Topic: "Book club" - page 3. (Read 6482 times)

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. 

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.

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


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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

That is interesting, but really not that unexpected.

As I said:

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.

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.

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.

 

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 due 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.

Ha, well, this is the kind of stuff I read all the time.  Most of the contemporary stuff is garbage compared to classics back when the intellectuals actually lived up to the name.

Yes, he (D. Friedman) is batshit insane with a nice, soothing voice.  Makes you just nod and accept what he's saying. 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#

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

 

It's irrelevant. Said business will still operate. Are you that stupid? I believe so.

Business owners don't have to behave in an economically rational way.

Don't be obtuse. The real world isn't how you imagine it. Are you mentally incapable of augmenting your limited knowledge with the complexities and issues which don't conform to your simplistic model of the world?

OK, so you are for legalising racial discrimination and for having agencies that have a right to kill on suspicion.

Well, the book seems to refute your position on the NAP so unless you have changed your mind about it, I think we are done.