[Travel observations and new developments of other cities and countries]

9 hours ago, KJHburg said:

if we don't build where there are hurricanes I am sure you will agree that we need to abandon earthquake prone regions of the world including all of California as earthquakes come with no warning.  (might have to abandon Memphis too)    Florida has the toughest building codes in that regard in the country. 

I think annual losses from hurricane damage in the US are about 10 times greater than losses from earthquake damage, and that gap is growing of course.

In taking a jab at California, it would have made a lot more sense to talk about wildfires, which can cost the US quite a bit more per year than hurricanes it seems.

The biggest problem for coastal land development in Florida isn't hurricanes, however, when sea level rise is conservatively estimated to bit off, chew up, and swallow between 50,000 and 1.5 million acres of Florida's coast in the next 25 years. 

On one hand, there's certainly a lot of value to be mined from developing coastal Florida in the meantime, and I almost don't begrudge developers for trying to get in and out in time if those companies were going to be responsible for covering the losses if/when they wait too long, but my guess is that most of the developers still building in Miami for example know that the government is going to bail them out at least once or twice before letting a fair portion of the city wash away, and my guess is that their guess will be right. 

 

 

[Nashville Bits and Pieces]

8 minutes ago, Luvemtall said:

Or get our chainsaws out , and take care of the source of the curse!

Legend has it...

For every Stick that gets cut down,

2 more sprout right up from the ground,

And 3 new projects around town

Each lose 10 stories and their crown.

[The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread]

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

The maximum capacity for transit only matters if: a) the agency is running cars at that rate; and b) if they can fill them.

These statements are equally true of car lanes, which is why you either need to compare maximum capacity of both options or compare the actual/projected uses of both options in order to make an apples to apples evaluation.

As I said, however, even then I don't think it's particularly meaningful to compare ridership numbers for modes of transportation where one option is 4 months old and the other has been entrenched and heavily subsidized for a century already regardless.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

So you have a moral objection to DOTs building new tolled lanes to pull people out of the general-purpose lanes but it's fine to take up ROW with vanity transit projects carrying a fraction of the people?

I'm not personally familiar with this streetcar project so I don't know much about whether it's a vanity project or not. For context, did you think the AMP was a vanity project, as well? 

And I wouldn't say I have a moral objection here so much as a practical one. Government shouldn't adopt a freemium model for public services because it inevitably leads to worse service for those who don't buy into the up-sell. If people with more money have the option to opt out of poor public services, then they have no incentive to improve the shortcomings of those services but are very much incentivized to widen the gap in quality between the free option and the premium option in their favor.  Look no further than what private and charter schools have done to the public school system, which used to be one of the biggest advantages the US wielded on a global scale as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. It took 50 years, but bad public schools are now everyone's problem, just as worse public roads would be.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

There are P3 arrangements with tolled lanes such that it's possible to have the toll revenue pay for maintenance/operation of the entire facility, including general-purpose lanes (i.e., you get to drive on the GP lanes for free, not just "free" because the gas tax isn't collected at point of use, thanks to the revenue generated from tolls in a few choice lanes). Would you be OK with people jumping line at the DMV if they paid your registration fee? Priority service during a power outage if they covered your light bill? 

Sounds like you know more about the proposal and various options than I do - is the gas tax being eliminated? Currently, assuming that I fill up my 13 gallon tank once a week, I pay a little less than $170 in gas tax a year. Is that all going away? If not, by about how much would you expect it to be reduced? 

And while I think you're probably a little off base with your DMV comparison - I would guess the analogy would be more like letting someone cut in line in exchange for somewhere between 3 and 30 cents - your 'light bill payment for priority service during a power outage' hypothetical is really throwing me for a loop.  For one, imagining a bidding war to get power reconnected during an ice storm with old people and poor people falling to the back of the line in exchange for like a couple hundred bucks strikes me as a bit dystopian. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the poorest among us are already at the back of that line more often than not even without a priority service option, but seeing the concept in writing being used as a positive example in support of the point you're trying to make was not something I was expecting.

On 12/4/2023 at 11:46 AM, PruneTracy said:

Personally if we are going to consider roads as a public utility...

What do you consider roads to be if not a public utility? 

[The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread]

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The Tempe streetcars carried 800,000 passengers from opening in May 2022 through August 2023, which is an average of less than 1,700 riders per day. A single vehicular lane at max density can carry about 1,700 passenger car equivalents per hour. Right now TDOT can build from 40 to 60 miles of a one-lane highway widening for $200 million.

Looks like you're comparing apples and oranges. 

If you're going to use the maximum capacity for singular car lane density, then you need to use the max capacity of streetcars too. Alternatively, you can look at the actual passenger figures for the street car and compare them to actual/estimate figures for how many passengers used that same street lane during the same time period and/or the year before, but even then it's a bit of a stretch to think that the first 4 months of streetcar usage data are going to reflect the long-term utility and success of the project.

1 hour ago, PruneTracy said:

The point of the choice lanes is that you don't want everyone to be willing to pay to use them. 

But isn't that kind of a problem for public utilities like roads? 

Can we have a toll lane where users pay a small fee in order to jump the line at the DMV, or the permitting offices, or when voting? 

Would it be ok in your opinion to let some people pay a small premium to get priority access to the public school of their choice, or priority service if their power lines get taken down in a storm? 

In my experience, the old adage that 'a crime for which the only punishment is a fine is really only a crime for the poor' seems to apply just as well to fees and tolls. 

[North Gulch Gateway, (Tennessean site) Phase II: Gulch Central (41 story residential/hotel, 28 story office, 6 story mixed-use); Phase I: Asurion HQ (10 & 11 stories)]

53 minutes ago, Argo said:

Exxxxagedtedly.

For some reason it's hard for some persons to understand the current collapsing of the economy.

 

The dollar hit a two-decade high against other major currencies last month (October 2023).

Unemployment rates have been under 4% for the entirely of 2023 so far, and have twice registered at 3.4% - which is the lowest US unemployment average recorded since the 1960s.

US GDP figures posted 2 days ago came in at an annualized rate  of 4.9%, which is better than we've seen since the mid 1980s with the exception of the quick pandemic rebound when the lockdown economy was jump started in 2021. 

 

Further, by 2025, it's forecast that about 25 million more people will work from home than did in 2020, which will affect new office construction. 

Further, the interest-rate hiking campaign that Trump appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has implemented over the past 20 months in response to global inflation (which I think have been largely effective) puts US commercial construction rates at almost double what they were prior to the pandemic, which will affect new hotel, office, and residential construction across the board.

 

All that to say, I actually agree with you that the economy is likely to soften somewhat in 2024, for one because the economy is so hot right now that cooling down is all but inevitable, but to say that the economy is currently collapsing seems to me like a pretty big misunderstanding of the big picture here, to say the least. 

Please do check my facts, though. One of us is sure to learn something.

 

 

 

 

[The Republic Is Saved.]

14 hours ago, JFW657 said:

All that is true, but what I meant was that Trump is physically able to walk without shuffling and engage in normal activity without looking like he's about to fall down. 

I like Biden a lot. He's been a great President. But he started too late.  

Here's a video of Biden stumbling up stairs last week: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6339032005112

Looks to me like he's got a spring in his step on the long walk to the podium and is actually jogging more than shuffling. He does a pretty athletic job of catching himself and recovering when he stumbles as far as I can tell, too. Is that the shuffling you're talking about?

Here's another video of Biden riding a bike from a couple months ago. Not sure I've ever seen Trump on a bike, but it's hard to imagine to say the least: 

 

 

 

[Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global]

16 minutes ago, Argo said:

Welp, interest rates have just been hiked to their highest rates since 2001 and more hikes are to come this year and the next. Get ready for major tower developments to stall indefinitely or get outright cancelled.

This is a funny take.

Whether or not you agree with the Fed's rate hiking campaign over the last  16 months, which was designed to combat inflation amplified by a white hot job market following the initial COVID crash, the campaign does seem to have had its intended effect. 

Inflation is is at 3% over the past 12 months, which is below average for the last 40 years, the US job market has calmed but is still producing historically strong numbers averaging more than 250,000 new jobs a month in 2023  so far (I think 2022 may have been even better), and economic forecasters who have long been calling for recession 'over the next year' have been consistently changing their prognostications toward a more positive outlook - pushing back the onset of the forecast economic downturn and predicting far less severity and duration. See this from Morgan Stanley last week, for example - or just read the Fed's own statement when they made the  latest rate hike you referenced in your post: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/morgan-stanley-lifts-2023-us-growth-forecast-expectation-infrastructure-2023-07-21/

In sum, complaining about the rate hikes is fair - certainly from a pro-labor or first-time homebuyer position, at least -  but complaining about how they're likely to stall or cancel some tower projects doesn't make any sense given that those rate hikes are being credited with lessening the possibility and severity of predicted economic downturn, which would have stalled and/or cancelled a lot more tower developments than another quarter point hike in the overnight interest rates will, of course.

 

 

[The Republic Is Saved.]

12 hours ago, orange87 said:

You just know the intent behind this is something relating to “racial justice.” A sort of “reparation” (if you will). This is why people like Trump get elected.

Biden to hike payments for good-credit homebuyers to subsidize high-risk mortgages

Article: https://www.westernmassnews.com/2023/04/26/getting-answers-new-federal-rule-could-lead-higher-mortgage-rates/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&mibextid=Zxz2cZ#lgzvzqmqhq94o06slse

Borrowers who put down less than 20 percent will still pay more in total fees for their mortgage because they will pay a private mortgage insurance premium in addition to their GSE fees. So if the cost of mortgage insurance is added to the GSEs’ pricing grid, the borrowers’ costs will track their risk as one would expect: those with lower credit scores will pay more than those with higher credit scores, and those with higher LTV ratios will pay more than those with lower LTV ratios. 

Despite the recent coverage, then, FHFA is not raising fees on borrowers with good credit to lower them for those with bad credit. It is raising fees on loans there is little reason to discount so that it can better serve those who need the help. While FHFA is also raising fees modestly on the GSEs’ core business, this increase is paying almost entirely for higher capital requirements, not the cross-subsidy.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/no-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-arent-penalizing-people-good-credit-help-people-bad-credit

 

 

[Nashville Bits and Pieces]

Does anybody know how I might find the QUICKBOOKS PREMIER customer service number?

Or maybe the booking number for either Swiss Air, Alaska Air, or American Airlines? 

Thanks in advance!

[Rise East Nashville/800 Main (2 - 10 stories, 376 apts., 50,540 sq. ft. office, 46,210 sq. ft. retail, 316 capacity garage, one acre outdoor space)]

5 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

If you ask me, I think the office and retail should be reversed. Put the office on Main and the retail on Woodland. Woodland is more of the retail street IMO than Main St. Woodland seems to get more pedestrians than Main and has more of a pedestrian vibe. When I walk in East Nashville I never walk on Main as my stay is limited to the Five Points area.

IDK, what do you guys think about that?

100%

[New Titans Stadium (60,000 capacity dome, ground level retail, directly east of Nissan Stadium)]

I love it. 

And the roof kind of has Tennessee flag vibes. 

[Storyville Gardens]

37 minutes ago, Luvemtall said:

The Dodge Bidding site, says that the information contained on the site is accurate and verified. For whatever that’s worth, take it with a grain of salt. As I mentioned earlier, I seen pictures from a event held months ago, at the Virgin Hotel that clearly stated it was the location reveal party. So apparently the site is known, at least in the developers inner circle. So why continue to not go public? If there’s anyone reading this , that is connected to this development or has the intel please let us know the reason why it’s so secretive.

Not going public enables developers and those in the know an opportunity to buy up some neighboring land to later sell/develop as amenities and infrastructure needs grow if the park is successful. 

[Storyville Gardens]

4 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

In comparing the business of Nashville Zoo and Cheekwood with that of the proposed Storyville Gardens, it seems important to consider that both the zoo and Cheekwood are non-profits. They depend heavily on memberships, fundraising events, grants, and donations, not just ticket sales. Ticket sales alone would be woefully inadequate to fund the operation of either enterprise.

Great point

[Storyville Gardens]

Nashville Zoo pulls in about a million guests a year on approximately the same acreage as Storyville, and my guess is the zoo operations and maintenance budgets are significantly bigger.  Cheekwood pulls in about 400k annual guests on about 1/3rd the acreage.  There's clearly a fair amount of demand for outdoor self-guided park experiences with few traditional rides, but to give these numbers some context, even  comparable rollercoaster-heavy regional theme parks only pull in 2 to 4 times more guests than the zoo, and the tickets cost twice as much. 

There are lots of other factors that will come into play as to whether or not this park will ultimately be a success should it come to fruition, but as always, there's a pretty good chance that those who don't like much of what they see in this proposal are simply not in the target demographic and are not expected or frankly intended to be excited about Storyville. 

 

[Political Digression Thread -- Save UP! Move the politically focused stuff here]

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

Rough week for the liberals I see. Supreme Court dropping the hammer. 

Are you under the impression that only liberals get abortions? 

I'd bet that the vast majority of people getting abortions have no particular political affiliation. After that, I'd guess the next largest population of abortion-seekers are those who oppose (or are surrounded by people who oppose) birth control and sex education.  I guess we'll find out as we now enter the 'be careful what you wish for' part of this clown show that you seem to be cheering on for some reason.

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

If people have so much of an asset that it is useless to the point of being purposefully discarded, that is not scarcity, that is abundance.  Are you confusing "scarcity" in the economic sense with "poverty" in the political sense?  It's possible to have a society that, as a whole, does not suffer from extreme scarcity of certain assets, however within that society certain individuals will still be "poor" due to their lack of those assets.  However, that has more to do with those people not having any valuable goods or services to trade with other people in society.  It is not a reflection of a society that is suffering from scarcity in the broadest sense, but rather a reflection of the uneven distribution of skills and assets which characterizes (and has characterized) every society from Soviet Russia to the tribal highlands of Papua New Guinea to Singapore.  However, when comparing those three economies, it's pretty obvious which one has the least scarcity in the broadest economic sense, and it's no coincidence that one is also the most free market/capitalist.

You've lost the plot here. You were initially talking about scarcity in a physics context, saying "the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"

In that context, I pointed out that these totally accurate physical limitations you're referring to are not currently the limitations our society is butting into as evidenced by the fact that we have enough resources to produce more than all the people on earth consume, hence any scarcity experienced today is artificial. 

In the broader economic sense, what possible difference would it make if a society has less scarcity if that scarcity is unequally distributed? I assume you've got no problem with 1% of people in a society owning 50% of all resources, of course. Does that hold true if 1% of all people own 99% of all resources? What if .00001% (or about 75 people) of people own 99.99999% of all economic resources? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

I agree with your list of outrageous violations of freedom being examples of perversion of the concept of property rights.  I'm sure you are familiar with the Libertarian stance on all those issues, and it invariably upholds the doctrines of individual liberty and un-restricted voluntary exchange between individuals.  I should point out that it is *your* system of unrestrained democracy that allowed those examples of oppression to arise and persist.  The idealized Libertarian concept of a constitutional democracy involves greater limitations on the majority's ability to oppress the minority.  The only other option would be a benevolent dictator or monarchy.  But the examples you bring up are really more of an indictment of the failings of democracy than the concept of private property. 

You've neglected to mention how your libertarian society addresses these crimes and violence of the past that has lead to inequality in the distribution of property and resources.  How do you account for the head start and the laws that forced certain groups to fight with one hand tied behind their back for centuries? 

Reparations? The end of inheritance? A fresh start where all property is up for grabs at the count of 3? Genuinely curious what solutions you've got in mind.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Sticking to just the private property issue:  A person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor - don't you agree?

This is cartoonish. No man is an island. The fruit of everyone's labor depends on functioning electrical grids, and highways, and sewers, and court systems, etc. Life is too short to waste your time with this nonsense. 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Yes, I think that is a valid statement, except perhaps for some uninhabited islands that were discovered relatively recently and haven't experienced any violent changes of ownership.  However, that historical fact in and of itself is not a valid reason to discard an orderly system of private property ownership.  It is most definitely an argument against the violent taking of land from peaceful owners - a practice which your government engages in on a regular basis - and which Libertarians oppose.

What's the Libertarian solution though? I have to assume y'all have thought about this and have to have some kind of response to deal with the inequities of the systems you want to dismantle, otherwise that's a lot of blood money to sweep under the rug.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

The moral high ground is not from the property rights, it's from the non-violent peaceful exchange of property versus the violent confiscation of property.  Ownership arising from peaceful exchange is morally superior to ownership arising from violent confiscations, whether that violent confiscation is incremental/fractional through regulation or outright via nationalization.  That's the moral high ground of the Libertarian position:  Peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation.  Now, you tell me why violent confiscation is better than peaceful exchange in your socialist system.

I agree (and think most other people would as well) that peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation, so I'm not sure you can really claim that as a Libertarian position. 

What happens in a libertarian society when someone doesn't pay their debts or refuses to comply with a court order? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

You are once again complaining about an inescapable reality of life on earth:  Scarcity in the economic sense.  The answer to this scarcity is more free trade, not less.  If land is scarce, you should be allowing everyone to employ the land they have to maximum utility and engaging in the widest possible variety of business on their land.  Instead it seems you are interested in curtailing the free use of land, thereby limiting its utility and making it even more scarce in the economic sense.

I wasn't complaining about scarcity I was talking about head starts. Pivoting to more comfortable ground doesn't answer my question about how you deal with the inequities of the past. 

 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

That doesn't change the fact that the system is designed to ensure those paying the taxes will not receive the benefits.  That is moral outrage:  Property taken violently with no value given in exchange.

100% False. That's like saying there's no value in a fire insurance policy just because your house never catches on fire. It's there if you need it and you can't possibly know for sure whether you'll need it or not.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Your trapeze analogy would only be valid if the "safety net" consisted of a large group of people forced to stand under the trapeze act at gunpoint...

The fact that this is where your brain goes....

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Let's flip your statement that you try to use to justify violence:  You shouldn't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence just because some people don't have those things... And you never know... sometimes even the biggest idiot can become successful in business.

I don't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence, and tons of huge idiots become very successful in business. 

What's the point?

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Uhh... I think you know the Libertarian perspective on defense contractors and government suppliers and involvement in foreign wars.  Don't forget: You are not talking to a Republican here.  That example of national defense being a government service that everyone benefits from equally was just an example.  There are others such as police, courts, international treaties, etc...

You lost the plot again. I was refuting your statement that all taxpayers benefit equally from DOD expenditures. Same goes for police, courts, international treaties, etc. So are you agreeing with me now?

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Let's take this example.  For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net, the fire fighters would need to make an assessment about how "excessive" my house is before deciding whether to save part of it or any of it at all.  They may decide to put out my neighbor's house because his house is small and he is poor, but they may decide to let mine catch fire and burn because my house is huge and nobody really needs that big of a house.  The fire fighters will be around if I get a small house and it catches on fire, but they will do nothing if I have an excessively large house that is burning.  That is a valid analogy to your welfare/safety-net system:  Unequal treatment, unequal service provided, but equal outcomes at the most basic poverty level.

This doesn't make any sense. Firefighters put out houses that are on fire today. They won't, however, come spray down your house if it's not on fire today, but they will come spray it down if it's on fire tomorrow. Food stamps go to those who need them today. They're not supposed to go to you if you don't need them today, but they will be available to you if you need them tomorrow.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net system, the medical testing should be provided free to people who can't afford it, using funds taken from people who can afford it.  Let's say that is the scenario (because it is for most public health clinics), and in response to that scenario, I offer the Libertarian perspective:  People should be free to chose whether or not they fund a charity clinic through voluntary donations, because they know that funding a charity clinic will provide protection to them as well as those served by the clinic.  However, if they chose not to fund the charity clinic and take their chances with community spreading of diseases, that is also their right as free individuals.

So you don't believe in public health? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Yep, my turn:  In a Libertarian society, ER's would not be required to admit uninsured or unconscious people who do not have ID. 

Gross.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

You can't force someone to work for you just because you need their services - that's slavery and it's illegal under a Libertarian government.

You do realize they still get paid, right?

I'm bored now.

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

If somebody wants to throw away their property that is their prerogative as property owners. 

I stated that humans can currently produce far more than humans can consume, therefore most of the scarcity experienced today is not because of a lack of supply. Of course property owners have the right to throw away their property, but that in now way contradicts the fact that doing so contributes to scarcity.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

You seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of private property rights and free will, right?

I'm not really arguing for anything, just pointing out some holes in your position as I see them, but I do think property rights are an interesting case study.

For example, its been less than 200 years since the majority of Americans were even allowed to own property. Even more recently than that, a whole race of people were themselves considered to be property, and  women were only given legal access to credit 50 years ago, which I think you'll agree can significantly impact a person's ability to acquire property and accumulate wealth. That's a very short list of a very long history of property rights being restricted and unequally distributed among people.

Further, seems to me that just about every valuable resource and piece of habitable land on earth has had its rules about property rights upended by a conquering or two over the course of the last few millennia. Would that not mean that if we were to look back far enough in the title chain of just about any real estate transaction ledger that we'll find the 'original' owner on record acquired that property through violence and /or other means that the previous owner/occupant would have considered illegal?

This is why I have a hard time swallowing the moral high ground you put so much effort into staking out on the sanctity of property rights, because you have to sweep a lot of history under the rug to avoid the very obvious conclusion that property rights have never been absolute or anywhere even remotely close to it.

If you get a huge head start and win the race, it's cool to later advocate for the end of head starts, but it rings kind of hollow if you just keep the gold medal and all the prize money....especially if that prize money is generational wealth and ownership of finite resources on a finite planet home to a growing population. It's like a finder advocating for the applications of 'finders keepers' or  - even more directly - somebody who got there first advocating for 'first come first served' to be the applicable rule.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

No they are not.  If I want to receive food stamps they tell me my income is too high, which coincidentally is the same reason I was target for taxation. By design, those who contribute the most taxes are excluded from receiving most welfare services. 

Your income may be too to high to qualify for food stamps today, but it may not be too high tomorrow, or next year, or in 20 years. Statistically, every time we fill up Nissan stadium, 65 of the people filling those seats are going to be filing medical bankruptcy and be financially ruined within the year, and thinking it wasn't going to happen to you has been proven to be consistently ineffective at preventing that particular possibility.

I think your argument here would make sense if you were opposing something like government-funded pap smears or free tampons in public restroom, etc. - thing that you as a man could never legally avail yourself of - but I don't think the argument can be reasonably applied to safety nets. By design, safety nets are only needed by those who fall. It's way better to stay in the air and never miss the trapeze in the first place, but why begrudge the safety net for those who maybe don't have your natural talents, luck, training, confidence etc. that they're never going to fall? And you never know, knock on wood. Sometimes even the best trapeze artist slips.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Contrast that with taxes paid for national defense where everyone benefits equally.

Maybe it's just a little bit more equal for defense contractors and and companies/shareholders with operations/assets where we have military bases and/or provide other financial/military support.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Example?

C'mon. You need me to supply an example of ways in which you've benefitted from government services indirectly? I have a hard time believing you can't think up a couple.

Just spitballing, but how about when the fire department puts out the blaze consuming your neighbor's house before your house catches fire.  Or how about free viral testing and vaccination centers that directly reduce your risk of catching a serious disease even if you never get tested/boosted there yourself. Here's a fun one: because emergency rooms are legally required to admit uninsured and/or unconscious people who may not even have ID, your car insurance premiums are lower than they otherwise would be even if you've personally neither been to the ER nor been in a car wreck. Your turn?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Not as bleak as the current reality of socialism we live in with declining standards of living and a hopelessly ignorant public who can't figure out how their own actions caused the very thing they are complaining about.

This is an odd dodge reminiscent of a politician pivoting away from an uncomfortable topic. I understand you'd prefer to return to the comfort of your go-to talking points, but it was genuinely a little jarring to see you go out of your way to insert this vindictive mindset in a made-up scenario. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

But how come the services you receive in return for paying more taxes do not also ramp up in years of high income to match the amount of money taken?  A person who pays a higher %  in taxes should receive more services, otherwise everyone should be taxed the same.  Equality is the name of the game when it comes to government.

This is an amusing idea. What kind of additional services do you think would be suitable for top tax-braketeers?  Free line cuts at the DMV and voting booth? Expedited passport processing? HOV lane access even when driving solo? Like a premium citizenship package.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

There is no state that has made laws restricting immediate treatment for rape victims. Let's assume that some crazy state says once conception has occurred, then *nothing* can be done to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.  If I were a woman in that state, I would move to another state.  Heck, even as a man I would consider moving to another state because it's just a matter of time before they pass some idiotic law targeting other freedoms.  That's the whole point behind states having different laws and competing economically and culturally against each other.   Eventually the pain of population loss and economic stagnation makes the consequences of stupid laws obvious and unavoidable such that the most offensive state laws are repealed as a matter of survival.  Voting with your feet is the highest form of democracy because instead of making everyone suffer through one particular law, a variety of laws are available to live under and we get to find out which ones actually work best in real life.

Your solution seems reasonable in theory but is completely impractical in too many cases for it to be considered a credible plan.

1 out of every 5,000 girls aged 10 to 14 gives birth every year. 30 years ago that number was 1 out of about 700, so we're moving in the right direction, but still not great I think you'd agree. Obviously, most of these girls were not able to give legal consent, and these are just the actual births (not just pregnancies) that we know about. On top of that approximately 1 out of every 2,500 girls under the age of 15 gets an abortion in the US each year.

Do you expect these children to be prepared to move themselves out-of-state, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes? How about developmentally disabled people, 90% of which experience sexual assault in their lives- are they just supposed to pack it up and move? Are those without cars or money for bus fare just supposed to go old school refugee-style and hoof it or hitchhike? Are those without savings for a security deposit or even a couple weeks at a short-stay motel just supposed to go live under a bridge?  These are refugee scenes straight out of the opening episodes of the Handmaids Tale.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Great answer, I like what you did with the "willing acceptance of duty" concept... It preserves the element of free association, and essentially turns it into a contract.  Of course, the law will have to decide when (at which state of pregnancy) this acceptance is implied... so we're right back where we started with the government establishing some red line during the pregnancy beyond which abortion is prohibited because that would breach the previously accepted duty....Unless you are thinking that all pregnancy duties must be explicitly accepted by registering pregnancies with the government?  Assuming you did intend implicit acceptance in your scenario, how is that different from the current status quo?

I think you're wrong about being right back where we started. Again, these are just personal opinions, but I don't think the "willing acceptance of duty" kicks in until the birth occurs - the birth of a new person is itself the explicit acceptance of that duty of care. If a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion but decides to wait 8 and a half months before doing so while putting her body through all that just to abort at the last possible moment, it ought to be her right to do so, and we all benefit from keeping more of those genes from getting out into the pool. Similarly, if a newly pregnant woman plans to give birth, but learns that there's some problem with the kid or birthing complication for her and decides to abort at the last moment, I think that's her decision to make as well.

Returning to the original example, if a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion and does a bunch of drugs or whatever, then later decides that she wants to keep the child, that duty of care kicks in when the kid is born and if the baby is drug dependent then, as I said, I certainly think it's fair to hold the mother accountable at that point, but I think a rational argument can be made for both sides of this particular issue.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

The Libertarian perspective is that the mother cannot be charged with any crimes for activities related to her own body, therefore she could not be charged with child abuse.  Mandating standards for acceptable behavior by the mother during pregnancy is a slippery slope that leads to rules about avoiding 2nd hand smoke and taking prenatal vitamins and undergoing mandatory doctor visits and the codification of legal birthing practices, etc. 

As I said, I've really got no problem with this aspect of your world view, but I don't find the slippery slope argument all that compelling if it's limited to intentionally consumed illegal substances. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

In a Libertarian world view, the mother is completely in charge of the pregnancy regardless of the opinions of others, including the right to end the pregnancy by C-section or chemical inducement at any stage of pregnancy.  The only nuance, as I outlined before, is that her rights do not extend to the ability to end the child's life.  If premature separation results in death, so be it, but if not, then the child lives regardless of her feelings about the matter.

Still think this is a strange hoop to jump through, but I don't disagree with your conclusion for the most part, I just don't think the hoop jumping is necessary.

Let's say I wake up one morning to find a trespasser standing over my bed with a couple IV tubes running between us, and that trespasser tells me that their heart and kidneys stopped functioning and the makeshift dialysis set up is the only thing circulating their blood and keeping them alive. 

Not only do I have the right to right to rip that IV straight out of my arm despite knowing it would lead to that person's death, but I could (in fact) shoot them in the head with a shotgun or throw them out the 10 story window if I saw fit, and I would be well within my rights -  correct? What kind of castle doctrine allows for ending the life of an unwanted trespasser within your property borders but not within the borders of your very own body?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

It's situations dealing with life and death that demand the most rigorous application of ideological purity, in my view.  I could just as easily characterize your philosophy of "let's do whatever is easiest and most convenient" as absurd considering the morally weighty nature of the question at hand.  However, instead I would rather focus on your characterization of abortion as "humane", or in this case, more humane than my proposed system.  Let's do an experiment:  Let's let those babies who can survive (some can at even 23 weeks) grow up to age 18 and then take a poll among them to see if they think my method or your method is more humane.  It only makes sense to let those experiencing the "humane" treatment you are concerned with to give some customer feedback, don't you think?

Again, I think the castle doctrine more than covers this, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how that poll played out too. The suicide rate goes up by a factor of 3 for adopted kids with some stats I just researched showing that more than 40% in the foster system consider suicide and 1 out of 4 make genuine attempts. Probably would be a lot harder being a super-premi with no invested caretaker in an underfunded public health system, as well.

To be sure, I think there's a very good chance that your proposed poll would turn out as you suspect with a majority of those babies who survive to 18 and have the developmental abilities to understand your question indeed siding with you. What I think is less cut cut and dried is how your sample population after 18 years would compare to the initial population.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

They are black because they are regulated by government.  Every black market (with all of it's negative features) used to be a free market that was self-regulated to perfection until the government stepped in.

Oh right - no contraband, I forgot. Genuinely curious, does that apply to abortion pills too, or is that up to the culture and religion of the state?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Nope, a libertarian society is a great idea... maybe the greatest idea ever!  The phrase "Live Free or Die" is the perfect example of ostensibly flippant libertarian concepts that seem to be unnecessarily simplistic and short-sighted.  However, the truth is that freedom is not easily established nor maintained, and it is characterized by a bunch of people who love their own freedoms but are unhappy about the way everyone else is exercising their freedoms.  So statements like that serve as a reminder that freedom is an ideal unto itself regardless of the real world consequences of the pursuit of freedom.

You're pivoting on the word "flippant" this time, but I think 'Live Free or Die" is a cool motto too. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Now, let's go back to California:  In a Libertarian society a person's insurance company would have something to say about reckless behavior and losing your insurance and being labeled "uninsurable" carries certain weighty consequences in a Libertarian society that will cause most people to think twice.  Then there's criminal arson.  Plus the threat of civil court proceedings and the loss of assets, including the loss of the very land that the offender loves to exercise freedom on so much.  It seems to me there would be ample disincentive in a Libertarian society to discourage people from behaving recklessly.  And if a person is hell-bent on starting a forest fire, then no amount of laws will stop them, as we see today in CA.

All the deterrents you're referencing here exist in our current society, and I'd assume you already agree that there should be some limitations on what one can do on their own property - for example, I figure you wouldn't be okay with your neighbor setting of miniature atomic bombs on his property even if the fallout didn't reach your property - so the issue is really just about where that line is drawn. Maybe you draw the line at sonic booms and mushroom clouds on the horizon, maybe somebody else draws the line at bonfires larger than 20 feet in height absent a permit, but we're all drawing the line. Obeying seatbelt laws isn't the same thing as being a slave, you know?

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

26 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Now here is an interesting comment.  If I understand you correctly, you're characterizing the fact that people must endlessly pursue money just to survive as "extortion" and "lack of choice", and that by utilizing the government to take money from rich people they can achieve a society of free and voluntary association, is that correct?  You think that needing money to survive is some kind of wrong that has been inflicted upon them by the structure of pseudo-capitalist society, is that right?  If so, then I would say you are wrong because the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Sure, all this would be true if we were living in a time before we had the technology to produce far more food/shelter/clothing than human beings could possibly consume. In recent decades in our pseudo-capitalist, however, scarcity has largely been artificially induced in order to keep up price and brand cache  - which is why so much unused product gets destroyed and/or thrown away.

33 minutes ago, Armacing said:

I'm not opposed to taxes, per se.  I'm opposed to discriminatory taxes where the money is taken with the express intent of not providing a government service to the taxed person in return.  Taxes that fund legitimate government functions must be backed by violence, as you correctly pointed out, but re-distribution of wealth is not a legitimate function of government.  There is already a 100% voluntary system for distributing wealth in a free society and it's called the free market.  

You're in luck. All of your taxes are in fact taken with the express intent of providing a government service to you in return. You certainly won't need or use all of the services the government is providing on any given day/week/month/year/decade, but when serving 330 + million people, somebody needs those services today, and it may be you tomorrow. 

Argue for fewer services to your hearts content, but don't overlook the ways you benefit from a lot of the services indirectly even when not directly. 

47 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Well, first of all I think it's more likely they would destroy their assets rather than give them away in such a scenario, but let's overlook that point and focus on the crux of your argument.  Are you saying that it's OK for a government to discriminate against certain peaceful citizens so long as they are capable of changing the criteria used for discrimination?

Genuinely fascinated if the spite you're projecting in destroying assets over donating them in this completely fictionalized scenario is meant just for rich people, or for people in general, but it's both telling and bleak.

As for the crux of my argument, I'm saying that having graduated income tax rates doesn't discriminate against anybody and that the rich aren't a class of people. One year my income may stretch all the way into the top tax bracket. Then next year it may not. Either way, it's just a math calculation and the effective overall rate is going to be similar. That calculation is applied equally to everyone's income, thus no discrimination.

57 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Again, you're looking at this backwards.  Everyone is a fetus at some point, so the rule applies to 100% of the population during the course of their lives.

Do I have it backwards? Tell me again, what rules are being applied to fetuses, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure the fetus has no choice in the matter either way, and that abortion restrictions are curtailing the options of the mother - a situation that not everyone experiences.

59 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Rape represents an incredibly small % of abortions and in such cases action could be taken immediately to prevent an unwanted pregnancy long before the fetus reached an age that anyone cared to argue about.

I doubt the thousands of women who get abortions every year from pregnancies caused by rape and incest are all that comforted by the fact that they represent a tiny portion of total rapes over all.

I totally agree with you that any such victim should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, but sometimes that's a lot easier said than done - especially in states where the cultural and religious majority may have made accessing such medical services extremely problematic and in some cases effectively impossible. What are we going to do about that?

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Good to hear you say that about no person having the right to demand the use of another person's body - totally agree.  Does that mean you think an unborn fetus is a person?

I was saying that it doesn't matter when we assign personhood because the right to use another person's body against their will doesn't exist for persons of any age or pre/post-birth status.  That applies whether legal personhood is granted at the moment of conception or when the kid takes its first breath. 

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Let's flip the script:  Let's say a mother wants to have a baby but she also really loves alcohol, cocaine, and heroin (which should be 100% legal, by the way).  If the child is born deformed and drug dependent, does the mother face child abuse charges, or is she in the clear since the damage from her drug usage occurred before the baby was born?

Very interesting question. Just my opinions here, but I'm inclined to say that the mother should face child abuse charges because she willing accepted a certain duty of care when she decided to have the baby which she obviously violated. My analogy would be that mothers aren't required to provide blood transfusions to their kids if they don't want, but if they do decide to provide those transfusions then they can be held accountable for knowingly spiking them with heroin or an infections disease.

That said, my positions is pretty flexible here - I could see a lot of fair justifications for not charging child abuse in these situations too.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Personally, I think the mother has the right to have an early C-section or chemically induced birth at any stage of pregnancy.   If the baby lives, great, if not, well, [insert your god here] has reclaimed their own.  But that's not what happens during abortion, is it?  It's not merely between two people parting ways (free association), but the doctor actively kills the fetus.  Now you may say "Even if the mother never has to lift a finger to raise the child, she would still be burdened with emotional anguish knowing she is a mother when she didn't want to be.   To that I respond:  I am unsympathetic to the emotional anguish of individuals who propose violence as a means of alleviating that anguish [*cough* Socialists! *cough*].  

This part is also very interesting to me, but for very different reasons, as from my perspective it seems to be a perfect example of taking your philosophy to such an extreme as to become a little absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the consistency in a way at the very least, and I think what you've laid out here is a pretty clever rationale enabling you to oppose the safe and humane abortion procedures as they currently exist, while promoting your openness to far more dangerous and invasive procedures that accomplishes exactly the same result up to half way through the third trimester (when most people are ok with abortion being illegal anyway), just for the sake of ideological purity, even if it means worse ways to achieve the exact same end.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

It's only a "black market" if it's illegal, which it would not be in a free market society.  In a Libertarian economy, markets are tasked with regulating themselves.

Why do black markets not regulate themselves? 

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

How is it consensual?  I thought the goal of each participant in the duel was to kill, not be killed.  If the goal was to die, then it would be easier to just commit suicide (which should be legal).

Ha. Fair enough. I suppose neither participant wants to be the one who dies, but can they not essentially sign a waiver acknowledging that potential outcome and choosing to participate anyway. That seems right up your alley.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Well, first of all I would just like to point out that exact scenario happens with some regularity in California, which I assume has numerous anti-forest fire regulations on the books.   However, when someone commits criminal arson (including through negligence), they are imprisoned, and that provides a deterrent against others being so careless.  Can the forest be restored?  No.  Does the threat of jail deter?  Probably.  If you can start a forest fire and keep it entirely on your property, then you are free to do so within a Libertarian society.  As you can tell, in a free society, any number of unusual landscaping practices are permitted.

I'm not so sure it's more efficient (or let's say, productive) from a wealth preservation standpoint because you're not weighing the wealth destruction caused by the prohibition on burning.  Some burning is beneficial for forest management and agriculture.  But regardless of whether or not your economic calculus is correct, the fundamental principle of allowing freedom first and trying court cases when a dispute arises is superior to attempting to remove freedom in order to avoid litigation.  Freedom trumps convenience in a Libertarian society.

Totally. It's these kinds of wildfires are a very common occurrence and they are devastating, which is why it's a good idea do do just about everything within reason to limit their occurrence and scope.

And yes, I recognize that in a libertarian society, one is free to start a forest fire and try to keep in entirely on their property, but that's one of the many reasons that a libertarian society is a bad idea. More money than can every be recovered is lost, irreplaceable property and life is lost for generations, and everyone's insurance premiums go up to cover the shortages, but you still don't think there are any other parties involved with enough interest to justify maybe setting a cap on the size of bonfires in order to try and prevent this loss from happening.  Just seems so flippant to me, but I digress. 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

When it comes to economic issues there is no disagreement between rich & poor:  They both agree that money is good and they both want it.  The question is whether or not the majority will be permitted to use the government as a proxy to inflict violence upon the otherwise peaceful minority.   

Ha. The idea that money is "good" seems pretty contradictory to the notions that 'money is the root of all evil' and the love of money is one of the seven deadliest mistakes a human being can make in this world, so I'm not sure your depiction of unanimous agreement on the issue is quite accurate.

But yeah, most everybody wants money - or rather most everybody wants food, shelter, health, security, entertainment, etc. and we have structured our society in such a way as to make money the primary - and near exclusive - means of obtaining these things.

Your argument is like saying that everybody wants a car, when really what everybody wants is the freedom of movement, all the while you're ignoring the last 100 years and trillions of dollars that have been spent creating infrastructure and an environment that ensures there's no meaningful alternative. Of course, in places where there are efficient alternative transit options allowing for a comparable freedom of movement, the desire to own a car drops precipitously. Only 1 in 4 people in Amsterdam own cars, for example. 

Put another way, everybody in a mafia-protected neighborhood wants mafia protection, but only because such 'protection' is necessary for their survival, and there is no meaningful alternative other than destruction. Given your heightened sensitivity toward authoritarian power flexing, I'm genuinely a little surprised these kinds of arguments don't color your thinking more on these issues. Extortion and the lack of choice are the complete antithesis of free and voluntary association.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

But there is no disagreement or philosophical gray area here:  Both sides agree taxes are backed by violence, and both sides admit the socialist transfer of wealth from rich to poor is not voluntary.

Have to disagree in part again. I for one pay my taxes voluntarily just the same as I tip at least 20% on every meal. There are tons of people like me who vote and spend money trying to change tax law in a way that would increase our taxes owed, as well, which seems like a pretty good proxy for voluntary taxation. I'd argue it's patriotic to willingly fund your government.

You're right of course that taxes are backed by violence, but violence backs the enforcement of property rights, and violence backs civil claims restitution etc. just the same, so I'm not sure this is the moral high ground you seem to think it is. The 'rules' are always backed by violence - that goes for the rules you like just the same as the rules you don't like.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Furthermore, the abortion/consent laws apply to everyone, not just a select few based on income, so it's not discriminatory like socialist-style re-distribution of wealth is.   A non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law.

You've got the right idea that a non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law but you applied the logic completely backwards.

Being rich is one of the least immutable of all possible characteristics. You can be rich one day and poor the next or vice versa. In fact, if one believes they are being discriminated against as a part of the rich minority it is completely within their power to give away enough assets as to no longer have to suffer at the hand of the oppressive poor majority. The rich can pull an 'if you can't beat them, join them' in the blink of an eye if poor people start giving themselves too good of a deal.

Contrast that with abortion, where more than half of people can't even get pregnant in the first place. Regardless of what the laws in Tennessee say, I can 100% guarantee that I will never be forced to carry my rapists child because to do so would be physically impossible, and there's nothing women can do to enjoy that same privilege short of eliminating the possibility of bearing children at all. Same goes with the age of consent: you're either legally defined as a minor or you're not, but you can't make yourself older in order to join the oppressive majority of adults  faster than one day at a time. 

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Abortion is not about free, voluntary actions though, is it?  The essential question is when the unborn child has rights... specifically the right to life.  

I don't think it matters at all when the unborn child has rights actually, because no person has the right to demand the use of another person's body for any purpose without that person's consent. Most parents would gladly donate blood, bone marrow, to their kid in need, but the government isn't stepping in and making laws that force parents to do so, even if the kid's survival depends on it. That right doesn't exist for people.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

I would say remove the state law against shooting bears on your property.  If an errant bear enters your yard, then its life is forfeit.  You've heard of the castle doctrine, right?  If a human comes into your yard and threatens you with violence and destroys your property, then you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, your family, and in most cases, your property.  Surely a violent bear has fewer protections under the law than a violent human does.  If doughnut lady wants to keep bears on her property, that's her right, but she's gonna need a fence to keep them in.  You know the old saying about how good fences make good neighbors?  Definitely true in a libertarian world.

Ha. I'm not worried about the rights of the bears. Even if shooting them were perfectly legal, I don't want to have to do so. Maybe it's against my religion, maybe I don't own a gun and don't want to have to buy one to protect myself, my kids, and my family from wild animals because some idiot next door is baiting them.  How many bears would you have to kill before your tune changes, how much time and money would you have to spend disposing of the bears' bodies, how much time and money would you have to spend in court trying to claw back the damages and/or expenses you've incurred as a result, all the while hoping nobody seriously gets hurt when you're not home are asleep or are doing anything other than keeping lookout for bears?

What if she were baiting deadly rattle snakes or murder hornets instead of bears, so the gun is no longer effective? Or what if she's not just baiting these things, she's creating a perfect environment to allow their populations to grow and thrive with the specific intent of boosting her pest control and/or antidote businesses around town? Is that still cool? Where do you draw the line? Hard to put up a fence that can keep out murder hornets. 

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Organ sales.... Libertarian says:  No restrictions on trade

Duels... Libertarian says:  Murder is illegal

Pay for fight... Libertarian says:  People are free to chose any profession they want

The organ sale issue is about provenance. Will you be tightly regulating the organ market to make sure the organs function properly, are disease free, are were not harvested from kidnapped/murdered people or are you just mainstreaming the black market? 

Regarding duels, is murder still illegal when it's consensual? I thought you'd be on the other side of this one.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

People can start fires on their land, but big mistakes come with big lawsuits.

Think about what you're saying here for a second.

Let's say I do something really reckless and it ends up burning down 1,000 acres. That could be billions of dollars in damage. Where do you think that money's going to come from? I'm going to be bankrupt before the ink on the class action suit is dry.

Further, the loss of the forest itself could take hundreds of years if not thousands to return to it's pre-fire form, if it ever does. Even if I had the money to cover all the built damage I caused, money alone is entirely incapable of restoring the life that my fire ended - including trees, animals, and people. 

And in the end, whatever the judgements against me are determined to be in court, after all the loss and all the suffering, the government will still ultimately rely on violence to compel my involuntary behavior. 

Since violence is underpinning the government's actions regardless, maybe some reasonable restrictions to limit wildfire risk and prevent some of the irreplaceable loss from needing replacement in the first place would be the preferable route. It's certainly more efficient from a financial standpoint, and everybody wants more money, right?

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

No apology needed, but I also apologize if it offended you.  I thought it was funny, but I wanted to see what would happen if I used it against you since maybe it had some significance to you.  FYI... I'm also married with kids, so I got your meaning on the second half of your comment 

Yes, I do take that position.  The struggle to maintain freedom and the rights of minorities is a central feature of all democracies given the tendency of the majority to wield their democratic power to oppress the minority.  Understanding the essential concepts of economics are beyond the mental capacity of most people (present company excluded, of course), so democratic voters often fall into the trap of believing they can improve their economic plight by targeting one particular minority that (at least superficially) appears to hold the key to their poverty problem: rich people.  Even before the words socialism and communism were developed in the 19th century, the underlying principles were at work since the dawn of civilization... which is logical when you consider how they arise spontaneously in human populations that are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the complex natural laws of trade.

I should also mention here one of the key principles of Austrian Economics that informs my commentary above:  That the fundamental principles of economics are "natural laws" akin to gravity and inertia.  They are essential truths of human motivation/interaction/planning/decision-making/survival that are necessarily  derived from the reality of humankind's plight (i.e., they must find a way to survive on a planet with scarce resources).  In this way, the principles of economics are not a policy to be set by governmental decree, but rather a fundamental set of truths that underlie all peaceful human interaction and they must be discovered by observation and the development of theories and hypotheses similar to other sciences. 

Oh sure, laws can be made that control economic activities, but they are unable to alter the fundamental principles of reality, therefore they almost uniformly worsen the plight of humans, at least in the long run.  At their core, such laws are basically decrees that essentially consist of "go create wealth" (which is of course impossible to decree because wealth is created through voluntary interaction,  not by coercion) or "go transfer wealth" (which rather amusingly includes the implicit assumption that an inexhaustible source of wealth exists to be transferred).  Indeed, most educated people seem to comprehend at some intuitive level that such laws actually destroy wealth over the long term, but they are willing to overlook that unpleasant fact for the sake of political expediency.

In my opinion, the only Libertarian angle on this question would be to say it should be the same age where one obtains adulthood and full agency including the ability to enter contracts.  As for what age that is, I think that's a cultural question that will be decided based on the religions and traditions of a given culture and a worthy question to be decided by democracy.  From a Libertarian perspective, any age chosen will be arbitrary, but that arbitrariness does not run afoul of the principles of freedom and private property so long as everyone obtains full emancipation at that age.

Another case where determining the boundary between tissue sample and viable human will involve a democratic process that will be influenced by culture and religion.  However, in the particular case of Roe v. Wade, I will say that I support the concept of letting states decide their own laws on as many issues as possible, so yes, I support its repeal.  That doesn't mean I necessarily support limiting abortion, but rather that I'm just a huge proponent of state's rights.  It would be awesome if we could have enough variation in laws within the US to provide a homeland for everyone on the political spectrum that exactly matches their values.

In your second paragraph, when you're speaking negatively about democracy, you note that a majority can use it to target a particular minority, in this case rich people, who you're defending.

But in your fifth and sixth paragraphs, you speak positively about democracy in that it can enable the majority to target a particular minority, in this case minors and pregnant women, who you do not defend.

Seems like a disconnect there. Why should it be a good thing for the majority to decide the consent and abortion issues on behalf of a minority who may not share their culture or religious views, but somehow it's a bad thing for the same majority to decide tax and property issues for a minority who may not share their cultural or economic news. 

One step further, if the majority of the voters share a religion that opposes abortion (or same sex marriage, or interracial marriage, etc.) and you're okay with that outcome even though it restricts the free, voluntary actions of individuals who don't share that religion, then wouldn't it correlate that if a majority of voters share a religion that states render unto 'Caesar that which is Caesar's' and 'that it's easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to get into heaven' then shouldn't you be okay with taxes not to mention outlawing the accumulation of wealth? 

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

First of all, I would say it's hard to take the article seriously considering the publication, but I will humor it with a response:  What is the complaint?  Potholes?  They exist even in the most socialist of cities.  What else?  Bears?  The article itself states this problem arises from the New Hampshire prohibition on shooting bears on your property....So that is clearly not libertarian and the author chose to make a big stink about the bears without acknowledging the obviously governmental origins of the problem... very disingenuous if you ask me... perhaps intentionally deceptive?  The article could be more truthfully be titled "How state and federal laws ruined a Libertarian experiment".  But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that The New Republic wants to promote.  They are pro-government to the extreme, but this particular article is actually sad in that it displays just how desperate they are to try to find something wrong with freedom - - even to the extent of blatant omission of the obvious.

If the New Republic as a source is a major hold up, there are tons of other publications and authors who have covered this story in a lot of different forms of media. I assure you that the New Hampshire prohibition against bear hunting was not the source of the downfall of this particular would-be libertarian utopia considering that the town residents went to the caves and took out as many bears as they could despite having to break state law to do so. And as the article made clear, the bears weren't the only problem, though I am curious how you would have handled the bears, as well. 

What would you have done about the lady leaving piles of grain with sugar donuts sprinkled on top to lure the bears?  What recourses should her neighbors have had after the bears did a bunch of damage on the way to the donut feast? 

Do you agree with the project founder's ideas about legalizing organ trafficking, Alexander Hamilton style duels, and paying bums to fight on the street?

Do you agree with one of the other founders of the projects who led the volunteer fire department and restricted his friends' ability to start fires as they saw fit on days with high wildfire risk, or was that just another example of government overreach in your view? Was the fire chief being smart to put some limits on wildfire potential, or had that little bit of power that came with his position already corrupted the former true believer? 

One man's trash is another man's treasure, of course, but trying to live in such a place truly sounds like a nightmare to me. 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

I stand by my characterization of regulations that  involve government control of capital allocation as "socialism", and you can be as outraged or disinterested as you want.  You didn't accomplish anything by claiming that socialism must involve government ownership of the means of production because this is obviously not true based on numerous socialist regimes throughout history and today that feature private ownership of property and businesses.  I don't really know what you were trying to accomplish with your mindless rant about definitions, which to me seemed like some kind of incel manifesto, but good job I guess?

Listen, I was in a hurry yesterday and shot off the incel comment without giving it much thought. I take it from the fact that you felt compelled to pull an 'I'm rubber and you're glue" and sling it back at me means that I struck a nerve, and I apologize. If it makes you feel any better I'm among the class of the voluntarily celibate i.e. married with kids, so we're in similar boats anyway.

That said, given that you've created a whole thread here to explain libertarianism based on your qualifications as a libertarian, I would think that you'd be more inclined to allow the socialists to define themselves in a similar manner.  The alternative is pretty blatant hypocrisy, of course, which is why I honestly didn't think it would set your hair on fire to point out that your usage of the word socialism doesn't match the historical timeline and isn't in line with the common understanding of the word. I even tried to soften the blow by pointing out that there are in fact more accurate words to use that allow you to make the exact same points that you want to be making so you could keep up your momentum without missing a beat. As I said, if you want to take the position that every democracy in history has practiced some degree of socialism, go for it - I even kind of like the idea actually - but from a language standpoint you can't ignore the problem such a definition creates given that democracy predates the modern conception of socialism. 

But I do think you're right at least that we should probably wrap up this brief interlude of 'socialism explained' and get back to the original intent of the thread where we get to 'ask you anything' about your libertarian beliefs, since that's clearly where your expertise lies. So, here's a couple questions I've got:

1. What do you think should be the age of consent?

2. Do you support the reversal of Roe v. Wade? 

3. What was it that went so terribly wrong in the town where libertarians took over, and how would your governing philosophy lead to any different or less disastrous results if libertarians took over another town, or a state, or a country? https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project

Thanks in advance for whatever insight you can provide.

 

 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

10 hours ago, Armacing said:

If your commonly understood meaning has no utility other than to prop up the current regime in power and sustain the promotion of its authoritarian world view, then I would say according to *your* understanding you are correct.  However, if you want to achieve a deeper level of understanding and escape the oppressive paradigm promoted by the government and its supporters, then you should consider the essential concepts that I have generously provided for you in my other post.  As it stands currently, your adherence to the "official" definition promoted by authoritarian academics has forced you into arguing the untenable position that regulation does not equal control.  Just think about that for a second.  When was the last time you heard about a regulation that gave the government zero control over the actions of individuals?

Good god man. Words have meanings, don't blame me. And nothing I've said has in any way undermined your ability to mindlessly rant away like you're composing some incel manifesto. Just replace your use of the word 'socialism' with 'business regulation' and you should be good to go. 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

44 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Well the Britannica definition said "or ownership", but you are getting really derailed on these dumb definitions and missing the essential concept here: 

You're missing the point. I'm pretty indifferent as to what you think 'the key is' or what you believe to be 'the essential concept here'. I only chimed in to point out that you were defining socialism incorrectly, the rest of your opinions about property rights etc. seems pretty irrelevant here.

Taking your Brittanica definition, you're still resting your argument on the idea that 'control' can be fairly interpreted to mean 'regulation' and I provided examples to show that your interpretation is so broad as to construe every single democratic government throughout history as practicing socialism. If that's your contention, so be it, but my only purpose here was to point out that particular definition of socialism is not in line with the commonly understood meaning of the word. 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

19 hours ago, Armacing said:

I think you just proved my point for me... look at what you posted:  "collective administration of the means of production", and the quick reference "means of production are controlled by the state".  That's exactly what we have in the US today.  The web of regulations guarantee that important business decisions are dictated by the state and not free market forces.

The online Britannica definition says "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."  The key here is that socialism doesn't always involve government ownership, but is in fact a larger concept that includes public control of property  (even if the property is not outright owned by the government) where economic decisions are not strictly the domain of free individuals acting voluntarily, but rather involve government regulation that is backed up by police or military violence.  

Just think about the converse:  What are you calling a system where the means of production are privately owned but all decisions about how to utilize those assets are dictated by the government?  Are you calling that free-market capitalism?  Because I'm calling that socialism... Which falls under the broader umbrella of collectivism...  But the truth is those are all just labels and it doesn't matter what you call it or how you package it:  Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

It seems like what you're doing here is a bit of sleight of hand in redefining "administration" and "control" to mean "regulation" but these words are not synonyms in this context.

First, you'll note that in in your restatement of the Webster's definition, you've conveniently left out the words "and ownership" that follow "collective administration" which seems like a pretty crucial omission on your part that significantly alters the meaning of the sentence.

Further, accepting your interpretation of 'collective administration' and 'control' to mean 'regulation' wouldn't make any sense in a historical context, because doing so would then mean by your definition that every democracy in the history of civilization has been practicing socialism going back to Ancient Greece, and that trend isn't exclusive to democracy either. Business regulations like price and quality controls, licensure, and trade restrictions predate the concept of socialism by centuries (and millennia) in some cases I think, so if any business regulation imposed by a government authority equals socialism in your view, then the word socialism is essentially a synonym for government. Is that what you mean?

 

19 hours ago, Armacing said:

Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

Couldn't agree more but we also have to make sure the garbage gets picked up so we don't get over run by bears.

https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project

 

 

 

[Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

 

You're confusing socialism with communism. 

It's kind of an odd mix of condescension and audacity to state that I'm confused about the definition of socialism, then follow it up with your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word with nothing but 'trust me bro' to back it up.

Here's what Merriam-Webster and the good people at the Oxford dictionary think about it, for whatever it's worth to you: 

Definition of socialism

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

QUICK REFERENCE

An economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state.