You make a lot of great posts in this forum, but I'm not going discard all your valid points simply because you are wrong about one of them.  My default position is that I tend to think that evolution isn't as clear-cut as most people make it out to be, but I'm not going to try to defend this position as I have spent very little time researching it.  The main point is that I believe Ron Paul to be correct about the Wars, the economy, the Federal reserve, taxes, the Constitution, States' rights, abortion, the war on drugs, US foreign policy, the history of Iran, etc.  This single point where he is stuck on his religious ideology in regards to evolution is a very minor point and will have negligible effect on his policies and actions as president.  It amazes me that people would be willing to disregard all his other positions because of a personal belief on a fairly inconsequential issue. 

Keynes wasn't the first one to use the concept of "effective demand".  That phrase dates back to Ricardo, and actually, even all the way back to Adam Smith.  However, Keynes took it and attempted to apply it to a precise mathematical function.  Let us examine his functions and see if it bears up under scrutiny.

From page 25 of The General Theory:

Let Z be the aggregate supply price of the output from employing N men, the relationship between Z and N being written Z = φ(N), which can be called the Aggregate Supply Function.  Similarly, let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of N men, the relationship between D and N being D = f(N), which can be called the Aggregate Demand Function.

The definition of a function is that it is a specific and constant relationship between an input and an output.  Keynes' equations cannot fulfill this requirement and therefore shouldn't be written as functions.  There is no precise, mathematical relationship between the number of men employed and his costs or revenue.  It changes depending on individual workers' qualities, efficiency and available of equipment for the workers to use, etc.  They simply are not functions of each other in the mathematical definition of a function.

Also, why is the first equation the supply price of employing a given quantity of men, while the second one is the expected proceeds to be garnered from employing a specific quantity of men?  Z and N are real sums while D is the expectation of real sum further invalidating the formulation of these relationships through mathematical equations.

Now, you may argue that Keynes did not intend for his mathematical equations to be taken as literal mathematical equations, but they often are by mainstream economists.  Furthermore, formulating these relationships as mathematical functions lends itself to a lack of clarity and allows for false assumptions and inferences to made that can lead to gross errors further on in the economic thought process.

I don't understand this sentence.  Are you saying it only applies to the situation 100 years ago?

+1

If you're going to do the island economy, do it right.

http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/

http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

Good points; you guys could very well be right. I would not be surprised at all for the US to have special forces in Lybia. I'm just saying be careful about touting this video as absolute proof. As someone mentioned above they could be contractors.

This is interesting but not solid proof that US special forces are involved.  These could have been British or French special forces.  I saw nothing that would uniquely identify them as American.  Did I miss something?

I'm glad someone appreciates my attempt at humor?

Good stuff.   Is that you at 0:48?   

I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.  It's a strong request.  I think another word would be better suited here, but I understand the point.  I would like to note, however, that it is not so much your right to allow someone to starve as your right to withhold your property (food) from them.  In consequence and effect, it is one and the same thing, but the right derives from your right to control your own property rather than your right to allow human suffering.  Thoughts?

Hmmm, isn't that three images?  Nitpicking, sorry...   

To be honest, it wouldn't cost anything extra for the US to defend a seasteading community off its coast.  All it has to do is announce that the community is under its protection.  No country is going to attack the US or any protectorate of it with its current military capabilities.  As far as pirates, the community is on its own.  They can hire private defense contractors, or simply chip in to fortify their city.  Any city over a certain size that has an armed populace would be too much risk for any but the most brazen and well armed pirates.  Besides, when was the last time you heard of pirates making raids off the US coast?

Yes I know the coast guard runs patrols and therefore would be protecting the seasteading community, but I'm arguing that the marginal cost is zero or negligible.  They are already protecting the US coast and would probably not have to make any extra patrols.  But even if they did the cost of extra patrols is so much smaller than other US military expenditures (Iraq, Afghanistan) it seems stupid to quibble about it.

How about the FED stops trying to "fix" things?  Then we might actually recover.

You can't slow down the bitcoin generation in the long run.  If miners leave the difficulty will adjust to ensure the same number of bitcoins are being generated.  This is by design.

This is interesting, but I'm not sure about the cost effectiveness of it.  Plus as you state, where to keep them all?

Exactly.

Go back and read the exchange between Bitfreak and I, and then come read the above post of mine again with a tone of irony. 

Thirty five pages on this subject.    How the eff do I unsubscribe from this thread?

The fact that there are both unconscious and conscious movements of muscles doesn't negate the idea of voluntary choice and free will.  Your body can react to stimuli and will move before your conscious recognizes this, but you are also capable of deciding to move your arm in advance of actually moving it.  If you don't believe me:  Keep your arms perfectly still.  Now think "I am going to move my arm" but don't move it.  NOW move it.  Did it work?  Did you have the free will to move your arm or is every move of ours predestined and ordered for us?  Or is this a trick question since I TOLD you to move it? 

Or $5000.   

I'm trying not to be insulted.    I am young (I guess?, 24), I may be naive, but I don't think I'm "slow".  I think I have a pretty good grasp on my intelligence level and it's within a standard deviation of the peak of the bell.  I've never been autistically brilliant at mathematics or computer science either.  I tend to be more of a social being, good at interacting with people.  I don't view myself as an isolated individual, apart from society, and neither do any of the libertarians I know.  In fact, most of the libertarian author's I've read explain libertarianism precisely within its setting in a society.  

The libertarians I've met, know personally and who's works I read tend to be very well educated in politics and history, much more so than your average Democrat or Republican who barely know what they believe or why.  Perhaps all the autistic/Aspberger ones are on the internet?

Libertarianism is a very coherent ideology, one of which I've only read a few really good critiques.  Most of the time when I debate people regarding libertarianism they resort to false concepts such as the "social contract" or simple "might makes right" ideology.  As in, society as a whole has decided such and such, therefore who are you to oppose society?

It sounds like you have had some unfortunate experiences with libertarians online.  Too bad I can't invite you to meet me and my libertarian friends for beer at the pub.  You would probably enjoy yourself and might change your opinion, even slightly, of libertarians.