Fractional reserve vs. ZERO reserve banking

[Optatron]

9000 posts, mostly antaganistoc against the freedom movement

the audience can judge

, do you really think we can't see what you are, despite quoting austrian economic books?

You can tell a tree by it's fruit, and your tree produces rotten fruit.

yeah, what's this guy ever done?

 

[Optatron]

You have every right to disagree with me, and I have every right to rebutt why you disagree with me...that is freedom.

I don't recall me coming to your house with a gun to make you agree with me.

that's not an option in Conza's world.

 

[buffalokid777]

POLL - Is Conza88 a cointelpro infiltrator for the globalists?

I say YES

 

[buffalokid777]

Come on Conza88, we're waiting for your rebuttal, we believe in freedom here. And your free speech is welcome!

 

[Mini-Me]

I say YES

Is Conza88 a Cointelpro infiltrator for the globalists? It's possible, but I don't think so. The way I see it, Cointelpro's mission here would be to create infighting and neutralize us, and he only partially fits the bill:

• First, they would probably push very specific views and intolerance for alternatives, creating a divisive atmosphere where we split into many increasingly hostile groups: e.g. minarchists vs. anarcho-capitalists, atheists vs. theists, evangelist Christians vs. other theists, pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers, etc. Conza definitely does this one...
• After dividing us into hostile factions, they'd create an atmosphere of suspicion wherein everyone is led to believe that "the other faction" is Cointelpro infiltration at work...or worse, that anyone and everyone could be Cointelpro, so we should probably all retreat under a rock. The former has been happening recently actually. Conza doesn't seem to do this one...although some people took some of his comments as an accusation that all minarchists are trolls, I think they misunderstood him. Rather, he was pointing out the following: Recently, a couple of minarchists have made blanket accusations or insinuations that the anarcho-capitalists are Cointelpro infiltrators and/or doing Cointelpro's bidding. In most cases, this is almost certainly not true (because anarcho-capitalism is even more dangerous than minarchy to the idea of centralized tyranny under the NWO), but there's an exception, and that leads me to my next point:
• Third, Cointelpro would want to neutralize the anarcho-capitalists - and use them as a neutralizing factor against others - by convincing them to decry all political action as immoral, no matter what. That's not to say that anarcho-capitalists who believe this are necessarily Cointelpro...but it's something to think about, and I definitely think the globalists want the an-caps to take this attitude. As far as Conza goes, the shoes definitely don't fit here. Rather than decry all political action as immoral and demand that people push education completely outside the political sphere, he vocally defends political action as a legitimate way of simultaneously educating people and fighting against state tyranny (so long as we never compromise in favor of increasing the state's power).

Although I suppose different infiltrators might work on different aspects of dividing and neutralizing us to avoid looking TOO suspicious, there's something else that leads me to believe Conza is genuine:
He is not only on this forum. He's also on Youtube and digg, where he defends (or at least defended in the past) the ideas of limited government against those who favor unlimited government. Advocating anarcho-capitalism on digg would give people heart attacks, since half of the people there are barely willing to listen to a message of limited government at all. The mere fact that he tailors his message to his audience tells me that he probably isn't purposely trying to turn people off as much as he can...

So no, I could be wrong, but I don't think Conza is Cointelpro. I just think he's a huge asshole and possibly a narcissist...and if so, one of the few who miraculously manage to not only go against the grain but be anti-state as well (actually, if it weren't for Conza, I would think it utterly inconceivable for a narcissist to be a vocal and principled libertarian...and it might be). I want to like him, but he makes it a bit difficult.

 

[Conza88]

Come on Conza88, we're waiting for your rebuttal, we believe in freedom here. And your free speech is welcome!

OH I'm sorry... I just went for a 60 km ride... you can wait in line like a good little child. Patience is a virtue...

 

[Optatron]

Is Conza88 a Cointelpro infiltrator for the globalists?

OK, that's too much.

I have my disagreements with him, and dislikes, but I don't think cointelpro is necessary (for globalists, or Conza, or here)

It's possible, but I don't think so. The way I see it, Cointelpro's mission here would be to create infighting and neutralize us,

Fortunately, they don't need to send or pay anybody, that's just what trolls do, they have no agenda or belief, they just like to drama. I'm not calling Conza a troll, just saying if infighting was being intentionally started, it doesn't need a purpose.

and he only partially fits the bill:

• First, they would probably push very specific views and intolerance for alternatives, creating a divisive atmosphere where we split into many increasingly hostile groups: e.g. minarchists vs. anarcho-capitalists, atheists vs. theists, evangelist Christians vs. other theists, pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers, etc. Conza definitely does this one...
• After dividing us into hostile factions, they'd create an atmosphere of suspicion wherein everyone is led to believe that "the other faction" is Cointelpro infiltration at work...or worse, that anyone and everyone could be Cointelpro, so we should probably all retreat under a rock. The former has been happening recently actually. Conza doesn't seem to do this one...although some people took some of his comments as an accusation that all minarchists are trolls, I think they misunderstood him. Rather, he was pointing out the following: Recently, a couple of minarchists have made blanket accusations or insinuations that the anarcho-capitalists are Cointelpro infiltrators and/or doing Cointelpro's bidding. In most cases, this is almost certainly not true (because anarcho-capitalism is even more dangerous than minarchy to the idea of centralized tyranny under the NWO), but there's an exception, and that leads me to my next point:
• Third, Cointelpro would want to neutralize the anarcho-capitalists - and use them as a neutralizing factor against others - by convincing them to decry all political action as immoral, no matter what. That's not to say that anarcho-capitalists who believe this are necessarily Cointelpro...but it's something to think about, and I definitely think the globalists want the an-caps to take this attitude. As far as Conza goes, the shoes definitely don't fit here. Rather than decry all political action as immoral and demand that people push education completely outside the political sphere, he vocally defends political action as a legitimate way of simultaneously educating people and fighting against state tyranny (so long as we never compromise in favor of increasing the state's power).

Although I suppose different infiltrators might work on different aspects of dividing and neutralizing us to avoid looking TOO suspicious, there's something else that leads me to believe Conza is genuine:
He is not only on this forum. He's also on Youtube and digg, where he defends (or at least defended in the past) the ideas of limited government against those who favor unlimited government. Advocating anarcho-capitalism on digg would give people heart attacks, since half of the people there are barely willing to listen to a message of limited government at all. The mere fact that he tailors his message to his audience tells me that he probably isn't purposely trying to turn people off as much as he can...

All this stuff is thinking too much, in my opinion.

So no, I could be wrong, but I don't think Conza is Cointelpro. I just think he's a huge asshole and possibly a narcissist...and if so, one of the few who miraculously manage to not only go against the grain but be anti-state as well (actually, if it weren't for Conza, I would think it utterly inconceivable for a narcissist to be a vocal and principled libertarian...and it might be). I want to like him, but he makes it a bit difficult.

I like him for entertainment and information.
I don't think he's got any bad intentions, but ego and narcissist? Yeah.
Except, he's only got an internet screenname, no picture or list of accomplishments in real life to run with.

 

[Mini-Me]

OK, that's too much.

I have my disagreements with him, and dislikes, but I don't think cointelpro is necessary (for globalists, or Conza, or here)




Fortunately, they don't need to send or pay anybody, that's just what trolls do, they have no agenda or belief, they just like to drama. I'm not calling Conza a troll, just saying if infighting was being intentionally started, it doesn't need a purpose.

I agree about trolls, but I'd be shocked if there weren't agents (or mere hired trolls) here too...so I think buffalokid777's question is legitimate, even if I disagree with his conclusion.

All this stuff is thinking too much, in my opinion.

buffalokid777's most recent post was, "I say YES" with "POLL - Is Conza88 a cointelpro infiltrator for the globalists?" as the subject. I just wanted to answer it honestly, hence the detailed analysis.

I like him for entertainment and information.
I don't think he's got any bad intentions, but ego and narcissist? Yeah.
Except, he's only got an internet screenname, no picture or list of accomplishments in real life to run with.

Well, there's no question about his ego. There's a question about narcissism though, because I'm referring specifically to pathological narcissism, which is much more twisted than mere vanity and ego...it's tough to make even a casual assessment, because certain characteristics fit the bill, but others really do not, namely the fact that he subscribes to the most anti-authoritarian ideology out there, and not only that, but he's going against the grain to do so. That part doesn't jibe very well with narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[Conza88]

no, didn't say that.

But observing something helps create a reason to believe it's part of universal law.

No it doesn't.

Exactly my point, so why should I trust your interpretation just because you have a list of books that say what you want to believe?

refresh, specifically for the sake of this discussion.

That wasn't your point. You shouldn't, you should trust REASON, logic, apriori - deductive reasoning..

Refresh your memory? LMAO, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Nothing new here.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1a.asp#1._The_Concept_of_Action_

 

[Conza88]

And you were asking me if I should believe in social sciences?

Keynesian is based on scientific method?

You keep saying Austrian is praxelogy, but then it's not based on scientific method?

So you believe in Natural law? Why only in the natural sciences, and not the social sciences?

Keynesian is based on empiricism / positivism / models of bullshit, false premises and fallacies.

Praxeology is the science of human action.

Yes says you.

Says REASON.

He was speaking in metaphor, every act has a consequence, OR IS THAT WRONG TOO???

No, he wasn't. He was referring to a the third physical law of motion, that of which all 3 which form the basis of classical mechanics are called: Newton's Laws of Motion.

JUST not as you like them to act.

No, exactly how they act. See: MES Chpter 1. And first few Chapters of Human Action.

 

[Conza88]

exactly

I don't care how much he denies he's a socialist, or anti-statist, he quotes the NAP, then turns around and says we all have to follow his beliefs of NL or morality, because only HE has it right.

Nobody gets to disagree with him, yet he claims he believes in freedom.

9000 posts, mostly antaganistoc against the freedom movement, do you really think we can't see what you are, despite quoting austrian economic books?

You can tell a tree by it's fruit, and your tree produces rotten fruit.

You have every right to disagree with me, and I have every right to rebutt why you disagree with me...that is freedom.

I don't recall me coming to your house with a gun to make you agree with me.

the audience can judge

yeah, what's this guy ever done?

that's not an option in Conza's world.

Is Conza88 a cointelpro infiltrator for the globalists?
I say YES

Come on Conza88, we're waiting for your rebuttal, we believe in freedom here. And your free speech is welcome!

Look at all the ad hominems and strawmen! Look at all the non answers to the proposed arguments... you guys out did yourselves!

Optatron, answered that question as to why you believe in natural law in the natural sciences and not the social sciences yet?

Buffalokid777, figure out the correct epistemology yet? And why the scientific method fails in the social sciences? No? Want to ad hominem me as your response? I mean it's okay to vent, but it is delirious when you do so with no argument

Well, there's no question about his ego.

It's hard to stay grounded when the person you are "debating" still isn't even able to give a complete definition of the word "idea" after being asked roughly 10 times and failing ever time. Or when you "debate" someone who after 8 pages, getting backed into a corner goes, "Ohhh ohh noo... I don't actually believe in rights.. sorry I was just pretending."

It's pretty hard when you come further across the political spectrum, you shed more fallacies than them, you've dealt with the bs arguments because you once believed them yourself... and they persist in error, even when being presented with the same information that converted you. When they are not intellectually honest for whatever reason.. and in fact refuse to be... I beg my pardon, it's not that I think I am superior... just that the persons actions clearly demonstrate - they are inferior. (their arguments).

There's a question about narcissism though, because I'm referring specifically to pathological narcissism, which is much more twisted than mere vanity and ego...it's tough to make even a casual assessment, because certain characteristics fit the bill, but others really do not, namely the fact that he subscribes to the most anti-authoritarian ideology out there, and not only that, but he's going against the grain to do so. That part doesn't jibe very well with narcissistic personality disorder.

Yeah, there is that whole you don't actually know me thing to contend with... take your amateur psychobabble and stow it. By the looks of it, you like listening to the sound of your own voice. (typing out your big pages of crap) Ohhh narcissism... lol

 

[Optatron]

Look at all the ad hominems and strawmen! Look at all the non answers to the proposed arguments... you guys out did yourselves!

Calling you a socialist is not an ad hominem, nor is saying that you don't allow people to disagree with you, or don't allow two people to agree on how to bank strawman, it's just what you said.

Asking "what have you ever done" isn't either.

Optatron, answered that question as to why you believe in natural law in the natural sciences and not the social sciences yet?

Why should I? You're the one who said social science doesn't follow the scientific method.

Buffalokid777, figure out the correct epistemology yet? And why the scientific method fails in the social sciences?

Correct epistemology according to you? What's to figure out? Just turn off our brains and listen to you.

Why the scientific method fails in SS? How about why SS fails to use SM?

No? Want to ad hominem me as your response? I mean it's okay to vent, but it is delirious when you do so with no argument

No need to.

It's hard to stay grounded when the person you are "debating" still isn't even able to give a complete definition of the word "idea" after being asked roughly 10 times and failing ever time. Or when you "debate" someone who after 8 pages, getting backed into a corner goes, "Ohhh ohh noo... I don't actually believe in rights.. sorry I was just pretending."

after knowing that you don't believe in rights, I found I hate to reword my beliefs to your usage and understanding. Just because I defended the concept of justifying protection of certain rights doesn't mean I believe in them, just that I UNDERSTAND WHY.

It's pretty hard when you come further across the political spectrum, you shed more fallacies than them, you've dealt with the bs arguments because you once believed them yourself... and they persist in error, even when being presented with the same information that converted you.

How do you think I think of you? Oh yes, you don't give a shit

When they are not intellectually honest for whatever reason.. and in fact refuse to be... I beg my pardon, it's not that I think I am superior... just that the persons actions clearly demonstrate - they are inferior. (their arguments).

No, asking you over and over how two people agreeing, and having secured loans is fraudulent, the best you can do is post links, and Block saying "no matter who agrees, its still wrong"

Yeah, there is that whole you don't actually know me thing to contend with... take your amateur psychobabble and stow it. By the looks of it, you like listening to the sound of your own voice. (typing out your big pages of crap) Ohhh narcissism... lol

you're the one who can't help but post images, magnify your fonts and parrot other people.

 

[Optatron]

No it doesn't.

Denial. End of story, that's the best you got?

So observation = not good enough, Conza's books = truth.
(oh no, not another strawman! correct me!)

That wasn't your point. You shouldn't, you should trust REASON, logic, apriori - deductive reasoning..

Deduction yes, reason yes, a priori? Not always.

Refresh your memory? LMAO, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Nothing new here.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1a.asp#1._The_Concept_of_Action_

We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human.

You can't conceive, how splendid! Should've known!

You can't imagine = doesn't exist
Not in your dictionary = don't ask.

Keynesian is based on empiricism / positivism / models of bullshit, false premises and fallacies.

False premises and fallacies yes, what's wrong with empricism and positivism?

How are your views any better in terms of "false premises and fallacies"?

Praxeology is the science of human action.

Which uses the SM or not?

Says REASON.

No, says YOU who THINKS you speak for reason.
Arrogance, ignorance and denial doesn't change facts.
Talk about dishonesty!

No, he wasn't. He was referring to a the third physical law of motion, that of which all 3 which form the basis of classical mechanics are called: Newton's Laws of Motion.

No, I don't even need to ask him or read his response, I know physics more than you, I know what 3rd law of motion is, as well as how it's metaphorical in the context that a human action has a reaction/response (and you've not denied it).

No, exactly how they act. See: MES Chpter 1. And first few Chapters of Human Action.

Just skimmed it, nowhere did it say you can predict human action, SOME SCIENCE.

 

[Conza88]

Calling you a socialist is not an ad hominem, nor is saying that you don't allow people to disagree with you, or don't allow two people to agree on how to bank strawman, it's just what you said.

Calling me a socialist is a lie. It is an "argument against the man".. which is what the rest of the bullshit equates to? Narcissistic? Counter pol infiltrator? LMFAO... I don't allow people to disagree with me, and I would use force? = Strawman and more bullshit.

Asking "what have you ever done" isn't either.

Answer: faaaaaaaaar more than you. What have YOU done?

Why should I?

Translation: you can't. Which is sad... no intellectual honesty. Again, why do you believe in natural law in the natural sciences, and why not in the social sciences? WHY NOT?

You're the one who said social science doesn't follow the scientific method.

Your school of thought can try.... But what you get is fallacies and bs. See: Keynesian for starters.

Correct epistemology according to you? What's to figure out? Just turn off our brains and listen to you.

No, he needs to TURN on his BRAIN.

Apriorism and Positivism in the Social Sciences by Roderik Long

Why the scientific method fails in SS? How about why SS fails to use SM?

Stop being a collectivist. Stop equating the whole social science into one school of thought. That is retarded, yet that is what you are doing.

Essentially the WHOLE science uses empiricism and positivism... that is why they are wrong. And they're all socialists. There are mountains of schools of thought that have tried to use SM in the social sciences and they all fail remarkably.

Economics is like logic. It is apriori.

Again, you can't answer the SIMPLE question. Why do you believe in natural law in the natural sciences and not in the social sciences?

after knowing that you don't believe in rights, I found I hate to reword my beliefs to your usage and understanding. Just because I defended the concept of justifying protection of certain rights doesn't mean I believe in them, just that I UNDERSTAND WHY.

I do believe in Natural Law -> natural rights -> natural justice.

Your POSITIVIST rights, you have a RIGHT to WORK - is SOCIALIST. You do not have a RIGHT to privacy... not to freedom of speech... you can't just go, I HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK, GIVE ME THIS MICROPHONE.

No... you have a right to property. You have a "right" to buy a microphone, and speakers... (property), to start a newspaper, to start a website, to write a book, whatever.. you also have a right to (property) i.e buy a bigger fence, buy curtains etc.. to protect your privacy.

Again, saying I don't believe in rights is bullshit. I don't believe in POSITIVE RIGHTS, because I'm not a socialist... no-where here does.. besides Kade.

No, asking you over and over how two people agreeing, and having secured loans is fraudulent, the best you can do is post links, and Block saying "no matter who agrees, its still wrong"

Nope. You owning a printing press, and me agreeing to accept the fraudulent pieces of paper (fiat money / pseudo receipts etc) doesn't make it legitimate. Especially when you use them to purchase goods, under the guise that they are backed by something. Or are you going to contend, you'll tell the shop owner: "Hey.. this is just a piece of paper with a few numbers on it. It is backed by nothing, and ultimately completely worthless.. since there is no force or coercion backing this fiduciary media up. Here, want to give me goods worth something, for a piece of paper that is worth nothing?

 

[Optatron]

Calling me a socialist is a lie. It is an "argument against the man".. which is what the rest of the bullshit equates to? Narcissistic?

In that you believe all humans act the same way and nobody gets to disagree with your values, yeah.

Counter pol infiltrator? LMFAO... I don't allow people to disagree with me, and I would use force? = Strawman and more bullshit.

I defended you against the BS cointelpro accusation.
You use force against anybody who disagrees with your NAP.

Answer: faaaaaaaaar more than you. What have YOU done?

Having a youtube channel is what you've done? Enough said.

Translation: you can't. Which is sad... no intellectual honesty. Again, why do you believe in natural law in the natural sciences, and why not in the social sciences? WHY NOT?

Because one can be observed and tested, social science doesn't pass that test as far as I know.

Calling something SCIENCE doesn't make it so,
By the same coin, calling it "natural law" and "natural rights" doesn't make it natural, just like calling it "Federal Reserve" and "Federal Express" doesn't make it so either.

Your school of thought can try.... But what you get is fallacies and bs. See: Keynesian for starters.

I don't agree with Keynesian, don't ask me to defend it.

Stop being a collectivist. Stop equating the whole social science into one school of thought. That is retarded, yet that is what you are doing.

THAT MUCH I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE, FOR THAT, WHY DID YOU ASK ME IF I BELIEVE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME?

Essentially the WHOLE science uses empiricism and positivism... that is why they are wrong.

So what's the alternative to using empiricism? A priori? You kidding me?

And they're all socialists. There are mountains of schools of thought that have tried to use SM in the social sciences and they all fail remarkably.

And what makes your views better? it passes SM? Or it's been tested? Or it's proven to work 300 years ago?

Economics is like logic. It is apriori.

Wrong and wrong.

Again, you can't answer the SIMPLE question. Why do you believe in natural law in the natural sciences and not in the social sciences?

I'LL ANSWER YOU NOW, I believe natural science because it can be tested and observed, social sciences cannot in the same manner. You even just admitted yourself you can't lump all SS into one pile.

"Stop equating the whole social science into one school of thought. That is retarded,"

If that's what you believe, why don't you just ask what it is you believe, or what I believe rather than the wide range of "SS" as if they're all the same and you must believe "All or nothing"?

I do believe in Natural Law -> natural rights -> natural justice.

As opposed to artificial justice?

Your POSITIVIST rights, you have a RIGHT to WORK - is SOCIALIST. You do not have a RIGHT to privacy... not to freedom of speech... you can't just go, I HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK, GIVE ME THIS MICROPHONE.

I don't believe in right to work, or right to privacy, or free speech, I only exercise what I can get away with.

No... you have a right to property. You have a "right" to buy a microphone, and speakers... (property), to start a newspaper, to start a website, to write a book, whatever.. you also have a right to (property) i.e buy a bigger fence, buy curtains etc.. to protect your privacy.

No I don't I don't have a right just because YOU SAY I DO.
I know you think and believe you have better justification than just your belief, I'm not convinced yet.

I PREFER to have property and privacy doesn't mean I have a right to either, both are equally exercisable and deniable. (or else we'd not have this discussion).

Again, saying I don't believe in rights is bullshit. I don't believe in POSITIVE RIGHTS, because I'm not a socialist... no-where here does.. besides Kade.

I never said you don't believe in rights.
I said I DON'T believe in rights.
I don't believe positive and negative rights are any reasonable distinction, they're just what societies have decided is affordable to entitle and protect some, while leaving the rest to "personal responsibility".

You don't have a "right to life" just because people choose not to shoot you.
They can shoot you anytime they feel like it, no matter what you believe.
Just because you're fortunate enough to be spared your life doesn't mean you get to say you have "right to life" as if every person owes you the right to live, MR VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE.

Nope. You owning a printing press, and me agreeing to accept the fraudulent pieces of paper (fiat money / pseudo receipts etc) doesn't make it legitimate.

Sneaking in the word fraud doesn't make it so.

A paper is a paper.

You'd not put up with this crap if we were talking about printing books.

You'd say "what's wrong with copying a book if I'm not misrepresenting it as authorized by the author"

I say "what's wrong with printing play money if I'm not calling it real money"?

Especially when you use them to purchase goods, under the guise that they are backed by something.

KEYWORDs : UNDER THE GUISE.

If you used it as what it was, PLAY MONEY, and somebody agreed to accepted a stupid peice of paper worth nothing in return for a bread, why is that wrong?

Or are you going to contend, you'll tell the shop owner: "Hey.. this is just a piece of paper with a few numbers on it. It is backed by nothing, and ultimately completely worthless.. since there is no force or coercion backing this fiduciary media up. Here, want to give me goods worth something, for a piece of paper that is worth nothing?

YES, I would tell them that, or else I'd be lying.

So your question is? Don't think I would? Don't think being honest is good enough?
Don't believe people have the right to accept worthless paper in exchange for goods? Not holding up your "value is subjective" claim anymore?

 

[Mini-Me]

Yeah, there is that whole you don't actually know me thing to contend with... take your amateur psychobabble and stow it. By the looks of it, you like listening to the sound of your own voice. (typing out your big pages of crap) Ohhh narcissism... lol

Meh. As far as my amateur psychobabble goes, I'm just calling them like I see them, not claiming any real diagnosis. In any case, as I said, narcissism is a whole lot more twisted than mere vanity and ego anyway (as WRellim said a while back, it's not their vanity that's the problem; it's their sociopathy). There are a few traits I've seen no evidence for and some that I've seen strong evidence against, so I can't even casually call you out with any certainty. I just have my suspicions that something's "off" about your personality, and the way you pissed off jon_perez reminded me of them. Really, the only reason I even shared my opinion this time was to explain how you could possibly act the way you do (i.e. possible pathology) without being an intentional troll or agent or something like that.

Oh, and about my big pages of crap...writing down my thoughts on a thread topic helps me sort them out, and I like to be thorough. Make what you want out of that.

 

[Conza88]

In that you believe all humans act the same way.

Lie. Prove it. In context. Thanks. This is all you've got. Quite honestly, do you act dumb because you find it amusing, or do you do it because you think I find it annoying.. and that also pleases you?

and nobody gets to disagree with your values, yeah.

Again more lies.

I defended you against the BS cointelpro accusation.
You use force against anybody who disagrees with your NAP.

You didn't defend me from anything... because my position wasn't attacked. Fallacies kill the argument. Don't you realise that? All the idiotic and side stepping crap that was through, all missed. It didn't even address anything of substance.. btw, I wouldn't call that a "defense".

Again. Liar. You can disagree with the nap... it's just that when you violate natural law... when I have a right property.. I also have a right to protect it. I am ethically and morally justified in defending it. Doesn't matter what you think.. it's what you do. ACTION fool. You can "disagree" with it... but it's when you VIOLATE it... that you get PDA in your face.

Sorry that you can't violate people and property like you want to... libertinism fails.

Having a youtube channel is what you've done? Enough said.

This is what I mean. Forever the douchebag.

Video Views: 731,254

How many you think were introduced to Ron Paul, or converted, found out more about him because of me? Hmm? Let's compare to what you've done.... OH wait... yeah, not seeing anything. OH yeah, you ignored it. Nuff' said.

Because one can be observed and tested, social science doesn't pass that test as far as I know.

You don't know much do you? Both can be observed. Economics, as a social science - what is the correct epistemology? Have you got it yet? Hmm? Why

Calling something SCIENCE doesn't make it so,
By the same coin, calling it "natural law" and "natural rights" doesn't make it natural, just like calling it "Federal Reserve" and "Federal Express" doesn't make it so either. [/QUOTE]

Define science then. Define natural law. Define natural rights. Define praxeology! Again, you've done your absolute best (which is pretty shameful tbh) to avoid answering the question.

I don't agree with Keynesian, don't ask me to defend it.

Ohhh so you don't agree with empiricism / positivism / scientific method? What do you think is the correct epistemology in economics then? HMM?

THAT MUCH I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE, FOR THAT, WHY DID YOU ASK ME IF I BELIEVE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME?

I didn't ask you if you believed in SOCIAL SCIENCE you fcken IDIOT! I asked what you believed was the CORRECT epistemology for it! There are schools of thought, that are in the social sciences (economics for eg.) that have the WRONG EPISTEMOLOGY AND THEY ARE FCKING THE WORLD UP.

YOU believe in NATURAL LAW in the NATURAL SCIENCES. We have established that... yes? Newton's laws etc.

So I am asking.. why not natural law in the SOCIAL SCIENCES?! And there is a science to it. But it needs a different epistemology.. now answer the questions.

So what's the alternative to using empiricism? A priori? You kidding me?

There are other alternatives, but they are also wrong. A priori is the correct one. And..... why would you think I am kidding? Name your objections... The only school of thought that saw this whole economic crisis coming... as early as 2002 - uses apriori.

Basically every single uni course out there... every single economist, every single lecturer, every single businessman, politican, who fricken ever - had no idea it was coming.. bar the Austrian Economists... and Peter Schiff.

How the fck do you reconcile that, Ron Paul and everything else and think it is a joke / wrong?

Are you sane?

And what makes your views better? it passes SM? Or it's been tested? Or it's proven to work 300 years ago?

Logic. And deductive reasoning using praxeology. Having the correct epistemology for starters. See: Ron Paul.

Wrong and wrong.

When one argues for the free market on utilitarian grounds, one starts with particular actions by the individual. In starting with a natural rights argument the “a priori”becomes “the gift of life and liberty” as natural or God-given.

Optatron, why is Ron Paul wrong? ....

I'LL ANSWER YOU NOW, I believe natural science because it can be tested and observed, social sciences cannot in the same manner. You even just admitted yourself you can't lump all SS into one pile.

Nope, I didn't. You misunderstood, or you know and are acting a fool. Tbh, I thought the latter, but now I'm beginning to think it's not deliberate... lol, you really are lost.

"Stop equating the whole social science into one school of thought. That is retarded,"

If that's what you believe, why don't you just ask what it is you believe, or what I believe rather than the wide range of "SS" as if they're all the same and you must believe "All or nothing"?

You were painting every school of thought within the social sciences, with ONE brush. Which is idiotic, fallacious and WRONG. Basically the entire corpus of social sciences these days and in the past, are attempting to apply the scientific method to their branch. But when humans are dealt with, praxeology must be used. The science of HUMAN ACTION.

As opposed to artificial justice?

As opposed to no justice at all.

I don't believe in right to work, or right to privacy, or free speech, I only exercise what I can get away with.

Oh so you are LEARNING? Or was this.. You have no RIGHT to privacy

.. All a game to you? You got schooled didn't you. (Or will you take back what you just said - and say you believe in rights?

No I don't I don't have a right just because YOU SAY I DO.
I know you think and believe you have better justification than just your belief, I'm not convinced yet.

Of COURSE you don't have a right to just because I SAY so... You have a right to it, because you OWN your BODY. It is your property... your free will is inalienable.. you cannot get rid of it.. even if you want too! Philosophy of self ownership...

Why is Ron Paul wrong? Hmmm?

I PREFER to have property and privacy doesn't mean I have a right to either, both are equally exercisable and deniable. (or else we'd not have this discussion).

Thanks for conceding... AGAIN
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=19712

I never said you don't believe in rights.
I said I DON'T believe in rights.
I don't believe positive and negative rights are any reasonable distinction, they're just what societies have decided is affordable to entitle and protect some, while leaving the rest to "personal responsibility".

LIAR.

after knowing that you don't believe in rights, I found I hate to reword my beliefs to your usage and understanding. Just because I defended the concept of justifying protection of certain rights doesn't mean I believe in them, just that I UNDERSTAND WHY.

You don't have a "right to life" just because people choose not to shoot you. They can shoot you anytime they feel like it, no matter what you believe.
Just because you're fortunate enough to be spared your life doesn't mean you get to say you have "right to life" as if every person owes you the right to live, MR VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE.

You have a right to property. Which, your life is. Inextricably. Self ownership. You have an inalienable right.

Sure, they can shoot me any time.. and they forfeit their rights to the extent that they violated them.

The Subjective Theory of Value

The study of Austrian economics has helped me in many ways to understand what happens in our economy, and the excuses of the establishment economists as to why we’re not achieving the paradise that politicians promised if only their legislation were passed.

Of all the important contributions of the Austrian School, the subjective theory of value has proven most helpful to me in understanding why things aren’t as the interventionists say they ought to be. According to the soothsayers, there’s always an easy excuse. In Russia, it’s always the weather. In the interventionist United States, it’s “timing,” “the technicians,” “the residuals of capitalism,’’ “tax policy,” “too little spending,” “assistance to the wrong special interest,” etc. The excuses are endless.

There are some who have heard of the subjective theory of value but are hesitant to accept it because they prefer “objectivity” to “subjectivity.” Yet if consumers subjectively set prices and values by affecting supply and demand (and thus sales), this is an important objective finding. Just because we can measure monetary aggregates, or hours spent producing a product, we decide these objective facts can be used to determine value. Yet it is really not the way prices are determined, so these facts are not objectively useful for this purpose. Those who would use these “objective” facts for calculating future “price levels” are quick to reject the objectivity of certain economic laws that are glaringly apparent, e.g., government planning leads to chaos; printing money creates no new wealth; fiat money cannot replace commodity money without force and fraud, etc.

Why is Ron Paul wrong optatron?

 

[Conza88]

Sneaking in the word fraud doesn't make it so.

Saying property exists, when it doesn't. Does. Proceeding on that fact regardless. Does.

A paper is a paper.

Yes, absolutely. That's my point. What makes it FIAT paper is a whole new kettle of fish. Force / coercion / fraud...

You'd not put up with this crap if we were talking about printing books.

You'd say "what's wrong with copying a book if I'm not misrepresenting it as authorized by the author"

I say "what's wrong with printing play money if I'm not calling it real money"?

False analogy. Ideas are not property, they are a non-scarce resource. Nothing wrong with printing anything that you want, if it doesn't break a binding contract EULA.

Money is representative of property, i.e it stores value. (Talking REAL money here, not FIAT currency bs) i.e Gold, or other commodities. Money is a medium of exchange. Nothing wrong with printing paper, and not using it to exchange goods under the guise it is backed by something (FRB).

See... below, by none other than Walter Block lulz..

! The (non government) Counterfeiter... Chpter 14

KEYWORDs : UNDER THE GUISE.

If you used it as what it was, PLAY MONEY, and somebody agreed to accepted a stupid peice of paper worth nothing in return for a bread, why is that wrong?

If it is just a piece of paper, and somebody agreed to accept this piece of paper worth nothing. If they knew it was worth nothing, and you presented it as such. Then it is an isolated incident and they are idiots.

But that is NOT FRB. FRB is institutional and it is representing property, which does not exist. Fraud. More pseudo receipts, than they are backed up with. Non-property. Backed by nothing. Fraud.

YES, I would tell them that, or else I'd be lying.

So your question is? Don't think I would? Don't think being honest is good enough?
Don't believe people have the right to accept worthless paper in exchange for goods? Not holding up your "value is subjective" claim anymore?

I don't need a follow up question. You've made you position absurd. Please, go get a camera and go to 100 shops.. there is nothing stopping you from doing this now. Go get your pieces of paper and try get some goods for it. NO? Why not? Scared of the results? lol.

But more to the point - that isn't FRB. a piece of paper doesn't translate into money. You could be bartering.... lulz. When you are just presenting it as a piece of paper, just as if you were using a piece of string, NOT as money, not a warehouse receipt or anything.. then you're engaged in a trade.

 

[jon_perez]

I just have my suspicions that something's "off" about your personality, and the way you pissed off jon_perez reminded me of them.

But you made me laugh with this:

What movie was this from again... ? And yes, ironically, I am the one enjoying some right now...

 

[Optatron]

Lie. Prove it. In context. Thanks. This is all you've got. Quite honestly, do you act dumb because you find it amusing, or do you do it because you think I find it annoying.. and that also pleases you?

Do you not believe :

1. Private courts, PDA that listen to the market can't be corrupted?
2. Everybody will always look for profit before other values?
3. Everybody will do their part to prevent monopoly?
4. Everybody thinks for themselves, and acts for themselves in a manner that doesn't violate others (and if they do, consequences will always follow)?
5. There is no downside or double edge sword to freedom?

If you don't believe any of these, then I apologize for mistaking you.
If you believe all the above are true, how can you say I'm lying?