djschnei

36 ms·

331.
by djschnei 10y ago
Bingo. Much clearer than how I said it haha
332.
by djschnei 10y ago
That difference is (should be) determined by the individual (owner of the body). That is the point, and you are missing it.
333.
by djschnei 10y ago
You're completely missing the point. The point isn't which is more life shattering (no one is arguing that), the point is that our laws should protect against coercion against one's body. Forced labor and rape are differing
334.
by djschnei 10y ago
Interactions with foreign parties is rarely enforced through domestic law (in this sense). It's the job of your government to protect you from foreign governments. Your government having intelligence agreements with our government is
335.
by djschnei 10y ago
CRAs are beholden to the organizations that pay them. The megabanks pay to have their debt rated, S&P rates it. The Mega banks didn't like this move, the S&P rates it. I said the uncertainty created by this move would obvious
336.
by djschnei 10y ago
All to be expected. 1) Things are clearly less predictable now. 2) The mega banks are in bed with the central banks, of course they want to send a message.
337.
by djschnei 10y ago
Not sure how I'm failing to make my point. I said post WW Europe had regressive protectionism. The initial unions did alleviate some of that. However, over time it turned into a larger version of the initial problem.
338.
by djschnei 10y ago
Clearly, free trade can and did exist before 1992, 1957, and 1942. My point was that the initial idea behind the union (in it's various forms) was to ease the pain felt by the existing regressive protectionism of the region. All in a
339.
by djschnei 10y ago
I'm not a globalist! I promise! My comment was snarky haha.
340.
by djschnei 10y ago
Bureaucracies, like everything, come in varying forms and magnitudes. In my years of studying, the most successful frameworks (bureaucracies, whatever you want to call them) served very limited and precise purposes. I agree, for mutually
341.
by djschnei 10y ago
Yes, because prior to the Hague Congress the countries that now inhabit the EU were shining examples of free trade. With the exception of Ludwig Erhard in Germany (which despite losing the war, had the strongest economic recovery), protect
342.
by djschnei 10y ago
I think you took it that I meant they should? I ensure you, I do not.
343.
by djschnei 10y ago
I suppose, semantically you are correct. I would suggest that a framework for mutually beneficial interaction (interdependence?) doesn't need a bureaucracy to be enforced. In fact, the need for a coercive third party proves the short
344.
by djschnei 10y ago
No, free trade did that. The EU does not have a patent on free trade. In fact, they are pretty horrible at it.
345.
by djschnei 10y ago
The EU is a vast bureaucracy, not a "framework for interdependence." You don't need a limitless bureaucracy to prevent war, you need free and open commerce. Otto T. Mallery, a late 19th century liberal, in his “Economic Uni
346.
by djschnei 10y ago
A bureaucracy in Brussels is hardly necessary to enact simple pan-European tariff reductions. It is necessary, however, to begin building what globalism truly demands: a de facto European government, complete with dense regulatory and tax r
347.
Brexit – The Full Movie(youtube.com)
11 points by djschnei 10y ago|0 comments
348.
by djschnei 10y ago
Hmmm, I made no statement about current laws. I stated my beliefs on natural rights. To concede the general power of government to redress private discrimination through legislation would be to concede virtually unlimited power to the gov
349.
by djschnei 10y ago
Since I am not a god, and every person has a right to self ownership (extending to their property), a hotel owner has every right to decide by whatever criteria they see fit who uses their property. Just as I have every right to decide my
350.
by djschnei 10y ago
I'll have to check it out! Haven't finished this one yet, but I'm enjoying it very much. His ability to break complex ideas down into their most easily consumable bits of logic is very appealing to the technologist in me.
351.
by djschnei 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
352.
Economics in One Lesson(steshaw.org)
1 points by djschnei 10y ago|3 comments
353.
by djschnei 10y ago
What about that was ambiguous? He's pretty clearly pointing out the logical missteps of attempting to use a monopoly to regulate "monopolies".
354.
by djschnei 10y ago
There is a flip side to every coin. The least well-off among us do not benefit from having the most economical options handicapped to support the less economically feasible option, regardless of the intangible communal benefits. This play
355.
by djschnei 10y ago
Then I will point back to my original comment which you commented on. Is the importance of these shops something only the ruling class recognizes? If not, why does the protection of them need to be mandated?
356.
by djschnei 10y ago
Then what's the concern? People who want to pay for the convenience of amazon will pay for it, people who value the dollar more, will shop locally in this case. Outlawing advances in convenience seems regressive, no?
357.
by djschnei 10y ago
I think the obvious objection to this kind of central planning is that the community isn't deciding that for themselves. If members of a community experience the kind of benefits from local business that you say (and I agree, I shop o
358.
by djschnei 10y ago
Seems like a market economy is forming for a finite resource... unprecedented... how could we have predicted this?! lol @ "criminals"
359.
by djschnei 10y ago
The specifics obviously matter.
360.
by djschnei 10y ago
Also my concern. It's only justification is that it's a more efficient alternative to all other welfare. That would put a LOT of bureaucrats out of work. It'll never happen. Also, it's hard to buy votes with something

More ›