Search results

Which peer reviewed publications are you referring to?

Sorry, I thought you meant what you actually said. Net debt to GDP isn't unsustainable in the short term, and it has been higher in the past. And those silly TBTF companies you referenced, well their undoings threatened our and the rest of the Western world's economic viability. Again, suring...

Red herring, red herring, red herring. You said '$800 billion + to the idiots that caused this mess,' and now you're talking about the ARRA, unemployment and the deficit. And the very first point of order should be addressing the GDP deficit, not the budgetary deficit.

What 'other 800 billion' are you referring to? Certainly wasn't TARP, as it has yet to hit 400 billion in expenditures, which doesn't even take into account the equity that was received in return. True costs were maybe, maybe 100 billion.

A non-climatologist linking a video of another non-climatologist. For some reason, I'm going to side with professional climatological organizations, at least when they're being 'refuted' by those that lack any expertise. Yeah, I'm a loon.

Hey Von Dank, what's the Flubber like?

First off, that wasn't my only question, hence why I said "questions". Secondly, that wasn't my question at all. I asked what made these ethicists amoral or unmoral. Those terms aren't synonymous with immoral within ethical theory. I'm really glad that you started in with ad hominem attacks...

I don't know where your first two questions arise from. It's without rulers. It's both an economic and governmental philosophy, not purely governmental as you suggest. You wouldn't know because you don't understand a fucking thing about anarchism. Guess what, its history didn't begin with...

Way to avoid all my questions. I didn't expect anything less. Thanks.

Very nicely put.

Don't dare pass of your bullshit anarcho-capitalism as true or pure anarchism to me. Pick up Proudhon or Bakunin and then get back to me. Your types have already ruined the word libertarian, why start in on anarchism now?

This will be fun. So in your experience the most tyrannical structure in our sociiety, the corporation, is benevolent, huh? Would you mind listing the vast number of benevolent actions undertaken on behalf of corporations? Good luck with that. Too big to be moral? You do realize that Too...

It doesn't make sense. Participation within a mutualist or collectivist society would be largely voluntary. There wouldn't be direct control in that regard.

Under an anarcho-syndicalist society that P51 would belong to you. That would be considered personal property. Hell, that's even considered personal movable property now. That was a bad example.

Heroin does make you drowsy and numbed out, at least in my experience.

There's a fantastic book out by Thaler, a behavioral economist advocating what he calls paternal libertarianism, called Nudge. It covers subjects like this, and he'll probably be receiving a Nobel soon, like Kahneman did. Ah, how sweet it is to see the demise of neoliberalism.

I have a few rooms that are unoccupied.

Let's hope he returns home safe. :joint:

I'm not a big Obama guy myself, but there's a vast amount of difference. First off, in order for a war to be considered 'just' there has to be an UNSC resolution approving of an invasion or an immediate threat (so a preeminent strike can be launched). If it doesn't meet those two standards, it's...

I posted this in Vi's thread, but I'll repost it here: Would you please explain in your own words the philosophical difference between negative and positive liberty. Our country was founded on the ideas like those of Locke (negative), not Rousseau (positive). We're not Athenians.