Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Did gun control work in Australia? #19528

    Thanks Porphyrogenitus! I’m going to use some of these sources on another forum I’m on. Someone asked for them. I’ll let them know it came from here.

    in reply to: Did gun control work in Australia? #19525


    Do you have any sources for these claims? Particularly, the Britain one?

    in reply to: Samuel Adams #15022

    He sounds great. Its too bad we don’t hear more about him. I hear he was instrumental in igniting the revolution.

    Do you have any recommendation on books about him? I currently have Ira Stoll’s book on him (I haven’t read it). Is she credible?


    in reply to: Gun Control and weapons designed for combat #19520

    I doubt any common civilian would be able to procure nuclear bombs, fighter jets, tanks, etc. I guess if taken to its logical conclusion many of these types would also fall under individuals rights to have, but they would probably be owned by private security/military organizations.

    Silencers (with licenses) and sniper rifles are allowed currently and, I think, would still fall under an individual’s right to bear arms.

    Like I said, when it comes to the right to bear arms, the purpose is the citizenry’s ability to defend itself against a tyrannical government. Under this reasoning, private ownership of what you’d consider “offensive” weapons should be allowed. The extreme ones such as Nuclear bombs and such, I don’t think would be owned by individuals anyways because of the costs. But in any case, I think many of these extreme weapons of mass destruction would be outlawed, and frankly, the government shouldn’t be allowed to own them either. There is a huge difference between assault weapons and nukes.

    in reply to: Gun Control and weapons designed for combat #19517

    The question to ask is what is the purpose of the right to bear arms? Why did the founders find it so important to protect this right? Was it so individuals can hunt? Was it so people can have fun playing with their guns? The purpose was to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, not just from criminals. The 2nd amendment is a natural right for individuals to defend themselves with weaponry that could be used by those from whom they need protection. The government has an insane amount of firepower. In turn, the private citizenry has a right to much of the same firepower. Assault rifles, I would argue, are the common weapons of use by soldiers and as such citizens must protect their right to own them.

    in reply to: Corporate profits, all time high? #17435

    What a coincidence, Bob Wenzel just posted this on economicpolicyjournal:

    in reply to: Corporate profits, all time high? #17434

    I ran the data through excel and made a graph for Corporate profits as a percent of National income:


    It does look a little clearer in this regard. I guess the increase in profits have coincided with the bailouts/QE’s/OperationTwist.

    The average is 6.97%. Since 2005, its been 10% or higher except for ’08 thru mid-’09. The last four quarters is the highest its ever been as a percent of National Income.

    Great discussion! Thanks guys.

    in reply to: Bailouts #17428

    So who currently owns the toxic assets? Somebody’s got to suffer the losses of those assets…

    in reply to: Bailouts #17425

    Is the so called “profits” accurate? What of all the toxic assets sold to the Federal Reserve, cents on the dollar? Eventually those losses will be realized. Isn’t the so called profits a bit misleading because of this?

    in reply to: An Unfortunate Fact for Secession Defenders? #15006

    I don’t necessarily think its an unfortunate fact, more of an irrelevant one. When certain northern states considered secession in response to fugitive slave laws, they had a right in doing so even though later on they prevented the southern states from doing so. If the Confederate government really did try to prevent a certain group from seceding from Tennessee than they were wrong in preventing them but still were right in their legitimacy to secede. The south wanted to preserve slavery, and they were wrong in that regard, but the legitimacy of secession was still right.

    The idea of secession does not live and die with the Confederate government. They utilized the idea but did not create it. Whether they have a good image or not is irrelevant to justification of secession itself.

    in reply to: The "begging the question" fallacy #19070

    I see. That’s what I was thinking. I guess its just a coincidence that the two phrases are similar.

    Thanks a lot, guys!

    in reply to: The "begging the question" fallacy #19068

    Thanks. That’s what I remember being taught. I got confused hearing commentators using it, for example “blah blah blah, and that begs the question, blah blah…” Its used as if the situation or comments “begs the question” or leads to an obvious question that must be asked…

    Is that incorrect use of “begging the question” or is it completely different than the fallacy? Do you get what I’m referring to?

    in reply to: Your opinion on Econometrics #17422

    I think I understand. Statistical data can be better understood through what Mises called “specific understanding” rather than some mathematical computation that spits out an “understanding” or relationship.

    in reply to: The "begging the question" fallacy #19067

    Thanks Daniel. Could you provide an example?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)