Fractional reserve vs. ZERO reserve banking

[Optatron]

In the natural sciences. And it has a different epistemology for that very reason.

Then I answered you, didn't I?

You have the correct epistemology for starters. Something you know nothing about.

Suffice to say, I believe in description, but not prescription.

I have not heard any good justifications for prescription of morality, political systems, or otherwise behavioral restrictions. But I'm willing to listen.

 

[Conza88]

Never said it was.

But that doesn't mean I must accept all other methods you come up with.

You don't say anything. Yet you use all these words. All of which you propose no arguments or anything of any considerable value to the discussion. *yawwwwwwwwwn*

Yes I have a concept of logic, or else I couldn't be a scientist.

Mathematics is dependent on axioms, at least the expression and usage is, a language. A triangle is what it is (and not what it is not).

Economics uses the same logic. Deductive. You're not a scientist. Not one who has any concept of the correct epistemology to use in SS.

Nope, depends on what truth means to you too.

I can't stop you from claiming because gravity is true, therefore Jesus died for our sins and we're all going to heaven if we stop lying.

There are absolute truths.

I wasn't trying to invalidate reason, I was pointing out you don't get to represent reason just because you claim you are. Theocrat doesn't get to speak for God just because he claims he is.

Strawman again. It is not WHO decides what natural law is, but WHAT. And that is reason.

denials full of fail? What's succeed for denials????

A valid argument, something you seem impossible to present.

It's negative, so it doesn't prescribe proper behavior? Does it logically follow that one can prescribe morals based on NL?

Why should I care if you say "I violate" or "I can't violate" something?

Libertarianism deals with political ethics, not personal morality. The fact you don't know the distinction is clear, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Agreed, racism isn't violence.

Thanks for conceding it isn't.

Yes I do, so a person has no right to be free from discrimination, good.
Why does a person have a right to be free from being beaten up?

Positive rights bullshit. Don't do that. And no they are not all privileges.

I'm not sure I agree a person has natural rights.

Do you own your body? philosophy of Self ownership? Can you get rid of your free will? hmmm?

I didn't reject it, I doubted I hold them as truths and guidelines to live by.

You did, because you didn't accept it. What is this bullshit middle ground you hold? It is the no mans nihilism land in the world of non existence. It is retarded.

You're lying or putting words in my mouth if you think I ONCE SAID that humans don't act.

OH so they do act, always? Thanks for agreeing with the action axiom.

Failed according to you and your friend Block, based on different definitions, YOU failed to even show ONE person who was LIED TO, FRAUDED.

I didn't fail anything. Even under your own definition, your little retarded example wasn't FRB... Aaaaaahahahaha

There shouldn't be because I believe in respecting individual differences, so I don't believe in using social sciences, or epistemology to impose values on people who may disagree. I don't believe in forcin people who don't believe in property to respect property, you can only enforce that by violating a person's right to freely believe what he chooses (which I understand, you don't believe in).

You have a natural right to property you homestead etc. It thus logically follows you have a right to defend your property.

What you have just said, is all bullshit and doesn't actually have anything to do with natural law in the social sciences, or epistemology. It is all a strawman, all retarded and all wrong.

You have no idea what you are talking about and it is evident.

I will not state what is correct, as that'd make ME have to prove it, why should I when I never wanted one?

So all of this is meaningless? Your responses etc... The onus is ALREADY on you to DISPROVE natural law. And you haven't done anything of the sort, until then, stfu aye?

Never said I was disproving action axiom, or any axiom. Never said it was possible either.

Ethical according to gravity or Newton's laws?

Wrong branch of science. See: social science, which deals with humans. Need a different epistemology. Keep trying.

I'd add, history supports that force gets things accomplished, the more people move away from the realization that force and violence speak louder than words, the faster they are killed and hurt.

Force cannot accomplish civilization. More force does not equal more civilization. It actually leads to its quicker destruction. Keep trying.

Fair enough ,that's supply and demand. That's different than saying it's immoral to devalue something, since a person can choose whether devaluing something is beneficial to himself, harming society is no reason to not do something from a personal view.

You still have no idea about natural law. Keep trying.

Whoa? So you mean axioms CAN and ARE justified externally? I missed it?

Do humans exist? Do they act? Simple really.

A good reason why I don't buy SS. It's dependent on axioms.

So is mathematics. Ohhh don't believe in mathematics? LMFAO... (you just contradicted yourself from earlier)

YEs to both. I wont necessarily agree with the "...therefore" that follows.

And what is that?

I answered you, I don't deny either of those, BUT , those are not the axioms I have problems with. Though you poisoned the well that didn't allow me to add qualifiers to answer more carefully and honestly, these happen to be easy Qs.

Then stop raising your "objections" to them. Humans exist. And they act, always. Human action axiom - YOU just agreed to it.

So why are Austrian School of Economics and Ron Paul wrong again?

Not going to answer what I cannot.

Then why are you still reponding? You haven't answered anything... because you cannot. lmao

"Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?"

Socialist in the sense it imposes a moral system that all people must follow, or face punishment.

And you are socialist in the sense you violate peoples property rights, you hold them to a system where there is no justification for anything and everyone would face punishment all the time from everyone (libertinism), no rights, no natural law, no justice, no nothing...

there's no disagreement about supply vs demand, but there is disagreement whether supply vs demand can adequately account for all of economics, or if there are other properties we can prescribe following economics to morality.

Do you know the difference between ethics and morality? Hmm? The joiner between economics and ethics = PROPERTY.

I refuse to accept them, if you don't want to play, fine.

Preferring ignorance? No, skepticism and freedom.

Libertinism is not freedom. You're a nihilist, not a skeptic. Humans exist atm? If you are skeptical of that, you are fundamentally retarded.

 

[Conza88]

Then I answered you, didn't I?

No, you didn't. What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences?

Name the method to determine truth in the social sciences.. what is it? Go on!

Do you need to use the scientific method in mathematics? LMFAO.

Suffice to say, I believe in description, but not prescription.

I have not heard any good justifications for prescription of morality, political systems, or otherwise behavioral restrictions. But I'm willing to listen.

Suffice to say your distinction is bullshit. Ethics and morality, know the difference?

 

[Optatron]

No, you didn't. What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences?

Don't care, because
1. I subscribe to the scientific method
2. You admitted SS isn't SM validated
3. I respect individual freedom, and not SS

Name the method to determine truth in the social sciences.. what is it? Go on!

Do you need to use the scientific method in mathematics? LMFAO.

I don't care about SS, I don't know how better to say it, but the fact you admit SM doesn't apply is enough for me.

Yes, you need SM in mathematics, just insofar as having axioms, definitions, logic, observation, testing, repeatability, verification...etc.

Suffice to say your distinction is bullshit. Ethics and morality, know the difference?

Yes I know ethics and morality are different, not enough to matter in this discussion.

Wait, did you just say there's no difference between descr. & prescr. ?? What's the bullshit distinction?

 

[Optatron]

Libertinism is not freedom. You're a nihilist, not a skeptic. Humans exist atm? If you are skeptical of that, you are fundamentally retarded.

Libertinism is freedom to me, glad you admitted you believe in less freedom than me.

I'm a nihilist in terms of morality, I'm a skeptic and scientist on most other issues.

Humans exist as far as I know, when did I deny it?

 

[Conza88]

Don't care, because
1. I subscribe to the scientific method
2. You admitted SS isn't SM validated
3. I respect individual freedom, and not SS

Ah but you do care about SS. Individual freedom is apart of the social sciences. No? !

"What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences?"

Go ahead and admit you have no idea. It would be the most honest thing to do.

I don't care about SS, I don't know how better to say it, but the fact you admit SM doesn't apply is enough for me.

Yes, you need SM in mathematics, just insofar as having axioms, definitions, logic, observation, testing, repeatability, verification...etc.

You don't care about SS, then you can't care about individual freedom. Which is part of SS.... ahaha. No, you don't need the scientific method in mathematics. A = A and 1 + 1 = 2.

Why is the scientific method superior to praxeology in the social sciences?

Yes I know ethics and morality are different, not enough to matter in this discussion.

Wait, did you just say there's no difference between descr. & prescr. ?? What's the bullshit distinction?

It does matter. So what is it?

 

[Optatron]

You don't say anything. Yet you use all these words. All of which you propose no arguments or anything of any considerable value to the discussion. *yawwwwwwwwwn*

Your denial of my contribution's value, is fortunately not how I measure it.

Economics uses the same logic. Deductive.

As opposed to inductive, a priori? That'd be quite close to SM, wouldn't it?

You're not a scientist. Not one who has any concept of the correct epistemology to use in SS.

I'm not a social scientist, I'm a natural scientist.

There are absolute truths.

Descriptive? Agreed. Prescriptive? I wouldn't say that.
Have you responded to this yet?

Strawman again. It is not WHO decides what natural law is, but WHAT. And that is reason.

Saying it's reason don't make it so.
Theocrat can say his morality comes from God, doesn't make it so.
Being too lazy or unable to justify your claims, then slapping on an authoritative label in attempt to shut your opponent up....CLASSY!

A valid argument, something you seem impossible to present.

I'm just denying, wasn't trying to prove anything.

Libertarianism deals with political ethics, not personal morality. The fact you don't know the distinction is clear, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Political or personal, if it's PRESCRIPTION, they are not essentially different.

Thanks for conceding it isn't.

Baiting you to answer and then thanking for your spitting is not conceding.

Positive rights bullshit. Don't do that. And no they are not all privileges.

Now we're talking! I don't believe there's a difference between positive or negative rights, they're all rights, and all privileges, society just decided what's affordable to grant some, ignore others, deny some others.


Please respond or correct.

Do you own your body? philosophy of Self ownership? Can you get rid of your free will? hmmm?

No, I don't own my body, I own any body I can control, whether it's with my mind, my words or with my gun. Yes, I can get rid of my free will by getting drunk, I can get rid of your free will by cutting your hands off. I can even claim I have no will just to deny responsibility for the fun I have.

You did, because you didn't accept it. What is this bullshit middle ground you hold? It is the no mans nihilism land in the world of non existence. It is retarded.

Middle ground is I don't take the whole package, I accept some truths, and deny some things that don't meet my standard of truth, but you consider to be essential. So agreeing with you in part is in no way all or nothing.

OH so they do act, always? Thanks for agreeing with the action axiom.

Never said otherwise.

I didn't fail anything. Even under your own definition, your little retarded example wasn't FRB... Aaaaaahahahaha

You fail at admitting you're failing.
My example wasn't FRB by your definition, wasn't fraud either.

You have a natural right to property you homestead etc.

I don't accept that I have a natural right to property.

It thus logically follows you have a right to defend your property.

Why bother with the first premise I have a right to homestead?
Why not just skip to, I have a right to defend whatever I want?

What you have just said, is all bullshit and doesn't actually have anything to do with natural law in the social sciences, or epistemology. It is all a strawman, all retarded and all wrong.

You have no idea what you are talking about and it is evident.

I wasn't talking about epistemology, I was talking about the nature of SS, espeically when it's used to create policy or prescribe morality, I want NONE OF IT. You can't believe in liberty then turn around and say there should be a rule for all people in society to live by.

So all of this is meaningless? Your responses etc... The onus is ALREADY on you to DISPROVE natural law. And you haven't done anything of the sort, until then, stfu aye?

Keep saying I have the burden of proof.

Wrong branch of science. See: social science, which deals with humans. Need a different epistemology. Keep trying.

Not necessary, not interested.

Force cannot accomplish civilization.

Like I care about civilization.
Gold can't accomplish paper money either.

More force does not equal more civilization. It actually leads to its quicker destruction. Keep trying.

Depends on where the force is used.
Destruction of some, creation and protection of others.

You still have no idea about natural law. Keep trying.

Do humans exist? Do they act? Simple really.

Yes and yes, doesn't guarantee to follow what you're about to say next though!

So is mathematics. Ohhh don't believe in mathematics? LMFAO... (you just contradicted yourself from earlier)

I don't "BELIEVE" in mathematics as a PRESCRIPTION, that's correct.
I DO use mathematics for DESCRIPTIVE purposes.
SS may be good for description, but prescription is a whole nother beast.

And what is that?

Then stop raising your "objections" to them. Humans exist. And they act, always. Human action axiom - YOU just agreed to it.

So why are Austrian School of Economics and Ron Paul wrong again?

Then why are you still reponding? You haven't answered anything... because you cannot. lmao

"Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?"


And you are socialist in the sense you violate peoples property rights, you hold them to a system where there is no justification for anything and everyone would face punishment all the time from everyone (libertinism), no rights, no natural law, no justice, no nothing...

I'm not a socialist because I don't believe in any society, I don't care about other people. You keep talking about natural this and that, what could be more natural than the jungle where everything is up for grabs?

I don't believe in any rights, or entitlements, privileges, call it what you want, I believe a person can do whatever he can.

Do you know the difference between ethics and morality?

Yes, hardly any for the sake of this discussion though.

Hmm? The joiner between economics and ethics = PROPERTY.

Good, I don't believe in property as a right, God-given, unalienable, natural or otherwise.

I PREFER and VALUE property, just like you PREFER and VALUE privacy, doesn't mean I believe it's right for everybody.

 

[Conza88]

Libertinism is freedom to me, glad you admitted you believe in less freedom than me.

No, remember I asked you to define Freedom and you defined libertinism instead.

You're not for freedom from coercion or violence, or anything like that. You are for the freedom to violate other peoples rights.

You make the error of mixing up power, with freedom. Fail.

I'm a nihilist in terms of morality, I'm a skeptic and scientist on most other issues.

Humans exist as far as I know, when did I deny it?

I know you are, but we're not talking about personal morality, we're talking about political ethics.

I can be against gay marriage, and think it is immoral - but in terms of ethics also be against using force and coercion to stop it.

See the diff? There is a set of objective ethics. You've just had your head in the sand the whole time, thinking we're talking personal morality.

FAIL.

(For the record: I don't care who you or what you marry, it is a contract.. seperation of church and state ftw)

 

[Optatron]

Ah but you do care about SS. Individual freedom is apart of the social sciences. No? !

Maybe not to you, but irrelevant to me.

"What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences?"

Go ahead and admit you have no idea. It would be the most honest thing to do.

Why should I answer "what is the correct way to kill a pig" if I don't want to kill a pig?

You don't care about SS, then you can't care about individual freedom.

I don't care about YOUR freedom for sure.

Which is part of SS.... ahaha. No, you don't need the scientific method in mathematics. A = A and 1 + 1 = 2.

Yes you do, hypothesize, test, repeat.

A = A, 1+1 = 2 are very simple definitions in math, I think you know more than that.

Why is the scientific method superior to praxeology in the social sciences?

HA, don't put words in my mouth, never said it was.

It does matter. So what is it?

Ethics : the philosophic study of morality
Morality : the description of what is right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable. can also be prescriptive.

 

[Optatron]

No, remember I asked you to define Freedom and you defined libertinism instead.

You're not for freedom from coercion or violence, or anything like that. You are for the freedom to violate other peoples rights.

We may disagree on rights, so naturally you think I'm violating you in some places and vice versa.

You make the error of mixing up power, with freedom. Fail.

They are not the same , no more than privacy and property are the same, but they're very closely knit.

I know you are, but we're not talking about personal morality, we're talking about political ethics.

Politics are composed of people, it's quite hard to have political ethics without some personal ethics to start, aint it?

I can be against gay marriage, and think it is immoral - but in terms of ethics also be against using force and coercion to stop it.

What is the morality that gay marriage is violating? The definition of man + woman? Christianity?

See the diff? There is a set of objective ethics. You've just had your head in the sand the whole time, thinking we're talking personal morality.

I'm not even going to try to say it any other way, sounds like semantics.

FAIL.

(For the record: I don't care who you or what you marry, it is a contract.. seperation of church and state ftw)

You don't believe in separation of church and state, you don't even believe in a state.
I don't think you believe in contracts either, or else you'd honor copyright agreements, and stupid loans.

 

[Conza88]

I don't think you believe in contracts either, or else you'd honor copyright agreements, and stupid loans.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

 

[Optatron]

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property.

Just what I thought, you DON'T respect a person's right to make stupid decisions or contracts that violate, give up or ignore private property. No wonder you believe all FRB are "fraudulent".

As far as we know, no one has pushed the promise theory this far.

And it wouldn't matter if one did, you'd just say it's wrong.

What you recommend I read is not new, just not sensible to me.

 

[Conza88]

In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property.

Just what I thought, you DON'T respect a person's right to make stupid decisions or contracts that violate, give up or ignore private property. No wonder you believe all FRB are "fraudulent".

As far as we know, no one has pushed the promise theory this far.

And it wouldn't matter if one did, you'd just say it's wrong.

What you recommend I read is not new, just not sensible to me.

... But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.



Nope, wrong again. Your bs lil example isn't FRB. Keep on trying... keep on failing.