Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 65 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: God and Abstract Objects #19201

    Hello JohnD,

    I am only going off of the video you linked to. Does Craig actually claim ” abstract objects do not really exist”? It seemed to me that his issue was that all abstract things necessarily begin in god and that Platonism implies abstract ideas are created ex nihilo, meaning something is created outside or beyond the purview of god’s will or essence. The necessity of Craig’s argument is, I believe, contingent on god’s existence as the distinction is unnecessary if there is no god.

    I Think if he believed abstract objects didn’t exist he might have a difficult time explaining god. Where he explains Fictionalism, I believe, he was showing how abstractions are taken for granted as physical things or properties of physical things. It has been a few days since I watched the video but I recall him mentioning a brown dog. The dog exists physically and is made of physical things but what is brown? Brown is a property, and can be defined by not having any of the properties of another color but nowhere on earth can I locate a Brown. For that matter, take Donovan Bailey: He IS fast. That, and I think WLC would agree, is a perfectly useful statement. Like brown, fast is not a thing but the statement implies that “he” a physical thing “is” an abstract object “fast”

    So, if I were to claim god does not exist because metaphysical things don’t exist in “reality” I would, in the least, have to greatly limit, what I consider, my understanding of the world and admit that most of speech is all baloney. That’s my take on this, anyway.

    Professor Casey has requested that we send him a email to let him know when we make new posts you might shoot him one if you want to ensure his response.

    p.s. I recall seeing mises 007 and you talking in the forum and I thought ” John Dee and 007, fancy that”

    in reply to: MADE IN USA #20193

    Hi sonicmasd,

    I think you will find this link useful. In my view, buying American or local can be beneficial but not for the sake of itself. If you have two products of equal quality then buying the local one may enrich you, as those employee’s now may have the additional income to purchase whatever good or service you provide. More likely than a direct transaction a chain of seemingly unrelated exchanges will somehow end in your benefit. If the local product is more expensive, loyalty to a local good cuts competition significantly. On the surface it does not seem much has changed for you between the two different scenarios but if everyone is needlessly paying for a more expensive good then, in the least, the lower income earners in your region may be less able to purchase your good or service.

    As for morality, I’m not sure that is really any component of this at all. We happily buy goods made in China but I don’t think people do it for the sake of the Chinese or refuse to buy Chinese goods out of malevolence toward them. But If at war with them, what then is the wisdom of continuing to do business? I find it odd that even in a war situation business between warring states seems to continue, odd indeed.

    If you would like a more qualified response you might let GP or Herbs take a look at your question.

    in reply to: Property Rights #20167

    Hello Patricia,

    From your first post, If I understand your statement correctly: A landlord can dictate that a renter not have sex on on the landlords property. This would seem to be reasonable to me but not because he simply owns the land, rather, because it was stipulated in the rental contract. I wouldn’t assume this would be a favorable business practice in the first place but under such a contract, the terms of redress should be stipulated before entering such an agreement.

    In the case of a person (probably at least two) engaging in sex on a private property owner’s front lawn without permission. The case should be considered as a matter of trespass, unless damages to said property are brought about in the course of trespass i.e. they broke the swing or kicked up the lawn driving their heels into it.

    In the case of a business opened to the public I am a bit unsure if a prohibition of sex must be first stipulated (like the no shirt no shoes signs) or be assumed by the nature of the business. I mean, If you go into a movie theater where would you infer that you are allowed to have sex there. Now if it was Joe’s Movie Theater and Swingers Club the nature of the business is implied if not otherwise noted. I wouldn’t walk into Joe’s and begin lighting fireworks. I am not certain but I think this would also fall under trespass if some sort of redress would be sought.

    When we talk about property rights I believe it to mean that an individual has sole ownership of a land, object and them self. It seems to me that universal land ownership is unlikely, for at least economic reasons, but even a situation of homesteading is unclear to me. We are not starting from some zero point. So, even if government disappeared what would be the limitations, in regards to amount, when it comes to homesteading? Someone somewhere will be left out.

    A person owning land and person living on that land is a situation experienced by nearly everyone for, say, their first 18 years. In the world of property rights the parent would not own the child’s property(if they have any) but when the parent decides to expel the child from their home so to go the child’s belongings, the parent has no further right or obligation to them. The same now in a landlord tenant arrangement. I have contracted to live in your dwelling and may do as I wish, provided, I don’t violate the terms of our contract, whatever they should be I have agreed to them of my own accord.

    In terms of what a person can and can not do. If a land owner provides a public space, a sidewalk, a park, whatever then he may stipulate that behaviors beyond property damage are forbidden but he may also expressly allow undesirable behavior i.e. Junky Park, Crack Alley or Murder Lane( only meaning he allows murder, individuals would still have to agree to be murdered).

    All of this might seem difficult or at least cumbersome but the charm of this system is that anything can be done. A large land owner might open a park where everybody agrees to the rules of the park, gives up their life savings and lives in a communist utopia. They could call it Hell On Earth. Sadists and masochists can do as they please without fear of reprisal from ambiguous laws that don’t represent their choices.

    People tend to quietly move along in their day going places to do certain things. what property rights gives us is the opportunity to go where we want and act how we want, if the cost of that freedom is not being allowed to act like an asshole on the way there, well, that doesn’t seem so bad to me.

    I believe the important things to remember are that basing rights on property rights gives us a consistent grounding for making law. In my opinion one of the most harmful phrases I know is “there should be a law against that” OK why? Another important point; while it is true that people can act a certain way it is not obvious that they would. If I caught you smoking pot in my park when I stipulated that no drug use was allowed does not mean I have to take action against you merely that I can if I choose.

    Problems. The issue for me, is punishments or redress. How are these formed outside of specific contract? When one rapes, murders or hurts another how or why is that person agreeing to a particular punishment? What do we deem appropriate as punishment and on what logical grounds? If we create a legal system that requires a specialist to make judgements then have we introduced an arbitrary component to law, how is this helpful? In matters of children and abortion I think Rothbard laid out a perfectly reasonable, yet, somehow unsatisfactory application of rights.

    I still feel like there is some issue you raised that I am glossing over but I’m not sure what it is. Sorry for the lateness of my reply, this is an important topic and one I’m still learning about so forgive me if I missed the boat completely.

    in reply to: Can iPhone Users Help Me? #20185

    1) Download mp3 files to computer.
    2) Open iTunes music library.
    3) Drag-drop mp3’s onto library or use Add file to library.
    4) Plug phone into computer, wait for sync to complete.
    5) Drag-drop files from iTunes to your iPhone.
    6) Files can be found in Music, listen to lectures at your leisure.

    I have not downloaded a zip-pack, once downloaded and unzipped, I would think the same process would apply.

    in reply to: Property Rights #20165

    Patricia, I am having trouble following your post. Could you illustrate a scenario to help clarify what is taking place? I could offer a response but I’m concerned that I might miss your point. Thank you.

    in reply to: Are the Article V calls just a Red Herring? #20175

    Hello Dan,

    Will you consider posting this in US history since and US constitutional, forums, for Kevin, Brion and Tom’s take on this? You have a great question here and I don’t want to see it get lost in the general discussion forum.

    Here is an interesting article I came across.

    in reply to: Libertarian-themed Literature #20162

    Unintended Consequences- John Ross.
    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress- Robert Heinlein.
    Alongside Night- Neil Schulman.
    Harangue- Garet Garrett.
    Satan’s bushel- Garet Garrett.

    Garrett’s fiction and non-fiction works can be downloaded at mises.org

    in reply to: What caused the Dust Bowl? #20159

    Hello TylerHCarl,

    I was just checking wikipedia and couldn’t help note the irony of the dust bowl stemming from government incentives and false theories of climatology.
    It will be interesting to see who will be blamed for future disasters caused by governments and their federally funded research cartels.

    While it could be stated that the technological improvements that made such large spread land cultivation possible, were a result of capitalism. It does not change the fact of why so many people were farming in an area once thought to be ; from wikipedia,

    region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for European-style agriculture; the region was known as the Great American Desert. The lack of surface water and timber made the region less attractive than other areas for pioneer settlement and agriculture.

    in reply to: People's History of the US #15313


    Dear Lord, If I ever write a book, I hope you don’t write the review.

    in reply to: Austro-Chicagoans? #18233

    Hello SinardN,

    You bring up an interesting question. That I even have an interest in economics can be traced back to my discovery of Milton Friedman on youtube. From there I clicked on a Tom woods video in the suggested videos section. Thank you Chicago school. The similarities in their general message left me with the question of, where are the two schools different? I don’t know why your friends think of themselves as Austro-Chicagoans but there are plenty of Chicagoans I like, despite differences of opinion I may have. Ronald Coase , a heavyweight of the economics profession, seems to differ largely with both schools yet is well regarded by each of them.

    Here is a Bob Murphy article comparing the two schools. You may want to challenge your friends on whether it is consistent to commingle the two schools beyond supporting free-markets.

    In reference to the article presented by professor Herbener, Here is Richard Ebeling on Skousen’s book.

    in reply to: Debt free money #18226

    Hi nymanager,
    Here is a link to one theory of debt-free money, among many different theories with similar short falls. Such as Monetarism, MMT and Greenbackers. Tom takes on some greenbacker claims. I have yet to find the guru of this group but if frequent Tom Woods antagonist, FauxCapitalist, gives any indication, then Anthony Migchels might be the guy to checkout. He has a blog and some truly snooze worthy youtube videos, Enjoy.

    While perusing the Fauxcapitalism site I came across a remarkable comment by one of their readers. I do not wish to conflate this persons views with that of anyone else, but coming from a self professed “recovering austrian”, I can not imagine how little effort must have been employed in considering himself an Austrian in the first place. So purely for shock and jaw dropping befuddlement, I present:


    Thanks for the site!

    Another “recovering austrian” here, hehe.

    But I’ve come to the conclusion money is evil, it’s a bad,unnecesary invention, help yourself, in rural communities.

    World before money was better.

    They try to contain the debate in the “the current system is bad,banks, bad economy, not working for us… so they attack first with oh, the current system is bad,it’s temporary, just let’s go back to gold/silver and forget this episode…”
    No, this is a continuation of the scam known as money.

    Freemen have LAND, that’s it, not coins of adamantium or whatever,I don’t care.
    Freemen have LAND and communities/tribes,a “folk”.

    Money was IMPOSED BY FORCE.

    The bigest austrian lie is the “spontaneous” evolution of the “institution of money”.

    Money is roman, positive, state law. Not “natural”.

    Gold was in very few places,and hard to extract and manufacture, and unnecesary, humanity survived for long without it, so, why the need?

    Capitalism is not economics, it’s control, a tractor is not more efficient than 50 neighbors working their own field in a day.

    Think on the real cost of the machine, the mines, the development, the needed highways, the petrol, the seller, technicians, the bankers who would OWN now the fields as “security” for the machine…

    And they would then centralize the food production in one person, the machine.
    Before, working the fields was your right and your food, your security.

    If a machine from someone else does it… you’ll have to beg the owner, work in his system…


    in reply to: Debt free money #18224

    Hello nymanager,
    I watched the vid and then the banner vid on their channel, which better describes their solution. Try as I may, I still don’t fully understand fractional reserve banking. If I am understanding correctly, while the bank can make loans beyond the amount of assets or reserves it is holding, the amount it may lend is related to a percentage of those reserves. http://mises.org/daily/4631 an article by Bob Murphy.

    From what I gather from the videos, they want to create a new Bureaucracy, shielded from corporate and political interests (unicorn), that will create money out of thin air and decide how to spend it into the economy.
    Of course this merry band of experts will be accountable, whatever that means. When they speak of debt free, they seem to mean that the government will be free from debt, not that ordinary consumers would cease to take on future debt for present wants.

    So, how does this money get “injected” into the economy? Who gets it? Why do they get it? If this committee is supposedly shielded from politicians, how does government cover their short falls on all their “necessary and proper” programs? I can think of many scenarios, none of which improve our lot by any degree. To me this all sounds like “abolish the fed and create a new one”

    in reply to: Usury #21185

    I believe you are correct to say, “an implication of FRB is inflation”. I do not however agree that profiting from usury is the motive for FRB. Rather, profiting from usury is the motive behind any banking. I am considering usury as any interest on loans, instead of the more modern definition of excessively high interest. A bank is like any other business. In order to get money to loan, it needs people to give them money. It does this by offering to pay interest on deposits and other “free” services, without which there would be no incentive to save money in a bank. As Professor Casey mentions De Soto, I do not see how this follows in regards to usury. The loan is a desired service. A service already provided in conventional banking, along with security and disbursements. So why pay to save when you can be paid to save. Usury or interest in the case of loans is no different than any other price for a good. If you knew that future money would be worth more than present money I think you could argue for a negative interest rate. Such as if you borrowed $10, in the course of the loan you would only pay back $9 instead of say $11.

    To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess. (Deuteronomy 23:19,20)

    As to the sinful nature of usury, I have no clue what the bible is trying to get across but it seems to have missed the mark on this issue. I think Professor Jewell might be able to explain this.

    Fractional reserve banking on the other hand, amounts to fraud. As you say the risk of FRB could be voluntarily agreed upon but that means everyone is agreeing to massive price inflation, bond defaults or oppressive taxation. Admittedly I don’t fully understand this but I find it hard to believe that such a practice will not have a consequence. Those are my thoughts anyway.

    in reply to: Artificially Induced Wage Parity #18218

    My apologies Professor Herbener. I was either unclear about my intent or my question was irrelevant in light of reality. I agree with your response but that is because it seems self evident to me that lower level jobs would cease to exist or be given to automation, as you mention the robo flipper . I believe we see this already in the disappearance of the bag boy, where either the customer assumes responsibility or the cashier takes on the additional task, and even the cashier now finds themselves on the endangered list with the self checkout looming about.

    Recently there have been a growing number of economists willing to claim that a minimum wage increase would have little or no effect on the number of low skill jobs that exist. Instead of arguing against that, I was attempting to explain that even if that where so, it would still have largely negative consequences for not only low skilled workers but for the middle class economy as a whole. I suppose it is of little use to base an argument on a faulty premiss but you know “when in Rome”. Once again I apologize, I don’t want you to think that I haven’t been paying attention.

    in reply to: Anarchist that vote… #20144

    If I held the position of democrat or republican and continued to vote my party, I would surely manage to contradict my philosophy. If I felt myself an anarchist, I could claim some, albeit farfetched, strategy. Mucking up the works sort of thing. Were I to vote for an anarchist then I’m not sure I would have a philosophy to contradict.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 65 total)