…Because he lives in Washington, DC.
:smack:
Yes I drew certain conclusions. He can correct me if he likes. I couldn’t imagine why someone would want to live in D.C., be proud of that fact enough to publish it, and not be making a living from the use of government force.
This is a remarkably stupid and ignorant thing to write. The prize in the economics is very well regarded, and the past winners have included Milton Freedman, so it can not be said there is an ideological bias.
It is indeed like that, his “economics” are like some strange inversion of the Bolsheviks, with the equal favoring of the ideological purism over the rational analysis.
He’s a weird dude and I’ve never seen any indication from his posts that he actually cares about other people. Most of my interaction with him has been about the Civil War, and his apologia for slavery has always been pretty disgusting, even if he’ll swear that’s he’s defending other aspects of the Confederacy (which, based on nearly all the evidence, existed almost entirely to defend slavery).
You work for an institution that has slaughtered hundreds of thousands. You get paid handsomely by the government to live in wealthy suburban Virginia and facilitate killing of innocent people in distant, poorer lands.
Yet, it is I who does not care about other people.
What apologies for slavery have I made? What defense of the Confederacy have I made? It is radical, ideological, and laissez-faire people like me who brought slavery to an end in the first place. Mealy-mouthed moderates passed things like the Corwin Amendment.
You’ve defended the Confederacy and their attempted secession over and over, despite their primary purpose and stated goal of supporting and defending slavery. From your rhetoric, if you had been alive back then, you would have fought for the Confederacy, and fought against the Union, even though the Union forces were actually freeing slaves.
As for my work, I don’t work on drones or any military function that has killed anyone recently (or, if you want to be technical and specific, SSBNs have never killed anyone ever except, at most, in a few industrial-type machinery accidents). But I don’t do it for ideological or patriotic reasons, I do because it’s the best way to support my family. One day I hope to work full time for myself, and I’m working on it. I joined the Navy for similar reasons, but I think the US military has done more good then harm over the last 100 years or so, even as we have made many mistakes.
But what have you ever done for anyone else in your life? What sacrifices have you ever made? What makes you a good person? Maybe you are. You just haven’t given me any indication that you are, and your rhetoric on the Civil War leads me to believe that your priorities are so out of whack that you may not know how to actually help people in the real world (if you even have any desire to).
I’ll admit that my beef with WillFarnaby is personal, ever since he attacked me personally for my work.
A complete fabrication. If any conclusion could be drawn from my rhetoric, it would be that I wouldn’t have fought for either side, since I repeatedly insist that the Confederacy was evil every time the discussion takes place.
Have they done more harm than good during your employment with them, of course. I too hope you can one day dedicate your working time to fulfilling consumer desires instead of the desires of an institution who kills innocents. As it is, you disregard the lives of these families in pursuit of your family’s material well-being, yet you stay stupid shit about me not caring for other people.
Fortunately, your narrow task does not kill people. Unfortunately, there will never be a legitimate use for the weapons you support. The use of such weapons could never be used in self-defense because the vast majority of the victims would be totally innocent of any wrong-doing.
I don’t feel compelled to answer these questions. I only hope you don’t think joining the military should be considered a sacrifice.
My rhetoric on secession leads you to believe certain things about my personality. Your ideology causes you to come to different conclusions than mine would based on someone’s support for secession.
Yes I have issues with you personally as well. I have issues with people who support war on an intellectual basis and also make money from it. This lumps you in with people like Dick Cheney.
Most of your criticism is for Lincoln and the Union. It shouldn’t be – the Confederacy was far, far worse. If you wouldn’t have fought for either side, then that reflects poorly on you – one side was far, far worse than the other.
And I’ve pointed out before that, for some reason, libertarian arguments in the US have historically been used much more often in support of white supremacist policies than against them. Pro-Confederacy and secession forces used libertarian arguments; anti Civil Rights and pro-segregation politicians used libertarian arguments; and today the free-men-on-the-land, libertarian militias, and others like Clive Bundy so often just so happen to be white supremacists.
You say stupid shit about me for working for a big organization because of your ideological opposition to government. I’m just going by what you post, which casts aspersions on a lot of decent people because of your ideology.
There was a lot about being in the military that sucked. I shouldn’t be praised just for that choice, but there is sacrifice involved.
Of course you’re not compelled – I’m just asking. If you don’t want to demonstrate any decency, or try to connect with people online that you’re trying to persuade, that’s your choice.
Because any legitimate points that the Confederacy might have happened to make were totally overwhelmed by their utter hypocrisy (and evil, of course) on slavery. They pretended to support “states’ rights”, but only in support of slavery – they didn’t want Northern states to have the right to take in escaped slaves. They even pretended to have popular support for secession while ignoring the opinion of millions within their own borders.
I oppose war except when absolutely necessary – this includes all the recent conflicts going back to 2001.
“Help, help, I’m being oppressed!”
“How so?”
“[incoherent mumbles about how the U.S. Postal Service is backed up by the threat of violence]”
My god you’re an asshole.
I like to think of him as just plain silly, myself. He’s like a child who’s discovered a word that upset adults and thus wants to use it often, giggling each time.
And what happens when my cop disagrees with your cop? “You’re under arrest.” “No, he isn’t; he’s under my protection.” A shootout on the street?
What happens when my judge delivers a verdict contradictory to the verdict given by your judge? “You have to pay the man restitution.” “No he doesn’t, and you’re in contempt.” An appeal? To whom?
Your ideas only work in primitive/tribal situations, but cannot work in a highly technical civilization, where complex interests exist in conflict with one another.
If you believe that there should be a group enforcing laws, then you are a shitty anarchist in addition to being a shitty human being. I’m thinking you’re just a selfish anarcho-capitalist without the stones for real anarchism.
Yes, I am drawing certain conclusions from your posts. You can correct me if you like.
It is simple, if your cop is bigger than their cop, you win.
If your judge is bigger than their judge you win.
To be fair, this actually sounds like fun.
If libertopia has “Legal Cage Matches (Two counselors enter… One verdict is returned)”, then it may not be that bad a place to live.
I find it inappropriate and offensive that aspersions are cast here based on occupation. I once designed a machine purchased by the CIA. Should I be chastised as well?
So iiandyiiii works with SSBNs? Why not start a thread Ask me about U.S. nuclear secrets. 
But anyway, isn’t there a strong case that such weapons have prevented war, not increased it?
Primitive societies were typically autocratic with communist tendencies. I think feudalism is a better analogy for Hyperlibertopia. In medieval Europe peasants unattached to the land were at Liberty to wander (though with no central government providing security it was very dangerous) and at Liberty to pledge life-long fealty and servitude to a warrior-lord for his protection. (Persons in Hyperlibertopia are at Liberty to contract for long-term employment. A main point where Mr. Farnaby might be slightly more progressive than Feudalism is binding the progeny of a serf to serfdom. Though even there, since the serf is a tenant, the land-owner in Farnaby’s model would presumably have the right to evict the newborn for trespassing if they didn’t pledge fealty.)
As you say, that could be fun to watch…
That makes some sense; it replaces a government with a bunch of competing corporations that have their own internal governmental functions: their own police, their own courts, their own regulatory agencies, etc. But at that point, what’s the difference? The average guy is still governed; he is still subject to laws, vulnerable to arrest (including false arrest), and yet, in this model, has less ability to choose who the leaders will be.
How could anyone imagine that such a system gives more liberty, when it so obviously depends on surrendering personal sovereignty via the pledge of fealty?
(For all that the “social contract” governs us all, no one has ever actually made me swear fealty to the government!)
Laissez-faire freed the slaves?