tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36067103667972115092024-02-19T07:01:51.830-08:00Sane Rants On Stuffranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.comBlogger207125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-21377395586417710362012-09-03T11:54:00.002-07:002012-09-03T11:54:51.328-07:00Ron Paul: please run 3rd partyWhether it's with Gary Johnson on the Libertarian party ticket, or an independent run possibly with Jesse Ventura - supporters like me want to see you continue.<br />
<br />
I recommend a "money bomb" to gauge support.ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-22230968205605912142012-01-29T20:45:00.000-08:002012-01-29T20:45:16.757-08:00Does Birth Control Select for Tyranny?As I've written in previous posts, the choice to have children can reveal motivations. Who is it that wants a relationship with a helpless person? Who wants total, absolute control over that person?<br />
<br />
Tyrants, that's who. If a woman accidentally gets knocked up because she's enjoying life, that's one thing. But if someone intentionally plots a way to take totalitarian control over another - that's troubling. Gives daddy government new meaning. And explains to me why the Republican candidates this round have demonstrated extreme fertility. Bachmann even recruited into her matriarchy.ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-83709069810289831942012-01-27T14:27:00.001-08:002012-01-27T14:27:03.770-08:00Potatoes and RacismIn the 1800s Antoine-Augustin Parmentier wanted to help the French people. Knowing anti-authoritarianism, the fetish for the forbidden, was inherent in the french culture; he portrayed the food as a delicacy for royals and set a guard around his potato garden plot. This of course let to theft from his garden and wide cultivation of the common tuber - the result he desired.<br /><br />Man inherently wants to be free, and will endeavor against coercion even to act in ways not in his best interest. I started smoking as a young teen specifically because it was illegal. It is my opinion that much of the draw to drugs is their illegal status. This leads to the confounding contradiction where legislating morality engenders immorality.<br /><br />In 1996 I took on the burdensome, unrewarding, and unpopular task of the con side of affirmative action for a debate class. One of the arguments by my opposition was that social justice required a pendulum approach, that the inequality imposed on minorities in the past must be imposed on the collective white race for the sins of their fathers. This multi-generational tit for tat (sans forgiveness) leads to perpetual conflict and a forever swinging pendulum - and is a philosophy more likely to lend velocity to the wrecking ball at the end. I argued that a color blind government would bring the pendulum to rest. I hold by that argument.<br /><br />The swinging pendulum has brought with it political correctness. Some words are only permitted if your skin is the right color, for example. This has created what I call a "racism fetish". Individuals who would never, under regular circumstances, say an untoward word; become compelled to exercise the less palatable verbage in reaction to the (sometimes subconscious) desire for freedom of speech. Championing liberty, and applying empathy and tolerance to the reactionary intolerant; is my recommendation for moving forward.ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-28990377444724676592011-10-16T20:23:00.000-07:002011-10-16T20:23:50.394-07:00EvictionismI really liked Walter Block's video on evictionism:
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QNTAmwUHcLM?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>
I like it mostly because it exposes that, in an ideal world, the right to life/right to body (choice) debate would be a false dilemma (fallacy). I disliked Walter's focus on when it's "ok" to kill an unborn child (it's never ok - though I thought otherwise before I learned about evictionism). However, it may be ok to evict a baby; I consider rape an obvious case for this, consensual sex is harder to justify (though I agree you can't form a contract with the unborn).
In my head, the procedure would go:
<br />
<ul>
<li>woman tells doctor she doesn't want baby</li>
<li>doctor performs procedures as though a wanted child was in danger and needed to be delivered prematurely</li>
<li>child is placed in (donation/charity funded) medical care (possibly an "artificial womb")</li>
<li>the child is made available for adoption</li>
</ul>
At no point is the baby intentionally killed.ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-6686036569281473512011-09-23T22:12:00.000-07:002011-09-23T22:37:55.346-07:00Reconciling Maslow's Hierarchy with Libertarianism<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUMMARY</span>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">One
of the key breakthroughs of libertarianism is the acceptance of the
non-aggression principle (NAP), which states that one may not morally
initiate aggression against another. The NAP focuses on violent
force, however, this principle may be applied to other areas of man's
existence. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (MHN) attempts to generalize
man's priorities. Combined with Universally Preferable Behavior
(UPB) and praexology, the author argues for a more encompassing moral
framework which satisfies the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD)
through the moral argument “let the punishment fit the crime”
(LPFC).</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">ELLABORATION</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Within
each man lies a personal utopia, a nirvana where moral action is
rewarded. Maslow has described priorities which must be satisfied
for man to bring their utopia into existence. Part of that pyramid
requires interaction with others, however, not all action is mutually
rewarding. The most unrewarding of human interaction is one where
the parties are threatened at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid: a
conflict to the death. Assuming the conflict is not instantaneous,
it may be trivially described by the IPD. Analysis of the IPD has
led to “tit for tat with forgiveness” (TFTWF) as an ideal
solution. TFTWF means that if I initiate an interaction, I start off
with a (trivial) agreement move, and don't respond negatively unless
met with a negative move (note the parallel with the NAP). If my
“opponent” gives a negative move I return with a negative move.
However, this leads to a prolonged negative spiral if the opponents
continue with negative moves. Instead, researchers found that a
random positive move could break the spiral, improving the outcome
for all parties. This situation has been expressed by Ghandi with,
“an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”, and in the Christian
doctrine with, “turn the other cheek”.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">However,
life is not trivial. People don't make “positive moves”.
Culture differences and personal preferences alone make this
difficult. Further, moves have different weights for individuals,
and generally within a community. In western cultures these weights
are usually expressed through laws, mores and folkways, and these
prioritized social norms with their associated punishments roughly
correspond to MHN in a tit for tat relationship; murder has a death
penalty, offensive language may be met with ostracism. This is tit
for tat, with the level of punishment on the same level as the
offense; in case of murder the punishment is a mirrors the offense
and is ostensibly equal, however, the offensive language is met with
an asymmetrical punishment but at the same level of the hierarchy.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">What
goals may be morally pursued in the context of conflict? A cessation
of the conflict, remedy for victims, and rehabilitation of offending
parties are all viable. We have already discussed conflict cessation
in terms of TFTWF and MHN: one may not act initially with willful
aggression, and may morally attack any target of the opponent's at
the same or higher level in the hierarchy. However, one is only
rational to attack if attacking that target will accomplish one of
the viable goals. It may be in the offended party's self-interest to
“forgive” if no goal can be accomplished by retaliating,
especially if forgiveness move has a probability of returning the
parties to win/win. Retaliation may also lie on a continuum, where
partial forgiveness is possible. For example, a spendthrift might
get partial debt forgiveness, possibly in return for taking a class
on finance (rehabilitation).</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">What
you don't want, is for the tit for tat negative spiral that occurs on
one level of the hierarchy to plunge the opponents into the next
level down. This is where a conflict over gift registry leads to
calling the wedding off, and then a crime of passion. Not good.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">WHAT
ABOUT STARVATION?</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">So
what happens when Joe steals Mike's food because Joe is starving?
That's a violation of the NAP (private property). While Mike would
be moral taking something of value from Joe, starving people rarely
have much of value to take. Instead, rehabilitating Joe with the
expectation of remedy may be a more rational choice. LPFC and TFTWF
are satisfied; and I would argue this is the best strategy to take
when the need levels are crossed: when need levels are crossed in the
case where the offending party has violated a higher need,
forgiveness, rehabilitation, and remedy are the most appropriate
course of action.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">A
more sinister problem is violent wealth redistribution. Ignoring
problems such as corruption, property rights, and the praexological
strategy of the assisted, can the act be considered moral? No. In
part, because the act threatens a low level of the hierarchy on
someone who would provide the charity at a higher level (charity
occurs at high levels of the MHN). The violation of Mike's hierarchy
at a low level keeps him from reaching a level where he would give
willingly; instead demolishing higher levels and engendering the
desperation associated with providing for the new lower level. This
leads to a society of embittered, desperate, resentful people,
instead of the giving society it claims to foster.</span></div>
ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-19437300280239459522011-08-22T11:44:00.000-07:002011-08-25T15:10:50.174-07:00liberty links<ul>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I">the philosophy of liberty</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs">george ought to help</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlHW1DFk-fY">the non-aggression principle</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12oFhO3UZdU">the road to serfdom</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS33ukkTtE#t=1140s">rothbard</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://freedomainradio.com/">free domain radio</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/">the daily paul</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/">libertarian subreddit</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">lew rockwell</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://peterschiffchannel.blogspot.com/">peter schiff's libertarian news blog</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulFriends">ron paul friends/campaign for liberty</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://maxkeiser.com/">max keiser</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://mises.org/">mises.org</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://freetalklive.com/">free talk live</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/">what really happened</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://www.noagendashow.com/">no agenda</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/aodscarecrow">max igan</a></li>
<br /><li><a href="http://schoolsucks.podomatic.com/">school sucks</a></li>
<br /></ul>ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-28082522570080091182011-07-22T18:29:00.000-07:002011-07-22T18:30:42.246-07:00stefan molyneux at porcfest - we are still here<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/7D7odg9H4Mk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/7D7odg9H4Mk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-31070041852243281152011-05-01T22:21:00.001-07:002011-05-01T22:21:45.446-07:00statism is slavery<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOGq_1710U4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oOGq_1710U4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object><br /><br />http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/05/statism-is-slavery.htmlranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-56560239195615473922011-04-30T19:09:00.000-07:002011-04-30T19:36:57.730-07:00undermining maslow: towards an ethical framework with variablesi am super happy that i found the nap (non-aggression principle). it was the missing piece between aggression and pacifism that reconciled the positions of my ww2 grandfather and hippie (but ironically abusive) father. i recognize, however, that the nap can and will only even be a consideration once a person has climbed high enough up maslow's hierarchy. imo, it's unreasonable to expect a starving person to not steal bread - though you may still consider it immoral (i do). the greater immorality lies in the person who is not starving but steals bread, anyway. so here we have the problem of binary thinking when a continuum of sorts seems more appropriate<br /><br />(i need something here - supporting/elaborating/expanding - but i'm lazy and don't have it flushed out, sorry)<br /><br />anyhoo. when that institution of violence know as the state steps in, it undermines the nap of one individual to build up the base of the other. in other words, you're forcing the person who produced bread to now have to worry about his security<br /><br />higher up on maslow's needs lies a ditty known as charity. this is where individuals give out bread to the starving willingly. so whereas, when the state redistributes bread we are destroying pyramids, with this method we are placing the capstone<br /><br />now i just need to find someone smart to write a treatise on appropriate methods (defensive violence, ostracism, etc - and possibly sompin' about laws and mores) for each level, and interactions of individuals on different levels - while respecting the individual<br /><br />course, if i could finish stefbot's (stefan molyxlzxjcajneu) UPB (universally preferable behavior) it might be in thereranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-64539299748196528212011-04-28T10:12:00.000-07:002011-04-28T10:25:14.287-07:00Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two<object><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GTQnarzmTOc?version=3"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GTQnarzmTOc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><br /><br />from http://www.dailypaul.com/163078/awesome-10min-fight-of-the-century-keynes-vs-hayek<br />http://econstories.tv<br />http://www.billyandadam.comranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-33639739228161695642011-04-16T11:22:00.000-07:002011-04-16T11:25:28.807-07:00if i was a woman, i'd sooo let max keiser do mecourse, stacy might get jealous<br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ktmWeynsd-Y?rel=0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" height="349" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />also, <a href="http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/">see his work on rt</a><br /><br/><br />he should team up with bill black and form a dynamic duo. bill would have to be robin. sorry, billranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-75748278049630539902011-04-10T16:45:00.000-07:002011-04-10T17:06:38.899-07:00is the tipping point coming?in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Atlas Shrugged</span> a quality railroad engineer is replaced with a "yes man" and this leads to a tragedy for the train passengers (one of whom forced out the quality engineer)<br /><br />the US fabric has largely been replaced with yes men, and has thus lost its integrity. the "go along to get along" mentality is sending lemmings over a cliff - don't get caught up with them<br /><br />tragically, there's nothing like vulnerable nuclear reactors (made by GE, btw) to highlight the incompetence and tragedy that forced relations bring. tyranny - it just doesn't pay what it used to<br /><br />just kill the goose instead of waiting for the eggs and see what that gets youranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-84373502546742196642011-04-09T18:52:00.000-07:002011-04-09T18:59:39.995-07:00writing the futureour narrative has been hijacked. our potential has been chained to true/false and multiple choice. we find ourselves now with a pen and blank paper, able to reclaim the story and write our own future. don't carelessly gamble yours and let them win your future from youranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-91481134619490179962011-04-03T23:09:00.000-07:002011-04-03T23:25:12.874-07:00the multiheaded hydra, aka - all roads lead to romei don't like the idea of class warfare, but as buffet noted (i paraphrase) "there is class warfare and my class is winning"<br /><br />if you are a socialist, there is a socialist icon in your movement who is "owned". if you're a libertarian - same thing. conservative? - you betcha. progressive? gimme a break. lennin described this strategy and it works<br /><br />the big boys don't take a side, they take all sides. controlled opposition has been the name of the game since the communists partnered with the socialists in post wwi germany to isolate the political contest between the two parties. when don king represents both fighters, he wins regardless<br /><br />further, if you trust in a socialist system, they'll come along and privatize your retirement in the name of capitalism. if you own your own business, they tax it or take it over by the gov in the name of socialism. by changing the rules they guarantee a way to fleece you. you don't know whether you're playing high hand or low hand until after they've seen all the cards<br /><br />arghranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-73316776312818235922011-02-26T23:32:00.000-08:002011-02-26T23:41:27.840-08:00wisconsin: the state ouroboroslet's say that all workers in wisconsin were part of a (the) public union ... including the governor. and all these workers are paing tax. so, they'd be protesting the gov (of which they are a part) to force themselves to pay themselves more. 'course, right now there's still a bit of a private sector there - but the more the private sector is taxed, the less it will exist, until the delivery boy at pizza hut has to pay for the whole shebangranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-55901963953220176932011-02-15T17:25:00.000-08:002011-02-15T17:34:08.651-08:00ron paul is the *only* republican who can wini have to join the chorus rebutting trump. ron paul is the only person i will vote for as president. if he does not run, i will draft him; if he is not on the ballot i will write him in. the only reason he will not be president is if republican infighting stops him. he is the only republican who can beat obama, and he will beat obama if he's the republican nominee; and he will do it on the same platform he has run on his entire political career. he's the only person who truly deserves the presidencyranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-71577197129769751552011-02-13T22:42:00.000-08:002011-02-14T22:11:07.662-08:00ideas pit against themselves aka the heliocentric dillemma: anarchy, individualism, self-interest, darwinismwe exist socially (interdependently). when we talk about things like "self-interest" it *can sound* like - "i don't have your back". what's ironic is that, most people discussing these things want to empower/free/help the person they are discussing them with. so in a very strange twist in reality, discussing self-interest is an act of (randian) altruism. and because of this paradox you will likely never hear a person practising self-interest self-identify - the exception would be if they value you (tremendously)ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-19669492645837447612011-02-09T22:29:00.000-08:002011-02-09T22:41:09.787-08:00the next bubble: green tech and failureRon Paul recently had a subcommittee hearing where they discussed the <a href="http://dailypaul.com/156446/live-coverage-tomorrow-10am-ron-pauls-subcommittee-hearing-on-the-federal-reserve-s-impact-on-unemployment">fed's impact on unemployment</a>. about halfway through the economists were asked what the next bubble would be in<br /><br />my opinion, you ask? we're already seeing a bubble in commodities. what's coming? they said it usually occurs in industries with a lot of confusing innovation ... how often have you heard "green jobs" and "green tech". there are jobs around here for carbon trading. that's an industry that destroys wealth and prosperity. unemployment benefits stimulates unemployment - aka failure - but this is worse: we're paying people to make viable industries fail. and even for those green jobs that seem viable - they're being artificially supported, which means they're part of the overall malinvestment indicative of a bubbleranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-26686332831825382662011-01-27T00:15:00.000-08:002011-01-27T00:20:45.999-08:00seasteading ideai've become a fan of the <a href="http://seasteading.org/">seasteading movement</a>. personally, i enjoy land too much<br /><br />anyway, they could use the pacific garbage island as building material<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>it floats</li><br /><li>it's free</li><br /><li>it's already on location</li><br /><li>there's lots of it</li><br /><li>it's green (reduce, <b>reuse</b>, <b>recycle</b>)</li><br /></ul><br /><br />you just need a compactor to make the floating block sizes uniform, some big zip ties; and a big boat until the first sustainable structure is formedranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-3049604699583171492011-01-20T17:33:00.000-08:002011-01-20T18:24:35.892-08:00i for one welcome our new chinese overloardstotal rant alert<br /><br />we may transition from a totalitarian production hating nation to a totalitarian production loving nation. at least that's a move in the right direction<br /><br />my understanding has been that the chinese strategy has been to acquire technology (means) and produce products more efficiently in a highly controlled system. this removes the r&d cost from production. and this is why they are a manufacturing powerhouse. but ideas for products still originate elsewhere (like the US). why? well imho, it's cuz of our history of freedom. the free market and free people create a wealth of ideas, which then improves competition in the marketplace of ideas - which makes human life more better. but it requires freedom, and freedom isn't free. so, as this situation persists we will continue to see the arbitrage of ideas from the (somewhat) free market to the (mostly) captured market and we'll see calcification, stagnation, and oppression<br /><br />so, what to do? guard r&d. produce!<br /><br />oh, and i been thinking that collectivism is good for one thing - group violence. and it's already pervasive and effective in the armed forces. kinda want a one for all attitude there - probably shouldn't change that. that's why those institutions should retain their main mandate: to defend the constitution (a document which was intended to shine freedom through parchment) at minimal cost. to fund the military i recommend a tax on matter at market value (ala geo-libertarianism) which would help insure efficient use of resources. but, imo, we need to cut everything outside of Nozic's night watchman state<br /><br />oh, and afghanistan is prolly really about fighting china. and china is prolly using tibet as a buffer against india - which is why it's a sore topic. i have some info to suggest that those problems in northern mexico & arizona are the russian/chinese response. and that's why the cia is in the drug business, and that it's illegal. if it's illegal, the gov can easily confiscate any drugs that are not sanctioned by the gov. if they didn't sell them, or make them illegal it would make the gov less strategically viable. that is - if it's not just because they're rotten to the coreranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-67085773297675672392011-01-20T01:46:00.001-08:002011-01-20T17:33:51.908-08:00energy everywherei keep hearing rumors about a new energy solution and i just wanted to rant on it; though i don't have much<br /><br />there's energy everywhere. mass is energy ala e=mc^2, so you and everything you're in contact with holds immense energy. currently, nuclear reactions are the only way we know of to harness that energy which has rare reactants and severe consequences. but there's energy everywhere: the sun, the gravitational pull of the moon and its effects on tides, waves, wind, thermal, terrestrial and extraterrestrial electromagnetic power including lightning. there's even plenty of the existing legacy energy sources (hydro, coal, oil, natural gas)<br /><br />there are problems, though, with harnessing, transporting, and translating energy. take hydro - potential energy stored in water is translated to kinetic energy, translated to electric energy by a generator in a dam, then translated to sound and light energy by your bube tube. instead, you could just have a little nuclear reactor built into your tv and never need to plug in<br /><br />my understanding is that tesla had learned how to transmit energy around the globe and harness it anywhere - and wanted to give receivers to the people (or give the building instructions away for free). my guess is that we can find a way to harness energy already propagating around the world, possibly store it in batteries, and use it as we like<br /><br />update: we'll probably also soon see genetically modified bacteria and/or yeast that break down common waste or matter (eg poor soil), optionally using (modified) photosynthesis, to produce an easily combustible hydrocarbon (natural gas, oil, etc). they'll probably start with plasticranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-70601352062115582352011-01-19T23:32:00.001-08:002011-01-19T23:50:57.702-08:00bulls make money, bears make moneyif you're a bull, eventually you'll be right. ditto for bears. the bears have it right now - and for good reason. but if history holds, it is in the depths of a downturn where, if you have the wherewithal to start a new business - you may see the most success. however, knowing that may be delaying people (esp gov) from making the changes needed to allow us to get back on track<br /><br />my parents wanted me to be a doctor. one of the common sayings i heard from doctors was, "you have to hurry up and cure them before they get better on their own". sticking leeches on, or blood letting makes sense in that context - you get credited with the remedy even when making the situation worse. and that's what, imo, we're seeing right now. some folks expecting the economy to get better because it should be able to heal itself, while others see that the gov is sticking more leeches on, recommending letting another litre of blood, and charging the patient extra for the service. this one may not make it, and anyone who sees bears but pre-emptively predicts and plans for a bull - well they're pigs, and we know what happens to themranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-79531628460671680282011-01-09T14:43:00.000-08:002011-01-09T14:49:21.220-08:00Renaissance 2.0 - must watch<object><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l37RhdFGVsM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l37RhdFGVsM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></object><br /><br /><a href="http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/01/renaissance-20-revisiting-american.html">from celente</a>ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-30811896593539265222010-12-28T20:35:00.000-08:002010-12-28T20:38:13.526-08:00hayek's road to serfdom in 5 minutes<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sRS-Ft3uEz8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sRS-Ft3uEz8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />why can't i find a woman like this?<br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/psosLpDALuA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/psosLpDALuA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>ranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3606710366797211509.post-443261742858863752010-12-02T18:50:00.000-08:002010-12-02T19:19:29.834-08:00paedophiles enslave children - violation of nap?imagine being born to a paedophile. every day of your childhood you are used for their pleasure. you are helpless and completely controlled<br /><br />the root words of paedophilia break down to child love, though that is not how the word is usually used today. so imagine that there is no (direct) sexual nature to the relationship - the love is more "nurturing"<br /><br />so begins my internal rants - what are the proper motivations for reproduction? to answer this question, we must examine what it means to bring a person into existence. for now we might say that reproduction is enabling matter to be formed in our own image (at least partially our own image - cloning might be a better term for completely in our own image). now, we would only rightfully do this because it would make us happier. in order to maintain the nap it must also be a win for the child (or benign). however, we cannot truly say that we can empathize with another - we may try, but ultimately we see things through our own eyes - so even if we believe someone to be happy, they may not be. in the same manner, the things that make us happy may not make the offspring happy. finally, even if we knew what would make the new life happy, we are neither prescient enough to determine if those conditions will be satisfied, nor omnipotent enough to ensure they will be.<br /><br />but misery loves company. so depriving myself of a childs' life, even if i'm miserable (which might be inherited by the kid) might be construed as aggression against self - i can take an action to relieve my misery but i don't. further, it only takes a short period of weakness to succumb to loneliness and conceive a being with the same flaw<br /><br />but i'm ranting. read Rothbard and listen to Molyneux for moreranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02149995566875072181noreply@blogger.com0