Recent content by RokiLothbard

So all the people who voted for "purity" are 100% anaracho-capitalists, who are against all taxation, right?

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001 I'm thinking about sending to somebody who has more than two brain cells firing and claims he's OK with Ron Paul in a general sort of way, but just can't vote for him because of his fear of Iran. Anybody read his...

But this argument is immediately self-defeating, at least partially. The Fed is what makes inflation. I don't think Bernanke himself would dispute this, if presssed. I guess the part about "more growth" though is probably a claim made by Fed supporters. I consider that mostly the same as the...

One argument is that "as production increases, the money supply should increase proportionally." This isn't an argument as much as a bald assertion. But it clicks with so many people's intution that they've often accepted it as given with being able to tell you why they believe it. You could...

If you haven't been convinced of Rick Perry's "conversion", that is fine. But there is no reason to bash the guy when he is doing the right thing. If you must bash him, find an issue he is wrong about, start another thread and bash away. It's just like training a dog: positive reinforcement...

So my answer would be "To trick the properly skeptical anti-Federalist into a a massive cetralization of power". Do I pass the test?

Do "people who are paid directly from stolen funds, and expect such theft to continue as a necessary and sufficient condition of their employment" constitute a group who have "made their intentions of violence clear"? Honest question. "No" is viable answer, as long as you show your work.

What if I shoot at a robber at my actual literal front door, but miss and hit a granny across the street in the head? Hopefully, I'll feel really shitty and attempt some reparations. But am I going to claim that I shouldn't have taken the shot? No. I'm going to claim I should have had better...

whatever else I say, I wanna say I agree with this, at least in accordance to my own understandings of the terms.

Ya but haven't the people who have joined Ghadaffi's actual army pretty much actually signalled their intention, in a fully libertarian qualified way, that they intend on committing violence on other people, like right now? So am I morally allowed to take pot shots at them or not? Please let me...

So, in your moral opinion, just killing a random rights-violating tyrant only because he is a rights-violating tyrant is wrong?

Hmmm ... I'm going to have to say, that you are correct on this. Self defense only includes defending yourself. But what about the greater moral question of "when is violence allowed?" Am I only allowed to defend my own body? How bout my wife? How bout my children? My neighbors? My fellow...

I'm pretty sure if the Kaddaffi guys can get a hold of the "rebel forces", they are going to kill them. Do you disagree?

I agree in theory. I'm trying to be a Practical Anarcho-Capitalist. I'm pretty sure the U.S. govmt would have a problem with any attempts at a modern day "lincoln brigade" type deal. So wouldn't my proposed alternative be preferrable to both (a) Kadaffi staying in power and (b) the status quo...

ya, I'm kind of stirring the pot conditions: 1) withdraw from Iraq 2) withdraw from Afghanistan 3) all-volunteer forces* 4) all funds** for project are raised on a voluntary basis*** * I don't mean they volunteered for the Navy. I mean they volunteered for this particular mission/campaign...