Spiral Architect

No, I did not mean to imply that. I was focusing only on the single idea of "being a minority".
That's why I added the (admittedly inadequate) caveat to my post, saying: "This does not imply one ought to vote. Nor does it imply that one ought to vote for one of the major parties.

Firstly, I can easily see someone conclude that Romney vs. Obama will make little net difference, particularly over the long haul. In that case, it would not make sense to vote for either.

Second, I agree with what you say about any particular voter's context. If a particular voter knows that his district/state (or other lowest unit to which votes get aggregated) will surely vote one way or the other, then his vote has no practical meaning: the surer one is of this, the less relevant is the individual vote.

Putting it all together, I'd say that if one is in a "swing district" within a "swing state" and if you actually do think that Obama or Romney will be better than the other in their long-term impact, then it makes sense to vote for that person. Here too, I would make an exception: if you really think both candidates have crossed some line that you have drawn in your mind -- where they stand like two cannibals asking you which of them you wish to eat you -- there's no reason to vote for either.

I'd summarize things thus: if I am going to wake up the day after not voting in the election,and I see Mr. XYZ has won narrowly, and narrowly in my "effective district", and if seeing this I'm going to dislike the outcome and wish the other guy won, then I ought to have voted.

I'll take stab for fun! I would agree that they are not a problem.

Here is my breakdown...



Monopoly – Prices to high…

Then someone can undercut them. The only way to keep prices high and stop competition is to forcibly restrict their access, which is government coercion. Without force this is not an issue since a litigate monopoly can only exist if the customers are universally satisfied enough to make the profitable breaking point of a ROI unreachable for any competitor.



Information Asymmetry

Why would anyone buy something without knowledge? If people don’t buy it then the producer will have to negotiate with the demands for knowledge. Besides, in the computer/internet age is this even a valid argument anymore? It sounds like a straw horse.



Toll Goods

A toll is a fee and is the price to use something. Don’t like the price? Fine, don’t use it. The producer will either limit himself to a nitch market or be forced to change his price to get customers back. This really is supply/demand 101.



Common Pool of Goods

Did the person who made this chart actual make the Tragedy of the Commons a market problem? Really? That’s ballsy.



Pure Public Goods

I love this one and a real peeve of mine, the idea that certain goods only exist because the Government is creating them. It is laughable to think we wouldn’t have a road or I would not have a water pipe going into my house if City Hall never existed. If the free market can create and launch a billion dollar satellite into geosynchronous orbit so I can call my parents anywhere in America I’m sure it can run $50 worth of pipe into my house. Good @#$% God(s).

And there is the confession.

Look kid, looting can only be done to people, thus fracking is not looting. Fracking is a method of using property to extract one substance from another.

Next, it does not matter, even if you are right, because a person can dispose of their property as they see fit. People can frack, fuck, or frell their property all they want. Your whims are not a substitute for their right to live their life and dispose of their property in the pursuit of living.

What is real is if someone violates my property rights. If you are right and the latest and greatest from the Granola Death Cultists is true, and the process somehow does foul my property as a side effect, then I'm already protected under the law and can sue them to repair my property. Plus I’ll likely get more from the damages and get a nice vacation out of the deal.

In fact, I hope someone does start fracking next door just so I can take Mrs. Spiral on a trip. Maybe Vegas again. Good times.

So I don't need alarmist nonsense. I have common sense which is already in place.

Everything else is just a desire to use government force to make people obey you, since you know better than them - I.E. strip them of their moral right to use their property as they see fit. When you realize who is trying to force others to obey them, you quickly discover that the greedy and evil person is the face in the mirror.

And there is the confession.

Look kid, looting can only be done to people, thus fracking is not looting. Fracking is a method of using property to extract one substance from another.

Next, it does not matter, even if you are right, because a person can dispose of their property as they see fit. People can frack, fuck, or frell their property all they want. Your whims are not a substitute for their right to live their life and dispose of their property in the pursuit of living.

What is real is if someone violates my property rights. If you are right and the latest and greatest from the Granola Death Cultists is true, and the process somehow does foul my property as a side effect, then I'm already protected under the law and can sue them to repair my property. Plus I’ll likely get more from the damages and get a nice vacation out of the deal.

In fact, I hope someone does start fracking next door just so I can take Mrs. Spiral on a trip. Maybe Vegas again. Good times.

So I don't need alarmist nonsense. I have common sense which is already in place.

Everything else is just a desire to use government force to make people obey you, since you know better than them - I.E. strip them of their moral right to use their property as they see fit. When you realize who is trying to force others to obey them, you quickly discover that the greedy and evil person is the face in the mirror.

And there is the confession.

Look kid, looting can only be done to people, thus fracking is not looting. Fracking is a method of using property to extract one substance from another.

Next, it does not matter, even if you are right, because a person can dispose of their property as they see fit. People can frack, fuck, or frell their property all they want. Your whims are not a substitute for their right to live their life and dispose of their property in the pursuit of living.

What is real is if someone violates my property rights. If you are right and the latest and greatest from the Granola Death Cultists is true, and the process somehow does foul my property as a side effect, then I'm already protected under the law and can sue them to repair my property. Plus I’ll likely get more from the damages and get a nice vacation out of the deal.

In fact, I hope someone does start fracking next door just so I can take Mrs. Spiral on a trip. Maybe Vegas again. Good times.

So I don't need alarmist nonsense. I have common sense which is already in place.

Everything else is just a desire to use government force to make people obey you, since you know better than them - I.E. strip them of their moral right to use their property as they see fit. When you realize who is trying to force others to obey them, you quickly discover that the greedy and evil person is the face in the mirror.

And there is the confession.

Look kid, looting can only be done to people, thus fracking is not looting. Fracking is a method of using property to extract one substance from another.

Next, it does not matter, even if you are right, because a person can dispose of their property as they see fit. People can frack, fuck, or frell their property all they want. Your whims are not a substitute for their right to live their life and dispose of their property in the pursuit of living.

What is real is if someone violates my property rights. If you are right and the latest and greatest from the Granola Death Cultists is true, and the process somehow does foul my property as a side effect, then I'm already protected under the law and can sue them to repair my property. Plus I’ll likely get more from the damages and get a nice vacation out of the deal.

In fact, I hope someone does start fracking next door just so I can take Mrs. Spiral on a trip. Maybe Vegas again. Good times.

So I don't need alarmist nonsense. I have common sense which is already in place.

Everything else is just a desire to use government force to make people obey you, since you know better than them - I.E. strip them of their moral right to use their property as they see fit. When you realize who is trying to force others to obey them, you quickly discover that the greedy and evil person is the face in the mirror.

Why would there be any debate about that? Obviously they would go to the Eighth.

Romney's incompetence at promoting the free market is dwarfed by Obama's competence at eradicating it.

Because it has no bearing on the concept of marriage - Sexual organs, nor any other random part of physical appearance like height, weight, or skin color, has any effect on it. It is unessential, and frankly laughable, how some people (talking heads on radio for example) want to focus on something so uselessly unimportant. Why some people worry more about some aspect of physical appearance, like sexual organs, than the people actually affected by it, the happy couple, I do not now. But I’m not accepting such a waste of induction into my lexicon.

Essentials are that, essential. Random body parts are not essential to a marriage no more than any other useless trivia of physical appearance.





Sure. We also had my two female cousins be the ushers in spite of my family’s Catholic traditions (it was not a Catholic Wedding by the way). So did we not get married since we disobeyed another nonsensical tradition invented by people who think every animal on earth once lived on a boat together? Of course not.

As an aside, I’ve always wondered if that is what really happened to the dinosaurs. They got on the wrong ark? Anyway…

The birds and the bees were about love and, more importantly for a person hitting puberty and getting the “talk” about their body, not slamming a useless obsession with random body parts into the concept of marriage. You keep going back to the argument from tradition. If you want to do that then why don’t we just go the whole way?







I think it’s safe to say that tradition has no place in how one defines the values one uses to live.

Really? I mean... Really? I'm a patient person but... What?



To get this back on track I give you the history of modern philosophy.

Really? I mean... Really? I'm a patient person but... What?



To get this back on track I give you the history of modern philosophy.

You do not need to justify leisure activity. It is the reward of living well which is the point of all values and actions. The sin is in wasting time when you know better (family obligations, work deadlines, bills, etc.)

Of course it should exist. I would hope we would object to the mutilation of male genitalia as much as mutilation of the female genitalia.

It was not taken out of context. If you read the whole quote you will see that he starts out by explaining how successful people got where they are by the help of others, like a teacher. Then he goes into infrastructure and as such where the line finally lands as part of the build. The only problem with the Republicans is that they don't see the full horor show it reveals but only the base attack on success (but the lack of real principled thinking on the red side is no surprise). The nice thing about this is that whoever did it gets it better then the bobble heads on talk radio.

It is “It takes a village” all over again accept the little parasite is wearing his egalitarianism on his sleeve openly. This reason, in addition to the fact he continually acts consistently to bring this monstrous creed into reality is exactly why I’m voting to fire the goof. The door needs to hit him in the ass on the way out.

Really?

Being a hero is more than a random opinion, it’s about a sense of life as well as the willingness to succeed. You can’t fake that kind of fearless character in the face of death defying odds.

Neil Armstrong rode to the moon in a ship that no one knew for sure if it would work, if it would come back, or if he would live. The ship comprised less computer parts than your average modern car. The first moon landing was one big crap shoot and the stakes were history or deadly failure for the learning curve.

Richard Nixon was advised to have a speech prepared in case the astronauts died. It was a real possibility; Nixon took NASA’s advice and did have one ready just in case the landing (or departure) failed. NASA had a procedure in place if the astronauts could not leave the moon and what would be said and done before breaking communication for the last time. There was real concern that the Lander could have been a stranded tomb.

Think about that.

Paltry funding issues aside, the man risked it all in the name of science and pure accomplishment. As far as I’m concerned, not only is he a hero but your average Occupy [Random Location] mook would be advised to learn what the crew faced and how a real man approaches the challenges of life.

I agree with Nicky. Your analysis of Republicans is getting in the way of applying the same thing to the Democrats. I normally vote Libertarian but this year I’m on target to hit the Republican ticket. I'll give you a short list of my thoughts:

First, Obama needs to be fired on principle. Politicians need to know that they will not have careers if they keep violating basic rights. If for no other reason this needs to be done. Romney can go in 4 years too when he earns it.

Next, Obamacare. You can say Romney would have done it, and frankly I believe McCain would have given us watered down McCare. This doesn’t change the fact that, as far as I can tell, for the first time in American history the Feds are forcing someone to buy something against their will. Again, anyone touching this monstrosity of basic rights needs to be fired.

“You didn’t build that”. Egalitarianism, when compared to religion, to paraphrase Peikoff lives “on a lower rung of hell”. That needs to be squashed with extreme prejudice.

Obama will get a chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice again. His last choice was Elena Kagan, a women so appallingly devoid of principled thinking she once argued for the Clinton Whitehouse (before the Supreme Court) that certain movies should be banned because (not an exact quote) free speech should be weighed against its social harm. Yes, that was her argument. Thanks to Obama she now is in a position to execute that stupidity. Obviously Romney will nominate someone questionable but at this point I’ll take fundamental moderate to a collectivist kook that doesn’t get the child-like basic principles of the First Amendment.

Obama has requested and received more money than every other President… combined. Yes, Republicans deficit spend but I’ll take a poor spender that at least gets that I should keep my money versus a parasite that spends money with a leaf blower and admits he loves to “spread the wealth around”.

As for foreign policy, Obama has rubber stamped and expanded pretty much all of Bush’s policies, including the fact he flat out lied on campaign promises on a number of them, outside of abandoning Israel in the ethical support department. Obama’s continuing hatred of Western principles is uncontested. Yea, no contest there.

Now you can make the case that Romney could do these too, and you would be right to a point. But he won’t, at least as bad, and yes I know that. Why? The political support he desperately needs to keep his job. Think of it this way; let’s say Obama and Romney do come up with the exact same ideas as President. Obama’s political support structure will pull him left towards collectivist/progressive welfare land. Romney will have the fundamentalists for sure but also the revolting Tea Partier types and other financial conservatives (that he needs to keep his job) pulling him towards them. It is simple as that. Romney knows this too otherwise he would not have chosen Ryan whose only purpose is to use the Senators image to invigorate the Republican base into thinking this administration is more than Massachusetts all over again.

Shitty choice but in the end I’m firing the yahoo that admits he hates individual rights and achievement on principle, and certainly I am not going to give him a second term to push that hatred onto people when he no longer has to worry about the political consequences.

As far as I’m concerned, the door does need to hit Obama in the ass on the way out.

[


Your right to life is not a right to force me to cater to your demands. Your right to life is a right to self-generating action, not to the actions of others. I can set the terms of an agreement and you can choose to agree to them or not, and vice versa. In the reverse, I cannot force you to drive on my road and if you refuse I'd loose the income.





I'll keep returning for as long as you want to force people to obey your terms. I’m offering terms to a deal, your dictating terms that I have to obey. You have a choice, I would not. That is force.




Telling me you will disrespect the terms of how I want my property used is doing whatever you want, and yes it violates the terms of our agreement. It would be the same thing if I told you seatbelts are optional up front then halfway through the trip a Parkway Patrol reprimanded you for not doing it. Then I would be violating the agreement.

I can very well decide people can only use my road if they drive muscle cars with fuzzy dice while blasting "Ride of the Valkyries", then boot everyone out if they don't do it. You can decide that my terms are bad and refuse to trade with me then walk away. Neither of us has a right to force our standards on someone else to gain access to his property.


You seem to be obsessed with the idea I’m telling you how to use your car in this scenario. I am not. You can choose to do whatever you want with the car outside of the fact you can’t force me to accept it too. If we don’t agree to terms we shake hands and walk away.

Really?

Being a hero is more than a random opinion, it’s about a sense of life as well as the willingness to succeed. You can’t fake that kind of fearless character in the face of death defying odds.

Neil Armstrong rode to the moon in a ship that no one knew for sure if it would work, if it would come back, or if he would live. The ship comprised less computer parts than your average modern car. The first moon landing was one big crap shoot and the stakes were history or deadly failure for the learning curve.

Richard Nixon was advised to have a speech prepared in case the astronauts died. It was a real possibility; Nixon took NASA’s advice and did have one ready just in case the landing (or departure) failed. NASA had a procedure in place if the astronauts could not leave the moon and what would be said and done before breaking communication for the last time. There was real concern that the Lander could have been a stranded tomb.

Think about that.

Paltry funding issues aside, the man risked it all in the name of science and pure accomplishment. As far as I’m concerned, not only is he a hero but your average Occupy [Random Location] mook would be advised to learn what the crew faced and how a real man approaches the challenges of life.

I can take any Obama speech, reach the same conclusion, and make the same claim that supporting Obama is an assault on freedom.

Ergo, I'm still voting to fire Obama.

Kelley (sp) then was doing the same thing, only it was unpopular with management? Well that's disturbing. Even if I accepted the premise (which I don’t) then it still does not make sense. If ideas are important then the obvious solution is to have someone go to those you disagree with and properly articulate the right ideas. Communicating the right ideas has always been the benchmark of winning the culture war for society. Pretty much like what Rand did herself her entire life.

I'd like to see that on a Valentine’s Card you give to someone. Bet that works out real well for you.

I seriously don’t like your phrase “there is a reason we don't like charity”. I think Rand’s most relevant quote on charity is this:

“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.”

Rand would often say one shouldn’t claim giving charity as a major virtue. The implication being that she did regard it as a virtue, simply a minor or lesser one roughly speaking. You’ve effectively given voice to a false stereotype.

I didn’t read beyond your first post.

What I find fascinating is that my liberal friends make fun of the NSA or the Patriot Act as “Security Theater” and yet blink at me when I point out their economic views are the same thing. They are simply sacrificing their rights for “Economic Theater” with the promise of economic security. The only difference between liberals and conservatives being the show they want to pay for with their rights.

Will quotes work?

I have a lot but here are a few to get started:


"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it." - Ronald Reagan

"Why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as prohibition did, in five years Americans would be the smartest race of people on Earth." - Will Rogers

"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think." - Milton Berle

I'd clarify it by saying if it is something you can openly discuss with your spouse then it is a healthy fantasy. If not then that speaks volumes. Fantasy is perfectly fine and odds are the longer the relationship the more it could even help, but if you are doing it without her knowledge and afraid of her reaction to it then that is the time to check premises.