@earthmeasured: Do you think we have an accurate measurement of the earth’s radius - that is the distance from one end of the circle to the “central” point?
Also, I missed the flat earth scriptures in the Bible. Can you post them?
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
40
Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei
by Earthmeasured inin the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.
now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.
is this coherent?.
-
-
-
40
Flat Earth Jw and Galileo Galilei
by Earthmeasured inin the image you can see what jw wrote about how galileo was treated by the catholic church.
now they are disfelloshipping me because i believe the earth is flat.
is this coherent?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
OMG, getting popcorn.
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I stand by my statement. Any serious examination of all the material I've presented is there for anyone who does more than cursory research.
What material have you presented? You’ve presented accusations. I was hoping for sources to those claims - especially your claim that the Mises Institute doesn’t believe in the theory of relativity.
Some of my conclusions come from reading articles that the Institute has published.
Yeah. Which ones?
Walter Block has written on every topic I mentioned, and you can hear him espouse them on Youtube, and in his book Defending the Indefensible.
Ok, finally you mention a source. His book is “Defending the Undefendable”. He uses the incorrect word intentionally. And here is where context matters. In the book he defends activities normally outlawed, he does not advocate for them. Remember, he is an anarchist, and here is a very important distinction that gets lost when you don’t consider the context: there is a big difference between advocating/endorsing activities and arguing for government non-intervention concerning those activities. As with many government interventions, when you consider the NET effects, you find out that the intervention caused more problems than it solved.
An example: I don’t think drugs should be illegal. I believe that you own your body and if you want to do drugs, you shouldn’t be locked up for that choice (bringing it back rights, this is based on private property rights). Does that mean I think people should do drugs? No. The government intervention into personal free choice in this regard causes negative side effects. Families are torn apart (especially in the case of minor pot offenses) and trillions are wasted fighting drug cartels that owe their existence to black markets created by the very same drug laws. On NET, society is losing by having drug laws. Does that mean I think we should go grab a few rocks of crack? No.
Another example: The left these days is keen on hate speech laws. They don’t want people to say racist words. I think you should be able to say racist words all you want. Does that mean I think you should use racist words? No. But if you want to be an asshole, then fine. Laws against speech would only drive the racists underground, and soon we would find other innocent speech being banned because it would be “hateful” to whatever political group happens to be in power at the time. Again, on NET society is worse off.
Those are perfectly valid things to consider, Spoletta.
Austrian Economics is merely another philosophy among many, and like Libertarianism, disagrees with other's ideas, and considers itself the true standard bearer of correct economics.
More dismissals. Ignore any arguments and logical reasoning that might come out of Austrian school because.... well, it’s just like all the rest, one among many, nothing to see here.
Austrian Economics is separate from Libertarianism. The former is a model of how economies function, the basic principles of an economy. The later is political.
Being a proponent of that philosophy, and by his association with the Mise Institute, I would assume that he shares many of it's views, so I choose to take anything he says with skepticism.
You are conflating skepticism with throwing steaming piles of bovine excrement.
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Joe Salerno is associated with the Mise Institute, a right wing think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers.
And this is where I stopped paying attention. Literally, as soon as I read this sentence, I knew the rest of the post was going to be full or crap.
And then I continued reading. I have to admit I underestimated just how much completely fabricated shit you were willing to spew. This is exactly what happened in the race/IQ thread a few months back. Ignore arguments and smear. I go off and research the smear claims, because I’m genuinely interested in being intellectually honest. Hours pass and I realize it’s all made up or taken out of context ...
Not that what you posted has anything to do with the arguments made in the presentation. The video in on an article Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1920. Nothing in the video has anything to do with any of your claims... but you just want to dismiss arguments without engaging, and send me on a wild goose chase to verify or disprove your smears.
I’m not taking any of those claims seriously. In fact, I would like you to produce sources for these claims. I’m definitely not going down the rabbit hole of attempting to disprove them. You made the claims - back them up with sources in context.
The in context part is important.
You reference Walter Block. I’ve heard statements directly from his mouth that contradict your claims. Walter is an anarcho-capitalist, and on many things, I disagree with him.
But that’s the point. Your post has nothing to do with the arguments, made by anyone. Just fling shit around and hope someone will fall for the guilt by association fallacy .... even though the guilt associated is probably pulled out your ass, or some left-wing paste bin.
George Carlin is one of my favorite comedians, and though his humour is often very insightful, sometimes it's just very funny, and tells us things we enjoy hearing, whether they're true or not. A hysterically funny opinion is still just an opinion. So, on the whole, I don't feel your arguments are very compelling. Sorry.
I like Carlin’s comedy too. What does that have to do with any argument made?
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
No, real rights remain rights, the government can violate those rights, not take them away. The government is guilty all day every day if it does so. There is no acceptable scenario where the government denies someone their rights.
Yes, you are correct. I did not form my statement in an accurate way. The way you put it, above, is much more accurate. I agree.
If you create a system where people can live comfortably doing diddly squat, then why would they work? ....
I agree with all of that. However, the purpose of Mises’ article (Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth), detailed in that video, was to remove incentives from the argument entirely. I am not sure if you watched any of it, notwithstanding Spoletta’s smear campaign, but around 1920, when the article was written, the incentive argument was pretty much the only objection. The socialists were countering that a “new socialist man” would emerge if we could just convert the economy. The new socialist man would buy into the scheme completely and wouldn’t be subject to their previous “nature”.
Mises granted them their premise, and then showed that it didn’t matter. Socialism would destroy prices because private property and voluntary exchange would end. Without prices, you can’t figure out how to allocate resources. There would be no entrepreneurship, and any decision concerning resource usage would be arbitrary. Would you use the steel to build tractors or carrot juicers?
Mises’ whole point was that you bump up against raw resource reality. It doesn’t matter if you buy into socialism or not. You can take all of the capitalists out to the fields and kill them... doesn’t matter. The economy is doomed. You must have real prices produced by real interactions, voluntary interactions, and true private ownership.
Also, we get a glimpse into partial socialism. China kept Hong Kong capitalist in order to reference the prices. The Soviet Union produced black markets between manufacturers, and started to lift prices from the Sears catalog. The point being that the prosperity an economy experiences is directly proportional to its market freedom. The more socialistic an industry gets, the more and more it will experience these price distortions and resource allocation problems.
Hayek came around later and expanded on it with the knowledge problem.
This is all on top of the incentive issue - which is a very real problem too.
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
There has never been a truly Socialist country
Just to note: if you watch that presentation I posted by Joe Salerno, he documents a time in the Soviet Union’s history when they tried pure socialism. It lasted for about two weeks. All calculation broke down and the population was reduced to maurading bands of looters burning whatever they could find for warmth.
To fight against lack of calculation, they would order the Sears catalog...
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I’m just getting caught up on the thread.
There is a general conflation between rights and entitlements. I think another conflation happens here:
From George Carlin: Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shxt like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww fxxx, here we go again...here we go again.
Putting aside this was said for comedy, if you really take this viewpoint seriously, you would be conflating the non-existence of human rights with the ability of a tyrant to take them away.
Ask yourself: Is slavery wrong? If yes, then why? We reject slavery now because it violates property rights. In this case it is the right of ownership of your body. If you think, seriously, that only government could grant that right, then you would have no moral objection to government sanctioned slavery. If the government were to proclaim that you report to the killing fields for termination, for the greater good of course, would you just shrug and say, “Oh well, I don’t really have a right to not have my life forcefully taken away.” ?
Carlin is correct that governments can take away rights. They can kill you, muzzle you, enslave you. But that doesn’t imply the non existence of these rights. Rather, it just implies that you are being ruled by a tyrant.
Finally, many Libertarians are atheists. You don’t need God to argue for human rights.
The government should create an environment where people are free to chose to become doctors, surgeons, farmers and so on with the incentives for some to follow that path but if they decide to dictate that people provide those services then that is denying those people their freedom.
I would like to bolster your point with one thought. The incentive problem is a large issue when it comes to socializing an economy. But the calculation problem is rarely addressed. I have, in the past, posted a link to a presentation on Mises’ calculation problem. I’ll post in again below. It is important because the socialist has to contend with raw calculation - or lack thereof. Even if you assume somehow human nature could be changed and a “new socialist man” created, the economy would soon bump up against raw reality. The economy would not be able to calculate the right allocation of scarce resources. The closer you get to a pure socialist economy, the faster the demise. We saw this with the darling Scandinavian counties. They were highly capitalistic. Built up a lot of capital and then turned to a more socialist “balance”. They’ve had to back away from that in recent years because they were headed for ruin. How do you get a small fortune while being socialist? Answer: start out with a large fortune and squander it.
How did she die and why? Why didn't she have better health insurance? Why wasn't she healthier? Why didn't she have any money to get better health insurance?
Agreed! But to add to this, a question rarely asked ... if ever: Why is it so expensive in the first place? And it’s not “because good quality care is expensive.” The care is getting worse and more expensive each year. I propose we are seeing the socialist results right before our eyes: as more of any industry comes under government control, or heavy regulation, as the price system is undermined, the economy can’t calculate properly. We get cheap prices and good quality in every other industry, but somehow health is excluded from these market forces because.... well.... reasons.
It’s not just confined to health now. Food, education... all inflating and becoming poorer in quality for exactly the same reasons.
-
121
What Are Your Rights?
by Simon inrights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Simon, I would like to formerly request a +1000 like button be added to the site, specifically for your previous post.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Morphs Law.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I don't want to force people to associate. I want to stop religions who force people not to associate.
What do you mean “forced”? Language matters here. They aren’t forced. They agree with the rules and therefore shun you. Or they could just talk to you anyway. They can do that. There is no gun to their head. But they agreed to the rules of the group, and to a large extent, agree with them still - enough to put them above a relationship with you.
Why stop with Polygamy? Why allow abortion?
What? I think you missed my point. BTW, I am against abortion based on private property rights, and think polygamy is perfectly fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults.