, (Market failure...)

Well, what we have here is not market failure, but a market distortion caused by government throwing other people's money around.

Does "nature" qualify as a form of external control?  How about famine?  How about disease?  How about age and infirmity?  Do any of those qualify as impinging on freedom, and if not, why not?

Always answering something concrete or (at the worst) slightly vague with something even more vague.

Way to go.

How about the relationship between landlords and tenants? Homeowner associations and the homeowners?

How is the individual who cannot afford property not under the coercive control of his landlord? How is a homeowner not under the coercive control of the homeowner's association? How is any individual in a NAP society not under coercive control any time he steps off his property onto the property of another?

In the romanticism of the Libertarian's mind, they ignore that we are no longer frontiersmen and can't simply go homesteading wherever we like.  Every bit of land is owned on the planet.  New people born into the world that don't inherit any land are to do what according to the Libertarians?

They fail to recognize that despite property rights, we're all tenants of our governments, and the taxes we pay are rents. The governments themselves are the libertarian members of a pseudo-NAP based society called the world.

Do you rail at a cloud for blocking your sun? No... but you might ask a person to move, if they did the same. If you think about the difference between those two scenarios, it will answer all the questions you posed.

That's genuinely interesting.  I've never thought of it that way.

And the better statesmen have acted in close alignment of what we can understand the spirit of the NAP to be. 

But it also demonstrates the silliness of the guy claiming the government is coercive. He's just a tenant. The nation is the landlord.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93868.0

LFTR has the potential to be cheaper than coal, though more development needs to happen first to determine if it is the case.

I've thought along similar lines as this but never really articulated it this well. I think the problem I have with it has something to do with the analogy of govt=person, but can't really put my finger on it.

Landlords are any of the following:

- Individuals
- Partnerships
- LLCs
- Corporations

I thought I responded to this...weird. There was also a post elsewhere showing a wine called "Ponzi" that got deleted.

Anyway, I think the difference lies in that the distribution of rewards and responsibilities is obviously different between an individual and a group, so direct application of the NAP would seem to be more complicated. I think the NAP fails because people can define what aggression is for themselves anyway.

Aggression: Initiation of violence, the threat of violence, or fraud. It's not a hard definition to understand, It's the same things your mom told you growing up: Don't hit, don't bully, don't lie, don't steal.

Yes.

Put ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iter) on hold, divert funds to intensive pursuit of Thorium/U233 power generation.
After LFTR solves the world's energy problems, fusion could again become an option.

LFTR needs way less magic, money, basic science and engineering breakthroughs to be commercially successful in a huge way.

Green-left-environmentalist resistance to safe and sound nuclear in place of coal seems to be an inherited remnant from cold war nuclear-is-bombs-is-chernobyl thinking.

A massive push for thorium would save the world in more ways than one. Really. No, really! :)

LFTR in 5 Minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4) is an awesome introduction indeed.

THORIUM POWAH!

OP question is answered at ~56 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4&t=56m

"market failure"? No. The atomic energy commision shot it down.

The "market failure" part is that the technology has been available to the world for a while and no one in your precious "private sector" took up the challenge of attempting to make it.

Because the people in your precious "public sector" discouraged them, and in one instance (see above) flatly told them no, you cannot do it. And now, all the private sector money is tied up in delivering fuel to the technology that the "public sector" pushed so hard to get going. So, it's as I said all along: Not market failure, market distortion, by government action.

Problem: you took that tiny snippet of the video and deemed that that information was enough for you to conclude anything really intelligent or wise regarding what happened to cancel the program.  Of course, when one's world-view is so simplistic as to have to only keep an eye out for "the gov'ment" to knee-jerk a conclusion regarding something so complex, then one's "lookout" and "watch patrol" will never go far without being satiated on this superficial (and ultimately meaningless) level.

I'm glad I started this line of conversation, I've got Libertarians actually discussing real historical events rather than their unimaginative thought-experiments.  

Here's some obvious problems with your shoe-horning of this situation in regard to this real historical event:

*  FACT: The Technology happened solely due to government funding.  QUESTION YOU SHOULD HAVE:  Why did the Private Sector not beat them to the punch?
*  FACT:  After the traditional nuclear power industry realized that they could monetize the nuclear fuel industry these events happened and LFTR was shut down.  QYSH:  How much money would all these energy industries have lost, had LFTR's potential been realized?  ANSWER:  It's in the TRILLONS of dollars.

Also, just because your world-view is completely polarized on this childish level of "gov'ment" vs. "Free-Market Utopia" doesn't mean that mine is.  It doesn't mean that I'm going to worship the inverse of what you worship simply because I disagree with what you worship.  I choose not to worship anything. And I'm totally willing to see and understand the government's failures, because I know that the government is really just a concentrated representation of the society at large; not some type of mystical monster or "Leviathan" with its own corresponding mythology.  Our problem, and why you see our government stifling technological development is for the very reason that it is influenced, financed, and largely controlled by various oligarchical interests.  In this case in point it was the various energy industries, most pronounced being the Traditional Nuclear Power industry.

I watched the entire video, but the only part that was relevant, really, to the question asked was that 5-6 minute segment where he speaks about the AEC and the Wash report. There's an earlier segment where he mentions another factor, I don't remember the time stamp, so I'll just paraphrase it here: "It's not the money, it's the risk attached to that money. I can go to a bank and say I need X million dollars to build an oil rig, and I'll get it, because I can say it will take this long to build, this long to pay itself off."

So, all the factors that I can see as to why LFTR isn't being built in the private sector in the US right now:
1. The DOE puts massive barriers to entry in any atomic project, above and beyond those naturally there such as development costs.
2. Because those barriers may change, or become completely impassable, on a bureaucrat's whim, no private bank will fund such a risky project.
3. Government invested heavily in "traditional" nuclear power during the war. Shifting gears would be seen as a waste, or simply make them look bad, and is thus avoided.
4. Because of the DOE's massive barriers to building a new nuke plant, It's not very profitable to do so, when you can at all. So most of the effort and money goes into supplying the existing plants with fuel, which is quite profitable, especially since each reactor can really only take one kind of fuel.
5. As was pointed out numerous times throughout the video, LFTR is no good for making a bomb. The entire fuel chain is useless for blowing shit up. And we all know how much government loves to blow shit up. There's no incentive to get out of LFTR's way.
6. Another factor was mentioned later: Thorium is considered a radioactive contaminant by the EPA, and so mining sites which contain Thorium are avoided due to the harsh regulations.

So, to sum up, LFTR isn't being done in the US, because neither government nor the private sector has much incentive to change. Despite how profitable many of the waste products of LFTR would be, it's much more profitable to supply the current generation of reactors with fuel, because it's real hard to beat a monopoly for profits.

Nuclear technology was developed during a WAR. It was heavily wrapped in tape labeled "OFFICIAL SECRET" and kept from prying eyes. There's no way the private sector could have "beaten them to the punch", because the government had already tested their first nuke before anyone in the private sector knew there was even research being done. Had it not been for that war, private sector nuclear research would have been focused on efficiency, rather than bomb-making potential, and guess which reactor has efficiency?


LFTR was shot down long before the current situation with GE et al supplying the remaining reactors with platinum to burn (that's the analogy he uses, since the fuel used in modern reactors is roughly as scarce as platinum). LFTR was shot down by the AEC because they had invested too heavily in "traditional" nuclear already, and were not prepared to make the change.

You also seem to be conflating "unrealized profits" with "loss". They would not have "lost" that money, they would simply not have made the huge monopoly-level profits that they are making now.


If you didn't, you'd be able to remove your blinders, and see how much government is distorting the current energy market.

Once again, you think you live in the United States of Earth.  Any other country could have taken this up by now.  Why have they not?

Rather than pick your post apart, I'll just ask the main question:  do you think that the government acts of it's own accord in regards to these issues?  Why is the government a monolithic entity in your mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7AfnQ8BN6E

Does this video matter to you?

You're an idiot. If you'd even have watched the video you told me to, you'd have known that China is working on LFTR right now, and should have it running by 2015. Additionally, perhaps you skipped the phrase "all the factors that I can see as to why LFTR isn't being built in the private sector in the US right now" while reading my response. Moron.

Hey, congratulations, you've discovered that government is made up of people! Good! Now, you just have to understand that those people's actions are motivated by self-interest, and that re-election is not the only, or sometimes even the primary, goal for them. Even if it is a primary goal, an empty war chest makes for an empty senate seat. Government's actions are largely controlled by lobbyists.

In the case of agencies like the EPA, there isn't even that pretense of public control. The unelected head of the agency makes policy for the unelected agents and bureaucrats. In that case, funding becomes priority, and funding, in government agencies, comes not to those who come to congress and say, "Yup, all is well in my district", but to those who drum up fears and point at things to be afraid of.

The system itself distorts the incentives needed to make good decisions. Is it any wonder that the decisions coming out of that system distort the market?

That video was very interesting. Especially since his reply to Sen. Franken was exactly what I said: "Government invested heavily in "traditional" nuclear power during the war. Shifting gears would be seen as a waste, or simply make them look bad, and is thus avoided."

I believe his exact words were "We have an entire fuel system based around Uranium and it would be a very costly shift to move to Thorium on any sort of short time-scale"

Can you think of any positive things the EPA has done? Are you aware of any positive things (in your mind) that the EPA has done?

"Threatening"? Because that's the hard part.

If I'm an idiot and a moron that doesn't speak well for the rest of humanity.  I think that would put someone of your caliber in the "tree-lemur" category of intelligence.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQjC1vHK89ZZkuKhg9vNH_7Z18CkLPmqwK_h0nBHf5_lPGu1vmw

 ;)

But enough for insults, it's not like if we wanted to come up with pithy and witty insults for each other you'd have any hope of "winning", being someone of your literary caliber.  Plus arguing on the Internet like this is plain olde' retarded.

But your reaction here reminds me of the type of rubber stamping that many Leftists do to "back up" their arguments.  They scream: "But this is science!".  You protest: "But I'm logical!".

Just because part of your response included that remark doesn't mean the rest of your analysis took it into consideration.  But I've learned to expect very little in the realm of internal logical consistency or coherence with regards to Libertarians like yourself.  The double-think that Libertarianism requires apparently doesn't stop just in the realm of their Libertarianism.  The obvious meaning of my comment was: why did nobody on the planet invent Nuclear Power or LFTR through 'market forces'?  Why did it take the involvement of government to create this research?  Why is most research that actually creates any remarkable breakthroughs government funded?  That's it.  That's the question.  I'm not in disagreement that various interests that sway and influence the government don't influence it against the public good - nothing could be more obvious; but that is a separate topic.


Well your first thesis is false.  Read some history.  Go read as many books on Henry Clay as you can find (although all of them I have found so far are strongly tilted in a pro-oligarchy, anti-Nationalism bias) and then tell me that he was solely in the government for his own gain.  While our present condition is largely degraded due to lobbyists (which again, what you think must be profound insights, by your need to state the obvious things such as these) it can be fixed and brought in better alignment of what the public good is.  In fact, that is the only solution to our crisis - not Utopian garbage that you preach.

And yes, in a way, the larger problems in our government are the unelected officials of these various agencies.  But that is because the very interests to which, here, in this post, seem to rail against: oligarchical factions in the government; desired these posts to be created in such a fashion.  That is why the Congress is largely a powerless body.  Here, go read my review of F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" for what I think about this specific problem (in addition to what I think about Hayek).

It's under the pen name, John Anon.
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Serfdom-Documents-The-Definitive/product-reviews/0226320553/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0)



The problem with your analysis here is that you don't look into what he means by "We".  But of course, if you are a reactionary such as yourself, whenever you find the conversation runs into "government" then your knee-jerk ideology takes hold and there is no further analysis required in your mind.

Here's a research project: how much money is made by the government in regard to uranium enrichment for fuel supply contracts?  How much is made by the private sector?  How much financial wealth would be obliterated if LFTR was realized and had as much potential as they think?  All those are the most relevant questions in regard to understanding this subject matter. 


Wow, you are more naive than I previously imagined.  Oh, that's right, according to your orthodoxy: government is pure evil and the "private sector" can do no wrong.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ6AG9JfLhlL0f5laUNg12yd2YcOcainF9K6DHXeCN4TYTIqix


Do you think that they (that is, the power industries) have this absurd conception of "loss" that you have?  What do you think a commodity or futures contract represents in finance?  It is a future representation of wealth; it is traded like an asset, it is treated like an asset.  So if something made the business model of all traditional industries much less important or irrelevant these assets would be greatly devalued.

Imagine if I invented a teleportation transporter.  I could manufacture them and sell them for $1500 a piece and they required almost no power to run.  How fast do you think the value of all the myriad of transportation stocks would plummet?

Heck, there are so many examples of this that the only reason that you refuse to see this is because of your ideology which makes these convoluted leaps of logic necessary.  Just give it up brother, there is no reason to continue to do these mental gymnastics in order to maintain your false worldview.  You post enough on this forum proving that you have enough free time, perhaps you should learn some things about how the world actually works.  I hope you're making progress on those books I linked you in "book club".

Cheers.

It's amazing, how many words you can type and say absolutely nothing, besides "You're an idiot, go read these books"

Your "solution" seems to be "Get better people in government", to which I laugh. If we could get better people in government, they would be there already. The government we have is the result of democracy. It is the inevitable result of democracy. If you can come up with a system of governance which ensures that only good, intelligent people will be elected to public office, I'd like to hear it. Until you can come up with it, though, I will continue to consider your solution to be utopian, and mine to be more realistic.

Governments are a tool, they can be used for good or evil and it is only a matter of time before some malicious person/group seizes control of this tool. If people in a democratic society let their government get too powerful, it only makes it that much more difficult to recover from the effects of this. Perhaps granting any specific additional power to the government is worth the risk, perhaps not.  Calling someone naive while not addressing this is fail.

Hey, I didn't start the name calling.  You did, not that it matters.

 :D

And also, we generally get the government we deserve.  Unfortunately there is a cyclical cause and effect function here - so where to begin?  We can either pray that someone great comes into power completely spontaneously, and that somehow that is corresponding with an equally spontaneous election of equally great people elected to congress.  Or we can work in reforming (or ridding ourselves) the prevailing ideologies that exist, to which Congress and the President are largely servants of in regard to the way they interface with the public.

That our present condition is a function of Democracy, as such, I am almost in total agreement with.  I'm formulating structural reforms that could possibly do a lot to address these problems but there is no way those are going to be implemented until they are better developed and, more importantly, the population is moved upward in the realm of discourse to be able to see that there are better possibilities.

Strange thing is, that you preach solutions that have so many of the same fallacies as Democracy, yet somehow, you find Democracy to be repugnant.  Oh well.

I'm imagining something much more republican (small 'r' republican).  Perhaps this is a good a place to discuss this as any.  What we need is not more representation, but better representation - that is, professional representatives.

The loose framework (to which I have yet to really formulate and rigorously consider) is, simply put, that a more responsive layer of representatives is created between the you and your Congresspersons.  This new layer of representatives would each represent something like 5000 constituents.  It would be based solely on population and more granular in regards to area, so gerrymandering would immediately be diminished in scope and power - drastically.  The people would vote for these representatives and these representatives would, in turn vote for the State representatives, Senate and the President.  These new representatives would be payed by the State and it would be their full time job to be immersed in civics and entrusted with answering-to their constituents.  Their constituents would be given specific legal functions to recall them, replace them, etc., but not in some mob rule fashion, probably much more similar to how the present House is represented.

This system would temper and greatly weaken the Democratic tendencies that have largely destroyed our system of governance.  It requires some imagination (a feature sorely lacking with most Libertarians) to consider how it would radically change the system.  When one considers how primitive the arguments and level of public discourse is, combined with the ever growing amount of societal knowledge, combined with the level of distractions and ways that people can 'entertain' themselves leads me to consider a pretty bleak picture if continued on this road without anything changing.  Imagine that - sure, why not - WE, were all elected as regional representatives in this new system.  Then these conversations would maintain not only our free time and what time we can spare, but would actually be our job, our profession in pursuing the truth of these matters.  Such things as books and research materials could be expensed (not that Libertarians would use them).  Can you imagine what type of candidates such a cross-section of people would choose?  I don't think that the solution would be between Obama and McCain or Obama and Romney - I think we can be fairly certain of that.

I have every reason to believe it would also greatly weaken partisan politics.  How would the political party flex it's muscles and have us continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils in this system?  The existing parties are founded on ideologies solely because their victims don't have the time or inclination to investigate these issues sufficiently.  As there would be too many people in this class of representation to lobby or bribe, and that they would be choosing these 'next-level' politicians, I think we can presume that this system would greatly weaken the power of lobbyists on our system.

This is really just a thought I've been storing in the back of my mind, and this is actually the first time I've written anything about it.  I'm wondering if anyone would like to consider this as a possibility and could determine what it's other strengths or weaknesses might be.  Post them here.

Thread successfully hi-jacked.  (But it's my own thread, so there.)

Here's the mythological fallacy that Libs love to repeat over and over.  

Of course, what is to stop the evil people from seizing government, AND THEN growing it in power?  What, evil people can't GROW government?  Only GOOD people can GROW government and then EVIL people, while they can control it, somehow can't GROW it, so must rely on the supposedly naive GOOD people to grow it for them?  So the solution is not to GROW government if you are good, because some day the EVIL people will take control of it, and use it to their own ends?

This is like 3-year-old understanding of civics and history and economics and reality.  This is completely made up, by Liberals!, to convince good people like yourself from NOT participating in government!  

Here, I elaborate this more in this book review, it is imperative that you read this:

Titled "Hayek's - The Road to National Self Destruction", under the pen name "John Anon".

http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Serfdom-Documents-The-Definitive/product-reviews/0226320553/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

Could you outline those congruent fallacies? I'd be interested in seeing that list.


So... your answer to a bloated, inefficient government is... another layer of government?


Nothing at all. In fact, I contend that this is exactly what happens, every damn time.

There may be some confusion due to the word "liberal", people should avoid using that word imo.

I'm not sure I really understand your position but I will read that review. I will say it appears you have misunderstood mine. The essence of my point lies in the answer to this: "In the US, what is the legal basis for corporate personhood? Why was this law passed?"

The second basis for my opinion is talking to many people who seem to have completely given themselves over to being spied upon and taken advantage of. In fact some will even vocalize that they take it as a compliment that such powerful organizations would even be interested in them. There is a whole other large percentage of the population who get offended if people "talk politics".

Do these experiences I have related ring true to you?

It is in both Democracy's and Libertarianism and Anarchy's defferance and allusion to "the people" in the same fashion; that these systems are always talking about some fleeting abstraction rather than any observed aspect of the interrelationships of people.  It is that they trust "the people", as such.  It is that Libertarianism/Anarchism view "the people" in this pristine state of existence if only we could rid ourselves of this parasitical government in the same regard that Democratically minded people also regard "the people".  It is in the things that are common, in this way, among these doctrines; but not in the things that are explicitly said - it is more in the foundational elements that they refuse to directly discuss but are implicit in every argument.  All these doctrines are superstructures of ideology and supposed 'philosophy' built on absolutely no foundation - that is why I refer to them as "cloud kingdoms", "ivory towers", etc.



You forgot the *drum roll* part of your reactive joke.

What part of the government is bloated?  Let's break away from this monolithic vision that you have whenever you see or hear the word "government" and look at specifics in reality.  The Pentagon is bloated, yes.  The military budget is bloated, agreed.  The various, unaccountable areas of government that we are complaining about are bloated, to be sure.  But do you think that 435 members of the House can remotely represent 300 million Americans?  That's roughly 690,000 people per representative.  That's absurd.  Anyone who's ever tried to contact their representatives knows of the seeming futility of the process.  If we maintained representation in the House (which I think should probably be increased) and had this new system, then you'd have roughly 60,000 representatives added (locally, mind you) by which each House Representative would have approximately 138 people electing them.  These people would be policy experts in a real sense, and would be sufficiently sheltered from special interest groups enough to determine the public good (the General Welfare, if you will) and be accountable to their constituents.  

I like this system the more I think about it.



Well I agree that nothing is to stop them (the "EVIL" people,that is) from doing this - except the people of good will and intelligence (and critical combination) that can determine the public good and work toward that instead.

The word Liberal, as I use it, means Classical Liberalism in the "Tradition" of British Economists and philosophers.  It is their conception of Man, that I take issue with it, and I take issue with it because it is false, it was politically concocted for political reasons and is toxic to society and all the individuals thusly contained.

But I understand not wanting to use the term, it's been muddled into complete confusion long ago.



If you are talking about "Citizen's United", then no law was passed, this was our radical and fascist Supreme Court inventing that law out of it's ass as a ruling verdict.  But this is really just a symptom of the crisis; a crisis largely stemming from the populations lack of true conceptions regarding itself or its future.  And these things have been 'helped-along' by various ruling elites and special interests.  That's the ultra-short, super condensed version of our problems.


Partially, yes.  That's why I'm trying to do something about it.  I have a host of things that need to be done that, if applied now, could start the fissuring of this corrupt system and see it's dissolution and the emergence of something better over the coming decade, but I have a lack (as in, presently 0) of like-minded 'foot solders' or even 'equals' who would like to help out.  People can't think on timescales such as these and therefore believe themselves to be weak and powerless.

Here's some of the main ones:

*  Move people to political mobilization by dispelling the myth of Libertarianism.  Easier and easier now that more fair-minded people are seeing through the Paul-frauds.
*  Crush the energy oligarchy that co-rules the world with various other oligarchical classes by convincing the far Left or "Green movement" that LFTR and nuclear research is the way to go for an actual functioning energy policy.  This requires grass-roots mobilization as all the major institutions are financed and 'bought off'.  But a lot here can be done and a growing movement has already begun for LFTR.
*  ALL Economics that is taught today is apologetics and service to the monied interests.  This includes: Marxism, Libertarianism, Anarchism (in so much as it is a Economic theory), Zeitgeistism (another fraud), The Washington (NeoLiberal) Consensus, Keynesianism, etc.  Resurrect the American System of Political Economy.  This is a Pro-Labor, Pro-Progress, Pro-Technological development, Pro-Peace "school" of economics that barely exists at present.  Free the people from seeing themselves and their country as a slave to domestic and foreign Finance Capital.

Those are the main three tenants of what I see as the problems and solutions to be.  If we are going to have any future or human destiny it is going to require that all these problems be addressed and there is no other way of addressing them than what I propose in this generalized sense.  The specifics of who to fix these problems with these solutions a vast and ever-going conversation.

Here's where you're wrong. Libertarianism (small "l") and AnCap rely on each person to act in their own interest, where as democracy relies on people to act in the public good. Guess which one is more likely to happen?

I disagree, although it isn't really that explicit so each of us are applying our ability of analysis to philosophical, moral and economic theories and constructs.  Those that agree with you are fully able to as well as those agree with me in our respective observations.  We will see which method is more workable for deriving truth.

But, you say, which is 'more likely' to happen?  Well this is a flawed approach because it isn't a matter of 'likelihood' as much as it is objectively observing history and then being aware that those forces still exist as one of the principle perspectives in which to view the entirety of the subject matter.

I come from the primary perspective that:

*  There has always been a degree of "ruling class" in some respective degree in any culture any time in history
*  This ruling class wants to maintain their power, be it based on religious mythos (theocratic), or economic (oligarchic) or through the State itself (like the British Royal Family or perhaps something resembling the power structure in the late-USSR).
*  Maintenance and expansion of this power involves shaping the society to respect and not challenge their authority, which, since, by definition, it is not based on merit, requires degrading and debasing the population in some manner.

I hold that these things are ubiquitous throughout the historical record and they are.  They are always there in some degree or another.  I hold that this is the primary force to understand and work against if you wish to get anywhere.  Trying to look at it through an anti-State lens is absurd and will get you nowhere (and that was the intention of the Oligarchical interests who created and funded Classical Liberalism and then Libertarianism from the beginning, to turn people like yourself into inert political material).  The Anti-Statists should ask themselves how much they really know about the creation of the modern State.  Go look this up.  Make it a research project to go read some non-Libertarian history on the topic of how the modern State was formed.  Prior to that we had feudalism, not a blissful Utopia.  

So, your argument is that because there are always people who want to rule over people, we need a government... why, exactly? To give them something to do?

I'm not arguing that there will (or should) not be leaders. But leaders are not rulers. One of the most clear historical examples is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth Read that article carefully, and see if you can find your "ruling class", and what role they take.

You seem, also, to think that because I am an anarchist, I am necessarily politically inert. Oh, I assure you, I am no such thing. Inert implies inaction, or worse, inability to act. On the contrary, I am quite capable of acting, and moreover, do so at every opportunity. The political system, not the rejection of it, is what has rendered pro-statists politically inert. You are given a choice of two candidates, who are so close to being identical that what few differences they have must be blown all out of proportion in order to be even visible, and in choosing between these two sides of the same coin, you are told you are making a difference.

You are not. In casting your vote for the "lesser of two evils", as you see it, you are not decreasing evil, but increasing it less than if you had voted the other way. Worse, you are validating the contest, implicitly agreeing that whatever the result of the contest, be it lesser or greater of the two evils, you accept the result.

So, advocating and acting for change, or just doing more of the same... who is the one who is inert?

What you say is mostly true. But your personal suggestions are not a solution. Drop your ideology for a month, pretend it doesn't exist, and just focus on identifying problems. You see, part of your problem is the idea that your ideology solves all the problems, because you only believe that a tiny subset of all the problems that really exist actually exist. You're not even remotely aware of all the problems out there.

You can't solve a problem if you're unaware of it.

Your lack of political analysis is staggering.  I can't help but feel obligated to feel sympathetic for your continued attempts at trying though, it is like a lame bird trying to fly.

 :'(

I say that because how, after all this, after I've written literally hundreds of pages on this forum, you could think that I "vote for the lesser of two evils" really is mind-blowing.  It shows me as the original thinker that I am, as you are unable to accurately infer any aspect of my personality from what I've said, and continue to infer things that are should be evident that are contrary to what I say.

Hundreds of pages, of which, the above paragraph is mostly representative. You tell me I am wrong, and yet, you refuse to elucidate what is the right way. You tell me I am inert, but fail to show how you are active. So, in no uncertain terms, what, pray tell, do you advocate?

(And no, I am not interested in sifting through hundreds of pages of text to decipher your beliefs. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  -Albert Einstein)

Ok, so here is what I would say. Think about what skills you have, think about how you can use that to create a replacement for some service that the governments, large corporations, "monied interests" (all three are the same) currently provide, and then create a superior alternative. The language you are using is too focused on destruction. Go back and read that post to discover how much space you devoted to complaining about the current problems vs how much you devoted to providing solutions. These large organizations need to be made irrelevant, piece by peice.

Using any kind of violence or force as part of a solution is the least creative route. Further, this strategy has a really obvious history of blowback. Say what you will about the current system, but it has been relatively stable. Use this stability to your advantage.

Ahh. Thanks, that makes it much easier. Not sure how I missed that post, but, I think, it's excusable, given that I was busy with twins.

Now, If you could explain the system of Political Economy for me, I'd be very appreciative. As I understand it, it involves protectionism for developing industries, and then free competition among the developed ones?

So all the written works of man within the realm of science, political science, economics, etc. can be explained simply and in a few sentences? Shall we burn all the books now, stop education, and simply trade a meme or two from here on?

I don't believe Einstein had your brand of ignorance in mind when he made such a statement.

One could just as equally say that the Libertarian solution is no solution at all, as it ignores the complexity of the issues. Witness myrkul's general attitude regarding knowledge. A nuanced and effective solution requires some awareness and knowledge about the issues, and most importantly, how one simple proposed solution fails to address various issues (which myrkul and his camp are obviously unaware of due to voluntary ignorance).

Most people in this forum are hobbiest political ignoramuses, including myrkul. The smartest people within this forum will favor the intake of knowledge before committing to a solution, and certainly wouldn't insist that a solution can be explained in a few sentences.

no, but most, if not all, political philosophies can be at least summarized in a few sentences, or even less. Witness:

communism: a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held communally.
market anarchy: a stateless society where private property is respected, and all services are rendered on the free market.
libertarian government (aka minarchy, the night-watchman state): a state society where the role of the state is limited to the protection of its citizens, their property, and their rights.
constitutional republic: a federal government with certain, delineated powers, and a number of member states, each allowed considerable autonomy in their governance.

I could go on, but I have better things to do. I think you get the point.

No, I don't get the point, because there is no point. The above is meaningless drivel without implementation details and the ramifications each has with regard to the existing knowledge base about the world.

If it was as simple as the above one sentence summaries you posted, there would be nothing to discuss, and you wouldn't feel compelled to push your crackpot loon societal solution continuously. However, if you still insist that it is as simple as you insist, please stop posting, as you seem to feel that the above summary of your own favored ideology is adequate. Then you can leave the discussion to the rest of us, as others here obviously feel that there is more depth to the ideologies we favor.

And in your case, that ideology would be....? You still haven't explained that even in the one-sentence summary style of the above examples. You seem quite content to simply ridicule others' viewpoints, without expressing your own. You've started two threads so far to do so, in fact, and both have died on the vine because of your lack of interest. So man up and put your cards on the table, or go troll somewhere else.

I ridicule your viewpoint precisely because it is founded within a vacuum of knowledge. It deserves ridicule.

My ideology is to factor in knowledge to discuss solutions. I have tried to discuss solutions, but first, such discussion requires acknowledgement of that knowledge from those engaged in discussion. You advocate ignorance, thus you don't yet qualify, in my opinion, to discuss ideologies.

If I simply proposed a solution, you would, from an unqualified viewpoint, render an opinion on it that is useless, precisely due to your willful ignorance of the data and mechanisms which support such a solution.

Explain to him why you are involved with bitcoin. That will answer his question.

LMAO.

Thanks.  *wipes eye*  That's one of the best things I've ever read on this website, thanks again First Ascent.

 ;D

These quotes assume that we are all using the same language - in regards to it's specificity - and that there is an underlying rigorous definition to the terms in question.

I already have.  Multiple times.  Remember the quote I had from which all action of economics flow, in my 'ideology'?  Remember the books I cited to you? 

So... No, then? Am I to lump you in with FirstAscent's trollery, then? Very well.

Do what you will.

It is evident that you neither have the time, inclination, ability or patience to understand any of the subject matter we're discussing; it's not like my mountains of arguments nor mountains of reading material for you to enlighten yourself have had any worthwhile response from you because you refuse or are unable to put in the required time and learning to do so.  So you dance in the shadows.  You're probably too busy with your kids, and I, personally, would much rather you spent time with them than thinking yourself some nighttime avenger and savior-to-us-all through your Utopian, oligarch financed, foundation promoted poisonous rhetoric and ideology.  You are so certain of your ideology that you are unable to even do the required research to fully check the possibility to see if what you are promoting is backward and misguided if not evil and corrupt.  In my world, Pride is a character flaw if not a sin; but here, it's par for the course.

Leave these discussions to persons like myself because I'm able to invest the ridiculous amount of time required to actually be able to understand any of this subject matter fully and comprehensively - and I act on that ability.  And I, unlike your own ideology, am operating from a place of wanting to do good for the entirety of the population, not just those with ample means.  But, alas, here is the fallacy of Democracy, yet again, where the average person trying to discover the great 'what should be done?' question of his respective generation is misled, completely lost and without a signpost of how to navigate the world they're in, being herded like sheep against their own interests and flying to the defense of finance oligarchy, which wouldn't hesitate for even a fraction of  a second if it was between killing you and your entire family and protecting their ill-gotten power and privilege.  Yet, you are part of their ideological vanguard army, from which you'll never be paid, nor ever receive any spoils from, only to be abused and thrown away with the rest of the civilization being looted and destroyed.  And this isn't even something hard to prove, it just requires an open mind and objectively and fairly considering everything presented and being able to change one's mind in reference to the truth, not break and bend the truth to conform and 'gel' with your ideology.  And the books I referenced you would have set you on that path.

It seems you're not going to ever give up your ideology and when you're an old man you'll be watching Fox News (or equivalent) and shaking your fist at whatever Pavlovian response the finance oligarchs want to sell you at that time.  You can't give up your Reactionism because it is the comfy blanket that you are able to sooth yourself with and pretend to yourself like you have all the answers and that what you are promoting is 'good'.  I, on the other hand, when I discovered the absolute baselessness and corruption of the school of Libertarianism, I walked away from them and changed my mind without batting an eye.  Such is the awareness of one's own foibles and potential for weakness - an awareness which is the very essence of strength.  You lack this, your Pride is evident as well as your lack of ability, time, etc. to do the requisite research is evident, so what more can be said?

So, because I request a simple explanation of your philosophy so that I may judge, based on that, if it is worth further study, and do not wish to immediately invest several hundreds of hours in reading through century-old texts, I am not intellectually honest?

Please, do not make me laugh. I can explain the tenets of liberty from the simplest one-liner (see above), all the way to a full treatise. That is because I understand it. If you cannot explain it to me in such a way that I am thereby interested in reading more about it on my own initiative, then perhaps you do not understand your own philosophy... or perhaps sophistry would be a better word.

The fact that you debate language and wording, rather than meaning and philosophy tells me all I need to know about you. Toodles.

I believe I said that you're not actually qualified to judge any ideology other than your own precisely because you believe it is not necessary to learn anything outside the boundaries of what your ideology presupposes is necessary to know.

+1

Such is the nature of synthetic slave ideologies.  They proscribe to their dupes that they now have the method for deriving all truth through their proscribed system.  It is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

The truth frightens Myrkul.  He has to run away now.

Please go raise your children.  They need your help more than the world needs your help.

 :-\

My children are sleeping peacefully.

I do not fear truth, and rest assured, if you finally manage to present some to me, I am intellectually honest enough to admit that it is, in fact, truth, and change my mind. I'm not holding my breath, however, since neither of you have ever bothered to set out clear answers to the problems you say are inherent in my philosophy. Nor, for that matter, ever bothered to explain yours, aside from "go read these books." You, not I, run from the truth.

This is all I have to say to both of you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92501.msg1062338#msg1062338

(though I use FirstAscent, I feel it safe to say that it applies to you, as well.)

My children are sleeping peacefully.

I do not fear truth, and rest assured, if you finally manage to present some to me, I am intellectually honest enough to admit that it is, in fact, truth, and change my mind. I'm not holding my breath, however, since neither of you have ever bothered to set out clear answers to the problems you say are inherent in my philosophy. Nor, for that matter, ever bothered to explain yours, aside from "go read these books." You, not I, run from the truth.

This is all I have to say to both of you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92501.msg1062338#msg1062338

(though I use FirstAscent, I feel it safe to say that it applies to you, as well.)
[/quote]

 ;)

I have some refined thorium ore in my home, hidden away carefully...

That is all I have to add to this conversation. Thank you.

niemivh, have you seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s&feature=related ? It starts off a little loopy, and ends over in my camp, but in the middle it seems like it's right up your alley. You should enjoy it.

I was a democracy pandering nitwit for awhile until someone showed me the folly of my ways. I personally won't force anyone to do or say or believe any specific thing, especially on what's right and wrong, given that it's a subjective topic, and given that it's against my personal beliefs to do so. However, what I can say is that Libertarianism, in it's simplest form, is the most logically sound of philosophies I've read. Although admittedly, it does encounter some 'life-boat' scenario oddities. But who cares about the one-in-a-million happenstance? Besides, if you do, then logic and reasoning is important to you, in which case, you should reconsider all of your beliefs.

That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, but if you use logic and reason to justify anything you do (which is the premise of any of the idealogues), it makes all of the other philosophies look absolutely ridiculous by comparison.

Simply put, if I respect your opinions, will you respect mine? If you do, you can't force your opinions on me and vice versa, without violating that simple premise. Shall we accord each other the right to our opinion and not impose it on each other? Because if we do that, that's the basis of Libertarianism, and if it's not, it's a battle of wills, not one of reasoning.

Flame on.

What are opinions?  Do they have any external context or meaning?  What is the application of opinions?

Ideas are what I wish to discuss, and I only really infer personal-level stuff when I'm trying to show the person believing XYZ to look at his fellow person believing it and see if there is any perhaps demographic, or societal, or external actor to why he is believing what he is; or to look at themselves in the mirror and to assess what they are seeing.  Seeing as the arguments to expand one's knowledge and to rationally discuss the ideas and tenants of the ideology have failed due to lack of effort and willpower on behalf of the Libertarian audience here, then that is the 'second rate' strategy that my arguments have had to employ as of late. 

Do you remember when you learned that being a 'Democracy peddling-nitwit' was a bad-idea?  Do you remember the conversation, the specific instants that made you realize: "could I be mistaken?"  And the path that you took to learn more about a superior system of morality or social-organization or whatever?  Imagine going on that path of learning, rigorously, for years - what do you think that you would learn?  What things would you realize that would turn out to be just as absurd as democracy-peddling would be to you now?  This is the question I want every Libertarian to ask, as becoming a Lib prematurely makes people (specifically white males within a certain age range) to believe that they are wizened old men and possess answers for everything.  More absurdly, they think that this can be derived from a single, or at best, a handful of books that all spew the same basic, underlying ideology.

+1

Not only is it interesting that those books all say the same thing, more interesting is what they don't say. They are completely devoid of so much knowledge about the world, and it's inner workings.

Challenge to libertarians: show me the bibliographies of your favorite libertarian book, and let's see how diverse and complete they are with regard to referencing well respected material on various subject matter.

I'm sure I won't avoid the ire and snideness of the libertarian-haters out there, but this is what I believe.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902)

It doesn't include the diversity of the entire universe, but that doesn't make it a crude ideology either. Besides, I don't think that's the point of a philosophy in the first place (at least the ethics of it). It tends to exclude the empiricism (being of secondary concern) and focuses on the ethical morality of the outcomes of the actions of its participants. It is a war of "shoulds" and "shoudn'ts". But y'all already knew that.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, one of the most prolific, esteemed and celebrated philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, mentions very little of the physical sciences (physics) in his works. The application of opinions and philosophies are those in which you affect changes in the environment around you (applied sciences), and then see how individuals respond.

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords).

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

That is a terribly dangerous viewpoint, and it demonstrates how your lack of desire in exploring those topics in depth render you ability to propose and judge laws and policies with regard to ownership of property somewhat handicapped.


Again, this is not an adequate and encompassing view. There are so many inter-dynamics occurring here that transcend the boundaries of one property and another.

It's not dangerous if my property remains contained within the defined boundaries. It may be dangerous if it is not. I'm in the politics and society section. We're mainly speaking of philosophies. It would appear your muddying the two.


You didn't read what I wrote. I stated it as if the property is contained. "Inter-dynamics" is not a self-containing definition.

Discussion of politics requires acknowledgement of the effects that society has on its future. How could you claim otherwise? This forum is not entitled "Philosophy". Just because your ideology hinges upon ignoring the messy details of the real world does not in fact render you immune from such criticisms about your ideology.

Now, regarding this claim of yours:


I suspect you really don't know many of the things that you might do on your property that have an effect beyond the boundaries of your property. Furthermore, have you considered that boundaries do not exist just in physical extent, but temporal extent as well? What is the temporal extent of your ownership?

Ultimately, your ideology is short sighted due to your simplistic application of the meaning of ownership, which appears to be rather egocentric.

It's funny how all you Libs are the same. The deterministic, procedural methodology.  The reductionism.  The empiricism.  The absurdity of thinking that 'everything is under the umbrella of physics'.  It would be an interesting discussion to follow the path of these style thinkers who originated this line of thinking and how the underpinning for your entire Lib belief system is actually requisite on these pre-existing world-views.  Oh, and lest I forget, you all have this absurd ontological and bankrupt epistemology because you are all 'skeptics'.  

LOL.  You guys are priceless.  You are all the same, but you are all priceless nevertheless.

And, I would try, but I'd be all alone.  You guys have no idea what I'm talking about when I'm simply discussing the implications of your shibboleths and ideological fetishism.  In short, most of you are too stupid & ignorant to even be voting, much less debating anything.  So, if I starting discussing the origin of these belief systems, and epistemological world-views over the past 1000 years, I might as well be speaking in a Martian language.

That didn't take long niemivh. Resorting to ad hominem. I guess our conversation is effectively finished.

And as for you FirstAccent, it seems your entire discussion is an attempt at ignoring property definition and engaging in verbal diahhrea -trying to convince everybody that all property is common (violating the very definition of ownership), which of course is not true in the outcome, because it will resort to an Authoritarian system of government where all resources are effectively owned by the ruling class (of which I'm sure you'd like to have a membership).

Sorry, not buying. You can throw all your special environmental terminology at me all you want (no disrespect), but if all it does is result in theft and plunder of the masses under the pretense of "saving the planet", I'm having nothing of it. Notwithstanding, I respect the environment, and don't believe in pollution because of it's affect on others (trespass and vandalization).

Private property is the best way IMO to protect the environment from harm. And finally, if anything, Libertarians are nitpicks for the details. I may not be an environmental grandmaster wizard, but I'm not stupid either.

Firstly, you've started a thread to explain all this, and I'm still waiting on an update in it. Second, as to the temporal boundaries of property, That property is mine until I reassign it. That can happen a number of ways, to my heirs at my death, through selling it, etc. If I care about my heirs, or the resale value of the property, I will not do anything to reduce the long-term value of that property.

Consider: The Scimitar-horned Oryx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_oryx). It is currently extinct in the wild, existing only in zoos and game preserves. There are no more roaming the wilds (commons) of Africa. Do you know where the largest concentration of Scimitar-horned Oryx are, today?

In a private game reserve in Texas. Your precious biodiversity is being protected by hunters. Why? Because if they hunted them completely out of existence, they couldn't hunt them anymore. Self-interest, protection of the value of one's private property, has succeeded where environmentalism and the commons has failed.

You should have been around for the long, hundred+ pages I wrote refuting every salient aspect of what can be referred to as "Libertarianism".  Just go browse my old posts.

Plus I'm writing a book (albeit slowly) that is going to refute and destroy every aspect of this cult-ideology.  I hope to be able to finish it in a year and am starting officially end of August or first of September.

 :)

Point me in the general direction, otherwise I won't bother (or summarize as I have). I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation? I'd imagine the fact you consider your reasoning to have any meaning and be worthy of review it would have to be logical, in which case, I'd be interested in what axioms you start with to begin your arguments.

You see the problem isn't the fact that you can make any moral rules you want, the issue is one of enforcing them. At that point things get really dicey. They're great for those who sign on to be ruled in such a fashion, but makes it extraordinarily violent for those who just want to be left to their druthers. It's when opinion, ethics and morality crosses over into the physical world where you start to produce a plethora of consequences.

"I won't bother".  The anthem of Libertarians everywhere.  The thermonuclear weapon of argumentation deployed by the Libs.

Well you can click my name and then look at my past posts and then find the biggest ones and then go to those threads and follow the arguments.  That isn't that hard really.  Sorry if I'm not desiring to paraphrase everything on this website multiple times for each user, as I'm one of the very few (only?) users who has posted anything substantial in size (or merit, for that matter).  Plus, if you are as lazy as all the other Libertarians, as evidenced by your 'threat' of apathy (which I think, for you, is probably more a way of life), why should I do anything for you?  I would be willing to meet anyone that was honestly interested in having a debate, someone inquisitive and curious about the world 'half way' so to speak and would donate many, many hours of my personal time trying to convince someone of something who wasn't so slothful.

And what are you talking about when you say:  "I'd love to see how you use logic to explain it away, or is that not a necessary component to your refutation?" 

? What is that in reference to?

Here is a list of books that you can read that will roughly approximate what I think and have to say on these topics until I'm able to write my own book(s) on these topics.  I'm no longer interested in long-winded discussions with people on this site.  Maybe that'll change at some point, but Myrkul was a good debater for a while until the arguments I posed never were answered and he tried repeatedly to simply run the conversation in circles with 'bigger' and 'better' (but really worse and more stupid) analogies. 

Here's a good list to start with:

1st tier:

*  "Oligarchy" by Jeffrey A. Winters
*  "Harmony of Interests" by Henry Carey
*  "National System of Political Economy" by Friedrich List
*  "Surviving the Cataclysm" by Webster G. Tarpley
*  "Past, Present, and Future" by Henry Carey
*  "Sophisms of Free Trade" by John B. Byles
*  "Road to Reaction" by Hermin Finer


2nd/3rd tier:

*  "Anti-libertarianism: Markets, philosophy and myth" by Alan Haworth
*  "Democratizing Globalization: The Leverage of the Tobin Tax" by Heikki Patomaki
*  "Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us"  by John Quiggin
*  "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen
*  "The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism"  by David Harvey

You know what? I don't have anything better to do right at the moment, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to sift through pages and pages of your old drek-spew, to see if anywhere in there, you outline an actual philosophy. I don't hold out much hope, but at least it will keep me busy in between changing diapers and feeding babies. Then, I will post my findings here, and keep a record of where you outline this, so that I can reference back to it in the future.

Oh, god, my brain hurts.

After 5 pages of sanity-straining diatribes (100 walls of text, on average at least one screen-full each)

I have come to the conclusion that:

1. You're stark-raving mad.
2. You may be the same person as vampire. You share "debate" styles.
3. You are unwilling to actually explain your philosophy. You come pretty close in one post, but, alas, you only tangentially touch anything resembling meaning.

You may have posted something more detailed in an earlier post, but my gorge is full for the moment. So, rather than seeing if you ever said what you believed, I did a little side-research.

You first suggested I read The National System of Political Economy, by Friedrich List (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List), so I assumed that the system that he championed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_System_of_Innovation) would be the one you most closely align yourself with, and indeed, that system does sound like the sort of things you've been saying:


In the "See also" section, I found a link to the "American School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29)", and therein found a link to the second book you suggested I read, Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, so I knew I was on the right track. Also there I found another familiar book title (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;q1=American%20System;rgn=full%20text;idno=AJB8869.0001.001;didno=AJB8869.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000019), which pretty much put a lock on this being the philosophy you espouse.

What I don't get is why I had to do all that looking myself, when you could have simply pointed me, or anyone else who asked, at that Wikipedia article. Especially since it seems, at first blush, to be a very positive article.

How so?


If you think the above is an answer to my question of "How so?", then think again. It really only is demonstrative of your shallow understanding of what environmentalism really is, what diversity is, and what the goals of megafauna preservation are.

Do you know what the goals of megafauna preservation are? Because I can assure you, your example of a Texan hunting ranch are not satisfying those goals. Once again, we see where your smug responses are only indicative of your belief that you think you understand what's going on, but really don't.

Are you by chance going to pick up a book on ecology yet? Or are you going to defend your ignorance because I haven't given in to your expectations that I explain it all for you?

The Scimitar Oryx is extinct in the wild. That means they only exist in zoos and game reserves. The largest breeding population extant of that Scimitar Oryx is at that ranch. How is that not protecting biodiversity?

WTF? I clicked randomly on a thread, and you're spreading BS around?

Well, now you've just proven that you're completely nuts. I pointed you my answer SIX times, and you still couldn't comprehend it. Do you have some kind of mental disability?

What about JAY-T video, the most retarded thing I saw in the last few days. I felt so dumb after watching it.

You know what, you're on a perma-ignore now.

Love you too.  :-*

Biodiversity, it's very definition, implies diversity, which arises from the existence of thousands, tens of thousands of species within any given ecosystem. This then results in the ecosystem being able to provide its services, known collectively as ecosystem services. The goal is to protect biodiversity by protecting ecosystems. A general technique for doing so is to declare a top level species within its respective ecosystem as endangered (because it is endangered or will become extinct if its ecosystem is destroyed) as an umbrella species, otherwise known as a keystone species. The ecosystem is then preserved under the umbrella of the umbrella species. This protects biodiversity. I gave a general summary of this process by drawing attention to the Spotted Owl controversy and what it was all about in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96217.msg1061023#msg1061023

We can get into all kinds of discussions as to what biodiversity is, what threatens it, where you'll find it, why it needs to be preserved, and how preservation is affected.

Your example of relocating the Scimitar Oryx is simply not a case of protecting biodiversity. What they did is not necessarily a bad thing, but your usage of it as an example to protect biodiversity simply shows that you have a lot to learn about the subject.

Holy crap... you're starting to make sense. Quick, get over to that ecology thread why you still have it!

No, but seriously, That's actually a coherent response to my question. Thank you. That said, this thread is not the place to be discussing it.

Having done a little reading of that article, I think I may have an answer as to why "here read this wikipedia article" wasn't his go-to response:


Now, a simple explanation that he didn't approve of that monetary policy would have sufficed, but perhaps he does approve? That's certainly not going to go over well here. Thus the obfuscation behind reams of text.

I dunno, I though that explaining that there is this thing called "Wikipedia" out there that sometimes has useful information would've been obvious to the point of insulting.

In terms of policy, for example, I'm for having protective tariffs (NOT revenue tariffs, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare).  And this requires establishing what the level of import tariff should be for XYZ good.  The goal of this policy is to prevent our labor force from "competition" with 3rd world slaves, so that they can keep a sizable portion of the surplus value that they create.  This could be a long discussion, but the point is that here is something (import tariffs), a 'tool' if you will, that can be used in a variety of ways: for good or for bad.  It can support the labor force here in the States and actually create the frame work for ACTUAL free trade that is only between nations that have labor laws, minimum wages, vacations, maternity leave, etc.  (You wonder how immigration from the Old World was enticed to come to the New?  This is a large part of the reason, as Henry Carey lays out in "Harmony of Interests".)  While the products that would be supposedly shipped in from wage-slave China (or wherever the runaway shop is this month) would be priced at the same level as if they were bought from a 1st world nation.  Meaning that our jobs wouldn't be perpetually in flight overseas.  What you would see as result of this, and I'm being rather brief (perhaps too much so), would be a general improvement of condition FOR ALL people of the earth, not just us in the 1st world.

I can explain why (especially why in relation to why this benefits the 3rd world as well), if you'd like, but if you read those books I cited then it should become clear enough.

Never heard of em'.

It's one thing to point out "wikipedia, dumbass", and entirely a different matter to say "Everything you need to know about my position can be found here."


No, no, I get the benefits of your system, and I get why it worked so well, before. Basically, what the American System says is, "The other markets are not free, they are biased in this way, and that. What we should do is introduce counterbalancing bias, to reduce the effect of that bias both here, and abroad." And FWIW, that works. But it ignores a lot of other problems, not least being comparative advantage.

First time I looked at their stuff on the American System, I typically avoid Wikipedia.  But it does look like a good reference, there is some good stuff there.



Well the only 'comparative advantage' that I'm familiar with is the one of Smith/Ricardo which was completely and utterly a political fraud.  Always has been, and it still the anthem of the WTO and IMF in their policy doctrines to this day.  If you'd like my opinion on that you can read my book review of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/product-reviews/0553585975/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&pageNumber=2&showViewpoints=0

Although to the extent that a certain country has more skill and expertise in something than another is totally valid, but what of it?  If we look at how Japan and Korea and Malaysia and Taiwan and China rose to power over the last half of the last century and into this one, then we'll need to understand this policy.  Ha-Joong Chang wrote some good books on the topic:

"23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"
http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344007829&sr=1-1&keywords=23+things+they+don%27t+tell+you+about+capitalism

"Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism"
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=la_B001HOFPKS_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344007860&sr=1-2


Both these books cover, albeit briefly and for a mainstream culture 'pop-culture' audience, the same principles as what I've been referencing you.


A good statesmen, a modern reincarnation of Henry Clay for example would realize what industries need to be created or reformed is in the USA's best interests.  Today, that could be potentially a tremendous amount of things as there is so much in the realm of cutting-edge technology that is not being commercially (or otherwise) pursued by "the private sector" OR something that the private sector is doing but totally abusing and ripping the public off with: Oil Industry, Banking, agra-businesses. 

For example, LFTR research and development.  You have an intransigent Energy Sector that controls various strata of our government through political donations, appointments, bribes/kickbacks, chairmanships, Consortiums, control of areas of academia etc.  So, find someone that is actually interested in building LFTR, someone like Kirk Sorensen and appoint him head of a government chartered corporation tasked to do just that.  Give him complete day-to-day authority and have him answer to a senatorial committee by the person that originally wrote the plan to charter the corporation and project to begin with.  Model it along the lines of the TVA.  This way you aren't 'vetting' the project through the bureaucratic log-jam of the rest of the government and you don't allow all the paid and corrupted operatives to sabotage the project as it would if they were involved. 


For example, oil exploration and research.  Right now all of us are getting perpetually raped in regards to the oil rights that are sold off the public lands, to the oil cartels for a pittance.  And then, after they rape our resources for virtually free (as the small royalties don't really equate to much of anything) then they don't pay taxes and tell us we're on our own when something like "Deep Water Horizon" happens.  Solution:  charter a new government owned corporation that will have exclusive rights to drill oil on our land.  This company sells gasoline and oil products and the excess revenue goes to the public treasury - lowering all our taxes.


Do you see the potential in this scenario for the type of 'vigorous action' that Hamilton promoted?  Do you see the various layers of the government, some controlled by oligarchical factions and others not?  This is the reality that we're interfacing with, and every time one looks at "the government" as a monolithic entity you are blinding yourself to the actuality of what is in front of your face.

it's not just skill and expertise, it's also terrain, access to resources, climate, and other things that training just can't improve. It would be silly, for instance, to want to buy your oil from New Jersey. Imagine, if you will, if each state in the US practiced protectionism - a situation the commerce clause was intended to prevent - What would happen?


I don't view "the government" as a monolithic entity. I view it as a group of individuals, like any other corporation. The actions of that corporation, however, can be viewed in aggregate. And the actions of that corporation universally distort the market.

Protectionism and mercantilism (which is what you are proposing) are out-dated economic policies. You're still thinking in nation-state terms. That's not how the world works anymore.

This is always the criticism against trying to have a start-up industry.  But there is a massive difference between trying to promote ridiculous or over-ambitious projects (perhaps like John Quincy Adams' most (arguably) over-ambitious projects) in such a fashion compared to what someone who is scientifically minded tries to promote (Henry Clay) - this very aspect is what defines a good statesmen; it isn't a matter of 'sitting on one's hands' like Friedrich List says.  The critics of this policy, generally: the rich, the oligarchy, the reactionary contingent of the population; are always against it, regardless of what is being proposed, so they have to frame and pigeonhole all projects of this nature into this 'ridiculous' category.  However, if South Korea or Japan or any of the other countries I cited (which also included the USA throughout most of its history) HADN'T pursued cutting-age technological advancements through the state-directed corporations at the time, and/or other policies harmonious with the American System, then we wouldn't have all the myriad of companies like Samsung, Toshiba, LG, etc. that create hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new value.  But for anything to be 'reaped' in this manner, you must first 'sow' the seeds, which is impossible under the Imperial (Free Market / Free Trade) system in which all the major corporations and oligarchical interests simply crush everything opposed to them until the entire system breaks down and collapses into a global depression and/or world war.

So, how ridiculous or misplaced would you have considered Samsung to be when it was first compelled, by government, to be converted from a textile manufacturing company to a high-technology company?  Here, South Korea had no experience, no expertise, not a single reason to believe that they could do it, not even the raw materials necessary, yet, here they are today with an annual revenue of 1/4 of a trillion dollars annually.

That said, of course, trying to produce something that is primarily based on climate is a completely different thing and trying to 'grow wine in Antarctica' or whatever the reactionary and overtly ridiculous example they are using to persuade people against the economic system to which we owe our entire modern existence, is silly to the point of not being worthy of discussion.


Well, when one thinks that these methods are hopeless or pointless because you see the dominate form in the government and 'write the rest off' because you deem it unable to perform what is necessary, then that betrays a certain lack of political understanding and a certain level of unreasoning hopelessness.  Go read about the New Deal.  How the reactionary-feudal Republicans were, after it was clear FDR was the anti-Hilter, the anti-Mussolini, were hopping-mad and raving and frothing against him.  Understanding where the 'weak spots' are in this system and striking them will create such a backlash amongst the oligarchical factions that their presence will become more and more known, which in turn will weaken their power.  In addition, we can do much to turn elements of the oligarchy against other elements of it.  The situation we face is far from hopeless or lost, but we must break from the prison in thinking it as such.


Regarding HOW "protectionism" is 'out-dated' is clear, yet wholly and entirely irrelevant.  This is like someone telling Sparticus or Toussaint L'ouverture that freedom is out of style because slavery and oppression are ubiquitous.  It is clear that Imperialism is alive, and that it is dominating the planet at present, even as it is collapsing and buckling under the rate of its own exploitation.  But as I describe above, and as I have elsewhere, and as will become more clear as you read "Oligarchy" by Jeffrey A. Winters, you'll see that what I'm proposing is not some alternative fad or trend to be taken up or denied, it is not my opinion that this is what needs to be done, it is a survival strategy, as it is REQUIRED behavior if you think you're going to have any sort of freedom or liberty or standard of living for your and your children.  We are in a collapsing, death-spiral paradigm, and you claim that 'this is the new normal'.  Well that might be, but it doesn't mean that people such as myself can't see the 'Bridge Out' sign up ahead and the cavernous pit up ahead that we are speeding toward.  You basically state: 'that may be the way in which to return to autonomy and self-determination and sovereignty, but hey, we've lost, it is hopeless, the world doesn't work that way anymore'.  It doesn't have to, the future has yet to be determined.  I'm offering survival, progress, advancement, happiness, wealth, technological development, peace and sanity - all of which are the antithesis of our present system.


Take LFTR, here is a perfect example, yet again.  This is a photon-torpedo that could be shoved down the throat of the war-mongering, murderous, imperial, gangsterism of the Oil Cartel and the Energy Industry as a whole.  They are collectively willfully holding back the tide of human progress and while anyone, looking at this scenario over a large scale time-frame would be correct (in my estimation) in saying that these people are traitors to the human race and should be treated as such, all I'm promoting is to allow humanity to move forward, which will, naturally result in a diminution of power and authority of these people who've done little or nothing worthwhile to deserve it.

This really gets at the flaccid, supine and groveling nature of the Traditional Left, which think that the solutions to this problem reside in the existing paradigm of existing production and technology.  They want to chase these people around with red-tape and taxes and expose's and documentaries.  They think that restricting production (what cartels and monopolies always do anyway to raise prices) as 'conservationism' is somehow a solution to the problem of our existing energy problems.  These tactics, and the people largely promoting them, are wholly inept and worthless.  I say: "Make their industries irrelevant!"  Break their power by moving humanity forward, past where their power is worth anything anymore.


For if I'm some 'out of date' or 'out of touch' crank, simply because I found the gravity by which world-affairs orbit, and the secret economic history of our country and how we created wealth and national power and technology in the face of the most Imperial and warmongering force that then existed, then what is the alternative?  Utopian solutions promoted by foreign demagogues who were financed and promoted by finance oligarchs?  Using the above example, how do you think any force, that is outside governmental will ever create something on the scale and capital-intensity that LFTR requires?

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but this seems to be the central thrust of your argument: That only government can create, through mercantilism, great strides in technology that the free market cannot, because it is not willing to fund them.


First, I would like to point out that you seem to have the same flawed view of the "market" as you accuse me of having of the "government." The market is a collection of individuals, each pursuing their own goals. Some of those goals coincide with the progress of Thorium technology, some do not.

Second, I would ask, "What is preventing Sorenson from building a LFTR reactor right now?"

Third, building a LFTR reactor is considerably less capital intense than building a "conventional" nuke plant. Those do continue to get built, privately. In a free market, Sorenson could use his considerable speaking skills to get investors handily. I want to invest in his reactor, simply having watched one of his videos. Get some hospitals interested in the benefits of those medical isotopes, and I'd wager he'd have his capital.

I'd say this is generally true in most cases, yes.  Look at all the research that is going on today in cutting-edge technological fields.  It is either governmental or quasi-governmental.  Where is the this great well-spring of free-market research in cutting-edge technological fields?  It simply doesn't exist, and where it is lacking, the governments of the world can and should step in to a degree that can be deemed reasonable to a scientific analysis of what is possible.


I do not have the same flawed outlook that you do.  Like I've said repeatedly, where The Market is providing actually progress and not colluding to heavily suppress production for heavily increased profits then leave-it-be.  For example, the current blood-bath in the Smartphone market, there are going to be a large amount of losers, which at present look like: Blackberry, Nokia, HTC and others, but strides in technology are happening and the sector is developing rapidly.  This is what market competition excels at doing and something that the government should never be involved directly, as 'the government', in doing.  Also, due to market compression and competition this would be one of the stupidest things for us to state: "Let's start a government chartered corporation to make Smartphones!"  Any statesmen proclaiming something that stupid should be thrown out of office.  The government should charter corporation in such a previously illustrated manner where: 1)  There is a social imperative or need.  2)  That need isn't presently being fulfilled by existing 'market' forces.

This is basically anti-Keynesianism, you act where there is a lack of value creation to fill that void and create that value.  Keynes wanted a consumer recovery and for 'make work' to be created so it could best appease the British Finance Oligarchs that he was a Knight in defending the interests of.


Large amounts of capital.   That isn't forthcoming because private equity they won't take the risk.  Unless Howard Hughes or Steve Jobs rise from the dead, you know, classical capitalists that TOOK RISKS, to finance this projects, then it won't happen.  As it hasn't, it likely won't, so we should do it through our sovereign government.  If the private sector snoozes on something of this magnitude too long, then sorry, the public gets the patents, the production and the revenue from building it.  At least it would, if I had some power to do good, or if my sentiments were widespread.



We can only hope, but I'd rather politically agitate for it rather than hope.  Spread the word.

This is probably the best (and most positive) "one-liner" description of your philosophy I've seen yet. If the free market, for whatever reason, doesn't jump on a technology like this, then we should act to get it done.

It looks like the bottom line of why Sorenson isn't building an LFTR right now is "he doesn't have the money". I agree that he should have it. You agree that he should have it. Surely others out there do as well. What is preventing you from starting a non-profit or a fund-raising drive? Why you gotta advocate using stolen money?

What, after all this, you thought I was "a Keynesian"?  My avatar's icon is Alexander Hamilton for a reason, not to troll the ignoramuses who think that they know anything about him.


Why I have to advocate for using "stolen money"?  Ignoring that I completely disagree with that terminology, it is because market forces know that that immense force and leverage and power can be flexed by the existing Energy Oligarchs to crush them.  This is probably the best case that can be made for positive state action, if I was president I wouldn't hesitate in speed-lining this program ala' Manhattan Project style.


This also touches on the nature of taxation, partially addressing that question you posed in the other thread.  Since technology is not a Zero Sum Game and the creation of LFTR as a viable alternative and revolution in the energy production and mankind's overall power and mastery over nature anything invested into LFTR will yield massive, unfathomable returns.  And if, let's say, that the return of LFTR is (as the professor who discovered Thorium's fission-ing capacity said: "a 50 Quadrillion dollar discovery") even as low as $50 returned for each dollar invested we must ask: "are they the same dollars?"  The prior paradigm that existed for humankind had energy being able to be monopolized and none of it was efficient enough to viably desalinate sea-water.  With LFTR this looks to be possible, so it would be as revolutionary as the steam-engine.  There is so much Thorium that energy resource contention and the drivers for war that exist in that paradigm are greatly diminished if not completely dissolved.  What possible price can be put on that in "monetary terms"?


This gets at the nature of "non-monetary economics" to which I would like to write a book about.  In economics the fountain of wealth creation is not money, it is Production & Technology.  Money is simply a marker for this progress that is supposedly going on beneath it's veneer.  Looking at the world through the lens of monetarism is a toxic and anti-human doctrine because it alludes that Money should be the dominate system for conducting human affairs.  But when Money fully reigns supreme, as it is close to doing in our present condition, the entire society degrades rapidly into collapse because it is a genocidal and cannibalistic system.  Every person that works in finance says the same thing: that the economy is a zero sum game; which exposes and confirms the very nature of what I'm saying.

No, I've known you were a Hamiltonian even last year. That you describe your philosophy as the anti-Keynes, however, does cast it in a fairly positive light.


What you neglect, though, is exactly what power and leverage would be flexed by the existing energy oligarchs. That power would be State power. It's far, far cheaper to buy off a congressman, than it is to convince thousands or millions of people that this technology is evil.

But ignoring that, Voluntary funding has huge benefits over taxation, simply because every funder will do so willingly. Nobody will fight you in the press for using "their" money for purposes they don't approve. And Yes, I don't care what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, taxation is theft. It is mugging. It is extortion. It is the extraction of money by violent means. There is no way to make that "OK".

Well if you sufficiently knew the doctrines/books/ideologies of both, then you would know how opposed they are to each other.


Such naivete.


 ::)

You finished reading that "Oligarchy" book yet?  Let me know when you are done, this and the other thread's conversations are on hold from my end until you finish reading that book.

So, if I never read it, you'll shut the fuck up?

You got yourself a deal.

Alright, you're on Ignore now.  I'm sorry you're so constipated today.

PM me if you ever get off your plump laurels to read anything outside your FisherPrice(tm) world view of yours.

I've had you on ignore for weeks. It's an extra step to see if you're actually saying something worth reading, but it clears up a lot of space.