[dardner]

When I click the download mp3 link under a lesson it brings me to a blank screen with an audio bar that begins playback. When I right click on the audio bar one of the options is “save audio as…” This allows me to save as an mp3 and place the file in a location of my choosing on my computer.

You can also download a course at a time with a zip file, just extract to folder and place it where you want.

I haven’t done anything with itunes in a long time so I don’t know what if anything has changed but time was that you could drag/drop files from your computer to itunes and then drag/drop files from itunes to your device. https://libertyclassroom.com/forums/topic/can-iphone-users-help-me/

[dardner]

Rusty,

A private road owner would be entitled to damages but there would have to be damages. If I paid you for a years worth of driving privileges, provided I don’t do X on your road, then I do X on your road, I would lose those privileges and you would still have the initial payment. As far as you’re concerned the contract has been fulfilled and you are whole. If my doing X resulted in damages then restitution could be sought. This would make something like speeding fines impossible to enforce. You could still collect those fines by incorporating them into a new contract or as a condition for reinstating the original.

I agree with you that privatization is the solution. I wanted to show where they are comparable, clearly you can’t enter into a contract in good faith when you are the one who settles the disputes. It can be very challenging to try to theorize how things, justifiably, should be. It’s downright depressing to try to theorize how to get there from here.

[dardner]

JohnD,

So far as I understand the only place where any kind of definition for natural-born shows up in US law is the Naturalization Act of 1790 but is then repealed by another act in 1795 where the relevant text is unchanged except for the omission of natural born.

The paragraph you cited is a bit strange to me, does this mean an unlimited number of generations can be born abroad, never step foot on US soil, and some distant progeny is still natural-born?

Some arguments I have encountered claim that the 1790 act demonstrates original intent but I have a hard time understanding how a natural-born citizen would need to be naturalized. It is also hard to understand how foreign-born and natural-born could be the same things. It seems to me that a commerce or naturalization statute can treat someone as a natural-born or alien for the purpose of the statute but I don’t see how they can define things beyond their scope. Can you create an act where redefined words can change the meaning of the Constitution?

I don’t know if Blackstone settles the issue but Cruz was born in a country where He is a citizen by birth. If that also means He can be a natural-born citizen of the US at the same time we should probably have a Constitutional Amendment to properly define natural-born. Unfortunately, they would probably just drop natural-born and make citizen the requirement.

[dardner]

I second Aristocra’s recommendations and would like to add; It would be helpful if the individual lesson links would change color after use so I can better keep track of which lessons I have already visited.

[dardner]

I agree with Rusty that the argument for legalizing drugs should address the already existing legality of alcohol but comparing the two does not alone lead to the conclusion that therefore drugs should be legal. It is an impasse, If one then the other, but, which one? It also does not follow from that that driving under the influence of drugs should be illegal.

Some clarity can be found where Rusty states that a private road owner can set the terms of use of his property. But, to the extent that the state is similar to private owner in this capacity, it already does just that. As a private owner may prohibit intoxicated drivers from using his road so too does the state. The case for making drugs legal does not preclude the state or a private owner from prohibiting drivers under the influence of drugs from usage.

I do agree with Rusty that drugs should be legal and that owners can set the terms for usage of their property. I don’t think he has properly understood or addressed the argument presented by Sheyboer.

If a person agrees with laws that make driving under the influence illegal because inebriated drivers might hurt others, then that person should also support laws against hard drugs because they may cause users to become violent and hurt others.

Following this argument the “person who agrees” should also support laws against alcohol in general. Whether or not he does does not invalidate the argument. The logic of the argument does, however, lead to absurdity. People who are angry might hurt others. Should we support laws making it illegal to be angry? There is little that wouldn’t be something that might hurt others, perhaps, such laws themselves might fit that criterion.

It is not my contention that the state, in its capacity as road owner, cannot set rules for use of its roads, including prohibition of inebriated motorists. Rather, the state should not go beyond its capacity as road owner and make drunk driving illegal. If this seems like a distinction without a distinction consider that the state already has usage prohibitions on drunk driving and charges penalties for readmittance, this comports with the rights of a private owner. Currently, the state goes beyond these rights in making drunk driving in and of itself a criminal act. Drunk driving for its own sake is not a harm to anyone or anything. If a harm does occur it is not a given that the drunk driving was the culprit. Any “accident” involves some kind of negligence and it is why we seek to find who caused the “accident” not who caused you to drink.

If you think drunk driving should be illegal because a drunk driver might harm someone else then you should think drugs should be illegal because a drug user might harm someone else. Me, I think it should be illegal to harm someone else, not possibly, actually.

[dardner]

Hi Sheyboer,

That is fine but I don’t support DUI laws so I have no reason to support drug laws.
If I’m remembering correctly the significant majority of car accidents are not alcohol related and of the ones that are that majority is caused by the sober driver. The question is; if sober drivers might hurt others then shouldn’t we also support laws making driving while sober illegal?

Why is it any more a crime to harm someone while drunk or high than sober?
There is no reason to charge a person with crime for something they didn’t do or they might do, you charge them for what they did do.

If you follow the logic of the argument you shared then not only should virtually everything be illegal but it should also be illegal to not make virtually everything illegal.

[dardner]

Hi Patricia,

I had a similar problem. On the bottom of the page there is a box to subscribe to blog posts via email and in Account Settings is a small box to check for receiving emails. If those don’t work for you, you may want to shoot Tom a message via the contact page and I’m sure he will rectify it for you.

I also sent you a link to the Murphy LiveSession in another post, just in case, but you should be able to access it from the LiveSessions button.

[dardner]

Hi Justin,
I am not 100% sure but if I recall correctly his course is going to come out around the end of the year, Maybe to create some buzz during the holiday season. I think someone else is launching a new course within the next month or so, maybe it was Birzer? I think Murphy’s course is on History of Economic Thought.

[dardner]

http://www.spreecast.com/events/murphy-woods-liberty-classroom-q-a

[dardner]

Professor Casey,

Great points I think you have made this much clearer for me and maybe I can refine what I am getting at.

Doesn’t plotting these statements out in the square of opposition take for granted that the propositions are in opposition? If they are, great, but my contention is that the two sentences are not speaking to each other.

If absence of evidence is evidence of absence then there is evidence.
If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then there is no evidence.
Absence of evidence can not be both evidence and no evidence.
Therefore, absence of evidence in premiss 1 is not the same as absence of evidence in premiss 2.

If the meaning of absence of evidence in premiss 1 is used in 2 then premiss 2 is self-contradictory and vice versa.
—-
If absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence and absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence then absence of evidence is contingent on evidence of absence?
—-
Doesn’t making them particular support my idea that absence of evidence is given in two different ways?

Is my thinking that the ‘not’, in this case, is leading to a difference in definition and not denying something of ‘absence of evidence’ in the ‘is’ statement incorrect?

I am having trouble coming up with a set of sentences analogous to these. I’m led to believe that there is either something strange in the sentences themselves or, I fear, I have made a thorough demonstration of my stupidity. Or both!

Thanks in advance for your input. This discussion has inspired me to go back through the logic course and pay better attention this time.

Best Wishes

[dardner]

Professor Casey,

I can’t be sure of the exact example but adding Bayesian to my search I am certain this is what was being discussed. My gripe here is, as I think you pointed out, not with formal logic or even the validity of Bayesianism.

Strictly speaking, comparing the sentences ‘absence of evidence is evidence of absence’ and ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ it would seem to me the former is true and the latter is false. I have not encountered any instance of this being left as a simple semantic argument.

I don’t take the ‘is not’ phrase as necessarily true compared to the ‘is’ phrase. Rather, I take it to be obviously true in regards to the intent of the person saying it. I think your elephant example gets to the heart of the difference. That being proof and evidence. An elephant not being in a specified place and time is proof of an elephant not being in a specified place and time. If I say an elephant was in a specified place at some prior time and we observed elephant footprints and feces that doesn’t prove an elephant was there but it is certainly evidence of an elephant. This, I think, is the problem with the celestial teapot argument. I don’t need to observe the teapot to think it exists but I do need some evidence. Perhaps a celestial tea spill.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from. It seems that the ‘is’ sentence is not adequate to disprove the ‘is not’ sentence because they are not saying the same things. What’s more troubling, if I am understanding this Bayesian thing correctly, it is saying the longer something goes without evidence the less likely it will be true. I don’t see how one could get there from absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How can any probability, greater than zero, be assigned when you have already concluded that there is no evidence?

I think there is another angle that I am overlooking but this is making my head hurt, I hope reading this doesn’t have the same effect on you.

[dardner]

Justin,

I always hate these scenarios because of the ridiculous elements involved. Can we boil these down to their essence. You have found yourself in a situation where you value stealing someone’s property more than their right to not have their property stolen. You can always steal someone’s stuff, whether this be on a whim or out of necessity does not change the fact of theft. Most people would help a man in such dire need, they do not require any form of law to do so. Conversely, they should not be legally obligated to provide assistance.

Let us say that the man in the desert is a horrible asshole and would gladly watch you die rather than part with his bottle of water. You raise your weapon and take the water. You are now a thief and a robber but what is owed? A bottle of water and perhaps some other remuneration to compensate for the trauma you imposed on the vendor. Depending on the severity of your situation this will be a small price to pay for you. Ethically speaking there were no good men in this situation but all parties can be made whole after the fact.

The same goes for the empty house stocked with food. You may do a wrong in the short term but you can still pay for damages and replace what you took after the fact.

We should not be under the illusion that everyone everywhere will behave ethically nor does this represent any kind of contradiction with Libertarian philosophy. We are quite aware that men are not angels.

I have another thought on this. Is it reasonable to assume a vendor in the desert is selling 1 million dollar bottles of water unless there are people in the desert willing to buy million dollar bottles of water? Not a great business man here. Is it not more likely that if you encounter a man who is not willing to part with his water for anything less an absurd amount that perhaps he to is actually in dire need of that water.

[dardner]

Hello, I can’t think of a good way to address the second part of your question but insofar as your own threads you could write your name at the end of your post like- eljarrodo

Now if you type in eljarrodo in the search box on the forum main page (not the search box below account settings) this post will come up in the search. You can go back and edit your old posts or do this going forward. Not perfect but it is better than nothing. Ultimately, if they could assign the author column to the search parameters that would solve all your problems but I’m just pretending like I know what I’m talking about.

[dardner]

Mises, LewRockwell, FEE, Consulting by RPM, are my favorite haunts. Tom’s site is great but the Blog is all but dead with the emphasis on his podcast, so you need to go to his youtube if you want to start a fight…uh… have a meaningful discussion.

The Youtube channel LibertyInOurTime is indispensable if you like long lectures and tons of them.

If you are not already familiar i suggest looking into: Ralph Raico, Butler Shaffer, George Reisman, and Richard ebeling. I don’t think Raico is active anymore but he has a lot of great lectures out there.

[dardner]

Hello DMurphy,

I think you might find this helpful. It certainly opened my eyes. In my opinion, properly understood, the spectrum should be seen as; Free society(left) and Controlled Society(right). In modern times we find the leftist and the rightist are all far to the right. Oddly enough, I don’t think it is unreasoned to say the leftists may be further to the right than the rightist. Consider the democrats and republicans, left and right they say. Well, where does the libertarian go, in the center? Whatever the difference between their stated goals the modern left and right both seek the state to accomplish them. You wouldn’t expect to find between state and state, no-state. Clearly we are not a mid road between the two.

[Author]

Posts