How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 2.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1011

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 03:51:53 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 07, 2012, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 03:18:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this. I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 07, 2012, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 03:18:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1011

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 03:18:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 03:05:22 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:45:55 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:42:10 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:24:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:15:03 PM

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

No shit. Typically liberal hippie types who like music and the arts and peace and love for everyone. Liberals. The opposite of libertarians, who want to crap on the little guy. Thus the cartoon loses its bite.

Your logical fallacy is...

Let's keep this up. This is fun! Anyone else want to play "Find the fallacy" with me?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:45:55 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:42:10 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:24:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:15:03 PM

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

No shit. Typically liberal hippie types who like music and the arts and peace and love for everyone. Liberals. The opposite of libertarians, who want to crap on the little guy. Thus the cartoon loses its bite.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2373

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:45:55 PM

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

I think he thinks it's the guy in the bow tie who is supposed to be him.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:42:10 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:24:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:15:03 PM

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 07, 2012, 02:24:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:15:03 PM

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 07, 2012, 02:15:03 PM

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 07, 2012, 01:30:34 PM

Lemme illustrate what statists want:

Really? Seek help dude. People don't want to live in a cage. Your cartoon is only for people such as yourself to share with others like yourself.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Lemme illustrate what statists want:

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: JoelKatz on December 06, 2012, 10:27:00 PM

If you think funding research to put it in the public domain make sense, you are absolutely welcome to do it. If you're spending your own money, it's much more likely you'll get the cost/benefit analysis right. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am getting it wrong. The beauty of a free market is that everyone gets to do their own such analysis.

The point that statists are trying to make, isn't whether "research is valuable" or similar nonsense, but rather that you should be ruined if you don't agree that such things should be funded by you.

Slightly different things.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Richy_T on December 06, 2012, 10:42:18 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 06, 2012, 10:32:00 PM

while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.

Lol.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: cunicula on December 07, 2012, 01:40:21 AM

Quote from: bb113 on December 07, 2012, 12:02:43 AM

Also, to cunicula. I have been running some simulations of t-test results on data from various random distributions and it looks like ones similar to the pareto distribution are most likely to cause false positives and exaggerated estimates of effect size. Have you ever seen any econ literature saying this? I searched a bit but got a bunch of noise.

If the random distribution generating individual observations does not have a mean and/or variance (true for some pareto distributions), then the central limit theorem doesn't hold and you are in trouble. Similarly, if the variance exists but is just really large, then it will take a huge sample size to get an approximately normally distributed test statistic.

I suggest you look at Hayashi's textbook: Econometrics.

I've done a bunch of these. T-tests are really robust to pretty much everything except multiple or sequential testing unless you get something like the above. CLT is an approximation to real life.

Edit: t-tests are also greatly affected by outlier filtering.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: bb113 on December 07, 2012, 12:02:43 AM

Also, to cunicula. I have been running some simulations of t-test results on data from various random distributions and it looks like ones similar to the pareto distribution are most likely to cause false positives and exaggerated estimates of effect size. Have you ever seen any econ literature saying this? I searched a bit but got a bunch of noise.

If the random distribution generating individual observations does not have a mean and/or variance (true for some pareto distributions), then the central limit theorem doesn't hold and you are in trouble. Similarly, if the variance exists but is just really large, then it will take a huge sample size to get an approximately normally distributed test statistic.

I suggest you look at Hayashi's textbook: Econometrics.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote

The Pareto principle is an illustration of a "power law" relationship, which also occurs in phenomena such as brush fires and earthquakes.[20] Because it is self-similar over a wide range of magnitudes, it produces outcomes completely different from Gaussian distribution phenomena. This fact explains the frequent breakdowns of sophisticated financial instruments, which are modeled on the assumption that a Gaussian relationship is appropriate to, for example, stock movement sizes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80-20_law

It's wikipedia sure, but can we trace back the failure of our financial system to faulty statistics classes funded by government?

This figure was generated via a monte carlo experiment. I've done a couple and this pattern keeps showing up as maximizing false positives and exaggeration of effect size:

If you actually want to think for yourself and question which economic literature this effect may be relevant to, this may be of interest.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: cunicula on December 07, 2012, 12:33:52 AM

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:58:26 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 06, 2012, 11:20:00 PM

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:09:41 PM

Quote

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:09:41 PM

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

Without reading the whole thing I skipped directly to the data and wondered why they fit a "fourth-order polynomial", why is 1905 or whatever it is less than 1900 in figure 5. Why is number of patents not normalized to total patents for that year. The fact these figures exist makes me immediately suspect crap paper with crap reviewers. Perhaps it is explained within, if so where?

You need to read the entire paper and weigh all of the evidence presented.

Well figure 3 does show sewing machine patents normalized to all patents, so now I am not sure you have read the paper either. Why a fourth order polynomial fit? How will reading the paper help me understand how they came to their conclusion if searching for that yielded nothing.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:58:26 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 06, 2012, 11:20:00 PM

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:09:41 PM

Quote

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

Quote from: bb113 on December 06, 2012, 11:09:41 PM

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

Without reading the whole thing I skipped directly to the data and wondered why they fit a "fourth-order polynomial", why is 1905 or whatever it is less than 1900 in figure 5. Why is number of patents not normalized to total patents for that year. The fact these figures exist makes me immediately suspect crap paper with crap reviewers. Perhaps it is explained within, if so where?

You need to read the entire paper and weigh all of the evidence presented.

Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 2. (Read 24009 times)