"Book club"

[niemivh]

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.

 

Most of the libertarian clowns here never factor in the actual foundations upon which an economy runs. Without resources, an economy is dead in the water. Furthermore, libertarians suffer from the belief that a free market, by virtue of diminishing supply and rising prices due to a diminishing supply, harvesting of a finite resource will diminish. That's one of their most fallacious assumptions. In actuality, when the price of a resource goes up do to diminishing supply, there is increased competition, effort and technology applied to harvest that finite resource into non-existence. It happens every time. A pure free market sans regulation is death to us all.

Of course, of course.  I was just smiling about how you attacked people without even letting them reject your books first.  As if they had to be browbeaten into reading them.  It comes across as slightly insecure, so you probably don't need to do that.

Cheers brother.

 

[1714926958]

1714926958

[1714926958]

1714926958

[1714926958]

1714926958

[1714926958]

1714926958

[1714926958]

1714926958

[FirstAscent]

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.

 

Most of the libertarian clowns here never factor in the actual foundations upon which an economy runs. Without resources, an economy is dead in the water. Furthermore, libertarians suffer from the belief that a free market, by virtue of diminishing supply and rising prices due to a diminishing supply, harvesting of a finite resource will diminish. That's one of their most fallacious assumptions. In actuality, when the price of a resource goes up do to diminishing supply, there is increased competition, effort and technology applied to harvest that finite resource into non-existence. It happens every time. A pure free market sans regulation is death to us all.

Of course, of course.  I was just smiling about how you attacked people without even letting them reject your books first.  As if they had to be browbeaten into reading them.  It comes across as slightly insecure, so you probably don't need to do that.

Cheers brother.

 

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

In myrkul's case, I strongly suspect he hasn't even read the book that he recommended himself.   The Machinery of Freedom sets out a nice logical framework for why a state is needed, why the state is entitled to use conscription, why certain types of activity can never be allowed without licenses, what kind of foreign policy is needed and so on.  None of it matches what myrkul posts about here.  I'm slightly baffled as to why he recommended it a book that requires him to refute its central points.  Its as if he hadn't gotten around to actually reading the book before recommending it.

[FirstAscent]

...snip...

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

In myrkul's case, I strongly suspect he hasn't even read the book that he recommended himself.   The Machinery of Freedom sets out a nice logical framework for why a state is needed, why the state is entitled to use conscription, why certain types of activity can never be allowed without licenses, what kind of foreign policy is needed and so on.  None of it matches what myrkul posts about here.  I'm slightly baffled as to why he recommended it a book that requires him to refute its central points.  Its as if he hadn't gotten around to actually reading the book before recommending it.

That is interesting, but really not that unexpected.

As I said:

And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

[myrkul]

Here's a condensed video version of what I presume the book of the same name advocates for. 

"The Machinery of Freedom"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

Yes, that is the video which first interested me in Mr. Friedman's work. However, if you listen to the entire presentation, and not just that abridged version, you'll note that he has changed his position on the necessity of a state for conscription:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A
If you've already watched the first one, you can skip to the last 10 minutes or so.

[Hawker]

Here's a condensed video version of what I presume the book of the same name advocates for. 

"The Machinery of Freedom"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

Yes, that is the video which first interested me in Mr. Friedman's work. However, if you listen to the entire presentation, and not just that abridged version, you'll note that he has changed his position on the necessity of a state for conscription:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A
If you've already watched the first one, you can skip to the last 10 minutes or so.

At 34 minutes in, he admits that his idea is "imperfect" because it requires that there be no serious enemy since the Soviet Union is gone.  In other words, if things get ugly with another big power, his requirement for conscription s back on the agenda as is its justification.

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

[myrkul]

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly. The examples of turning on one's lights, or breathing into the atmosphere are good examples. Examples to which I have a workable answer: Harm. If harm comes to you, then I am liable for repairing those damages. Obviously, shining a flashlight at your door would cause little or no harm. A high-powered laser, however, would cause significant harm.

As to the "huge invading army needs opposing huge army, and thus conscription," No, no it really doesn't. First off, the huge invading army will trigger a response from the defense agencies, some of whose clients may have had discounts for agreeing to fight with them should something like this occur. So we have a militia. Add to that the fact that unless they are pacifists, each home will be defended by the home owner. Finally, add the fact that with no laws against their ownership, private citizens can, and probably will, own any weapon available, up to and including nukes, in some instances. Those add up to this simple conclusion: Invading an ungoverned area will be costly in both funding and lives, not to mention time, since there is no central power to take over. If an invading army took DC, both sides would probably count the war as over. With no capitol to take, the territory needs to be taken house by house. Imagine playing a game of chess where one side had no king. Winning that game would be possible, but expensive, and long-fought.

[niemivh]

Note to armchair economists, libertarians, etc.: if you can't get a handle on the information that exists in the titles listed above, then you're not in a position to pontificate, speculate, or blow hot air about economic theory. And if you don't understand why, then once again, you're not in a position to spout your pontifications and speculations.

Preemptive defense of your book titles?  You've got some passion.

 

Most of the libertarian clowns here never factor in the actual foundations upon which an economy runs. Without resources, an economy is dead in the water. Furthermore, libertarians suffer from the belief that a free market, by virtue of diminishing supply and rising prices due to a diminishing supply, harvesting of a finite resource will diminish. That's one of their most fallacious assumptions. In actuality, when the price of a resource goes up do to diminishing supply, there is increased competition, effort and technology applied to harvest that finite resource into non-existence. It happens every time. A pure free market sans regulation is death to us all.

Of course, of course.  I was just smiling about how you attacked people without even letting them reject your books first.  As if they had to be browbeaten into reading them.  It comes across as slightly insecure, so you probably don't need to do that.

Cheers brother.

 

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

Preaching to the choir.  Sorry, I didn't know you had already recommended them to these people multiple times.  But that was prior to Book Club!  Since this is Book Club they may take your advice and read those books.

 

 Out of those books which do you think would be the most important for a Libertarian to read?

[niemivh]

...snip...

I've recommended the books five or six times to deaf ears. It's not insecurity. It's called knowing that the libertarian clowns won't read the books because they don't want information that is inconvenient to their ideals. And thus they perpetuate their own ignorance, and by extension, their own desire to continue with their silly ideas.

In myrkul's case, I strongly suspect he hasn't even read the book that he recommended himself.   The Machinery of Freedom sets out a nice logical framework for why a state is needed, why the state is entitled to use conscription, why certain types of activity can never be allowed without licenses, what kind of foreign policy is needed and so on.  None of it matches what myrkul posts about here.  I'm slightly baffled as to why he recommended it a book that requires him to refute its central points.  Its as if he hadn't gotten around to actually reading the book before recommending it.

There is much in the book I recommended that I don't agree with, it's just that (the book I referenced) does a good job dispelling certain aspects of what is false about the Free Trade school of Adam Smith and other British Imperialists, much of which was imported or laid the structural foundation for Libertarianism.

So, I can see the need for referencing a book that one doesn't agree with wholly, but IDK what Myrkul's motivation was.

[niemivh]

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly.

Now the operative word becomes "proportion", which means whatever vague and arbitrary constraints that the Libertarian wants to apply to his interpretation of the holy doctrines.  It's like religious factionalism, the central tenants are so cumbersome and unwieldy that the cult-professors spouting this swill have to apply limiters and arbitrary guidelines to it that actually contradict the central tenants spirit and language.

But that's the point, isn't it, that the doctrine itself is completely arbitrary. 

[myrkul]

There is much in the book I recommended that I don't agree with, it's just that (the book I referenced) does a good job dispelling certain aspects of what is false about the Free Trade school of Adam Smith and other British Imperialists, much of which was imported or laid the structural foundation for Libertarianism.

So, I can see the need for referencing a book that one doesn't agree with wholly, but IDK what Myrkul's motivation was.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law.

Rest assured, my next suggestion will be much more what you are expecting from me.

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly.

Now the operative word becomes "proportion", which means whatever vague and arbitrary constraints that the Libertarian wants to apply to his interpretation of the holy doctrines.  It's like religious factionalism, the central tenants are so cumbersome and unwieldy that the cult-professors spouting this swill have to apply limiters and arbitrary guidelines to it that actually contradict the central tenants spirit and language.

But that's the point, isn't it, that the doctrine itself is completely arbitrary. 

Good job, there, cutting out exactly where I said the line should be drawn, and how that is determined. Let me spell it out for you again. H A R M. if I harm you, I am liable for recompense.

[FirstAscent]

Out of those books which do you think would be the most important for a Libertarian to read?

All of them. Seriously. I've never heard a libertarian even be aware of the information, data, and dynamics presented in all of those works.

For a comprehensive overview of humanity's footprint all over the world, Paul Ehrlich's book The Dominant Animal would be a good one.

For a solid understanding of economics as it should be studied and taught, Herman Daly's Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development would be recommended.

For a very detailed study of the importance of life on this planet, Edward O. Wilson's book The Future of Life is an excellent recommendation.

For a solid understanding of the dynamics and importance of a balanced ecosystem, I'd suggest The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity by Cristina Eisenberg.

Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers is a solid tour of climate change science.

[Hawker]

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly. The examples of turning on one's lights, or breathing into the atmosphere are good examples. Examples to which I have a workable answer: Harm. If harm comes to you, then I am liable for repairing those damages. Obviously, shining a flashlight at your door would cause little or no harm. A high-powered laser, however, would cause significant harm.

As to the "huge invading army needs opposing huge army, and thus conscription," No, no it really doesn't. First off, the huge invading army will trigger a response from the defense agencies, some of whose clients may have had discounts for agreeing to fight with them should something like this occur. So we have a militia. Add to that the fact that unless they are pacifists, each home will be defended by the home owner. Finally, add the fact that with no laws against their ownership, private citizens can, and probably will, own any weapon available, up to and including nukes, in some instances. Those add up to this simple conclusion: Invading an ungoverned area will be costly in both funding and lives, not to mention time, since there is no central power to take over. If an invading army took DC, both sides would probably count the war as over. With no capitol to take, the territory needs to be taken house by house. Imagine playing a game of chess where one side had no king. Winning that game would be possible, but expensive, and long-fought.

Read it again.  First he deals with the NAP, then the rifle example is a justification for taxation and then he justifies the draft.  Your idea about resistance is dealt with. 

[myrkul]

Read it again.  First he deals with the NAP, then the rifle example is a justification for taxation and then he justifies the draft.  All there and all clear.

OK, I re-read the rifle example, and I think I see how you call it a justification for taxation. In no place does he describe it as such, but you at least do admit that tax is a theft, and a rights violation, though one intended to prevent a greater one. But the theft of a rifle to prevent a massacre is not the same as a theft of money for unknown purposes. Nor is that money ever returned, while the rifle can be, and is, with compensation for its use, and likely extra compensation to make up for the fact that it was taken against his wishes.

Which brings me to my next book suggestion: Healing Our World - The Other Piece Of The Puzzle, by Mary J. Ruwart I was going to wait for Niemivh to finish reading the first one, but the discussion has progressed to the point where it's time for you, at least, to read this one. He'll just have to catch up. In the meantime, I intend to see if I can't finish Political Economy.

As to the draft, I point out this:

The point of this argument is not that we should have a draft. As it happens, I not only believe that under present circumstances a draft is a bad thing, I also believe that if the government has the power to impose a draft it is very much more likely that it will use it when it should not than that the rather unlikely circumstances I have described will occur.

[niemivh]

There is much in the book I recommended that I don't agree with, it's just that (the book I referenced) does a good job dispelling certain aspects of what is false about the Free Trade school of Adam Smith and other British Imperialists, much of which was imported or laid the structural foundation for Libertarianism.

So, I can see the need for referencing a book that one doesn't agree with wholly, but IDK what Myrkul's motivation was.

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law.

Rest assured, my next suggestion will be much more what you are expecting from me.

Have you read the chapter called "Problems" where Friedman outlines why the NAP is not an adequate basis for government, he justifies taxation and he justifies conscription?  Do you accept his logic?

I did not see a justification for either taxes or conscription in that chapter, But I can see where you might have. He states, quite correctly, that if one were to to take libertarian principles and blow them out of proportion, the results would be quite silly.

Now the operative word becomes "proportion", which means whatever vague and arbitrary constraints that the Libertarian wants to apply to his interpretation of the holy doctrines.  It's like religious factionalism, the central tenants are so cumbersome and unwieldy that the cult-professors spouting this swill have to apply limiters and arbitrary guidelines to it that actually contradict the central tenants spirit and language.

But that's the point, isn't it, that the doctrine itself is completely arbitrary. 

Good job, there, cutting out exactly where I said the line should be drawn, and how that is determined. Let me spell it out for you again. H A R M. if I harm you, I am liable for recompense.

Define 'harm'.

[niemivh]

Read it again.  First he deals with the NAP, then the rifle example is a justification for taxation and then he justifies the draft.  All there and all clear.

OK, I re-read the rifle example, and I think I see how you call it a justification for taxation. In no place does he describe it as such, but you at least do admit that tax is a theft, and a rights violation, though one intended to prevent a greater one. But the theft of a rifle to prevent a massacre is not the same as a theft of money for unknown purposes. Nor is that money ever returned, while the rifle can be, and is, with compensation for its use, and likely extra compensation to make up for the fact that it was taken against his wishes.

Which brings me to my next book suggestion: Healing Our World - The Other Piece Of The Puzzle, by Mary J. Ruwart I was going to wait for Niemivh to finish reading the first one, but the discussion has progressed to the point where it's time for you, at least, to read this one. He'll just have to catch up. In the meantime, I intend to see if I can't finish Political Economy.

As to the draft, I point out this:

The point of this argument is not that we should have a draft. As it happens, I not only believe that under present circumstances a draft is a bad thing, I also believe that if the government has the power to impose a draft it is very much more likely that it will use it when it should not than that the rather unlikely circumstances I have described will occur.

I'm about 100 pages in, I'll have to stop making so many notes and references in the margins so I can read it faster.

 

[myrkul]

Good job, there, cutting out exactly where I said the line should be drawn, and how that is determined. Let me spell it out for you again. H A R M. if I harm you, I am liable for recompense.

Define 'harm'.

Actually, I think "Damage" would be a better term to use, as it's more precise, especially in the legal sense:

dam·age
   [dam-ij] dam·aged, dam·ag·ing.
noun
1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness: The storm did considerable damage to the crops.
2. damages, Law . the estimated money equivalent for detriment or injury sustained.

[niemivh]

Well I'm about half done with the book.  Outside of some of the interesting things he says about the school system this book is total garbage.  It's ideological drivel, he spends (in some cases) single paragraphs on something as complex as import tariffs and leaves the reader to a conclusion based on something so brief.

This book, leads the reader to believe that he is somehow qualified to talk about the myriad of topics that DF glosses over in typical ideologue fashion.  He can never actually talk about a single thing in depth, because if he did he would run out of rhetoric and actually have to start discussing details.

He's also very lazy, many things in the book say "I think" or "I believe" about things that aren't hypothesis but relatively easily verifiable facts.

If you pick a page of this book I can likely expose it for the ideological fraud that it is - and this should be evident to anyone, that isn't already a 'true believer'.

[FirstAscent]

Well I'm about half done with the book.  Outside of some of the interesting things he says about the school system this book is total garbage.  It's ideological drivel, he spends (in some cases) single paragraphs on something as complex as import tariffs and leaves the reader to a conclusion based on something so brief.

This book, leads the reader to believe that he is somehow qualified to talk about the myriad of topics that DF glosses over in typical ideologue fashion.  He can never actually talk about a single thing in depth, because if he did he would run out of rhetoric and actually have to start discussing details.

He's also very lazy, many things in the book say "I think" or "I believe" about things that aren't hypothesis but relatively easily verifiable facts.

If you pick a page of this book I can likely expose it for the ideological fraud that it is - and this should be evident to anyone, that isn't already a 'true believer'.

Put the book down and read one of these:

Out of those books which do you think would be the most important for a Libertarian to read?

All of them. Seriously. I've never heard a libertarian even be aware of the information, data, and dynamics presented in all of those works.

For a comprehensive overview of humanity's footprint all over the world, Paul Ehrlich's book The Dominant Animal would be a good one.

For a solid understanding of economics as it should be studied and taught, Herman Daly's Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development would be recommended.

For a very detailed study of the importance of life on this planet, Edward O. Wilson's book The Future of Life is an excellent recommendation.

For a solid understanding of the dynamics and importance of a balanced ecosystem, I'd suggest The Wolf's Tooth: Keystone Predators, Trophic Cascades, and Biodiversity by Cristina Eisenberg.

Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers is a solid tour of climate change science.

[Hawker]

Well I'm about half done with the book.  Outside of some of the interesting things he says about the school system this book is total garbage.  It's ideological drivel, he spends (in some cases) single paragraphs on something as complex as import tariffs and leaves the reader to a conclusion based on something so brief.

This book, leads the reader to believe that he is somehow qualified to talk about the myriad of topics that DF glosses over in typical ideologue fashion.  He can never actually talk about a single thing in depth, because if he did he would run out of rhetoric and actually have to start discussing details.

He's also very lazy, many things in the book say "I think" or "I believe" about things that aren't hypothesis but relatively easily verifiable facts.

If you pick a page of this book I can likely expose it for the ideological fraud that it is - and this should be evident to anyone, that isn't already a 'true believer'.

A bit harsh.  I don't agree with DF but for something as potentially dull as a long political tract, he does very well.