Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[Goryani]

Goryani:I don’t have the time nor the patience to go point by point through your last compilation of misstatements, distortions, and outright bull crap. So it comes down to this. You say that you accurately used the term “barriers to entry into the marketplace” to refer to the situation where customers are not getting the all information they want about products from the producers. I’m saying that that use is a total distortion of the term.

Prove me wrong. Point me to just one article where any economist uses that term in any way close to the way you used it. And to save you some time and to save me from wasting time, “Being the sole arbiter of what liabilities are hid represents monopolistic power” is not an acceptable answer because you misused another economic term, “monopolistic”. Everyone who has the property rights to a product has total control over that product. And, using your bizarre logic, one could argue that the owner has monopolistic power over his product. Of course, that means that every owner of every product in a Free Market has a monopoly, which would render the discussions about how monopolistic power distorts the Market meaningless.

I'm not wanting to waste my time with definition arguments so I'll start small.

Is it "good" to maximize economic output? Does capitalism attempt to maximize output? Are the restraints placed on capitalism justified if such restraints maximize output?

If you answer yes to all, then we share enough common ground to continue.

[I know I just said that I was not going to respond to your last post point by point, but this little gem is too good to resist.]

The use of currency (i.e. money) was present before governments existed and it still exists where governments do not exist. Yes, they exist to reduce the inefficiencies of trade by barter (see: a coincidence of wants -- another economic term), but they were created by the Market participants, NOT the government.

To prove my point, please remember what game brought many of us here, D2. Was there a Market in the game? Certainly. Was there a currency in the game? Again certainly; initially SOJ’s, then various grades of gems, etc. Was this currency implemented by a Government? Absolutely not.

Government is the mechanism by which two or more persons agree to be governed by a common set of ideas. Government has existed since the days of Adam and Eve. Government existed before shiny beads. People wanting to govern themselves is why the shiny beads became "currency." It's important to note that government didn't create the shiny beads in the way currency is created today.

One end result of government is that currency has value. People only use currency if they think it has value. Currency has value only if OTHERS think it has value. The net effect of a person and others agreeing that a mostly useless shiny bead or piece of paper has value only comes about if they agree to be governed by the idea. That's government.

The D2 currency was established by the users of D2 wanting to establish a currency. The players wanted to be governed so governed they were. Enough players agreed on the various currencies that others followed suit. What type of government is that? That's a very good question. It's probably a mix of laissez faire capitalism and anarchy and emulator of .

Also, the “shiny beads” that you referred to is actually an early example of currency.

That's why I mentioned it.

[Stevinator]

I prefer "efficiently allocate resources" over "maximize output".

[BobCox2]

Ron Paul wins 62% at Louisiana GOP Convention as his Delegates are Arrested


"now you see the violence inherent in the system".

[jmervyn]

Just a callback to <WHY> I didn't like Ron Paul:

"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense," said Ron, via Twitter, in reference to the murdered SEAL sniper.

[SaroDarksbane]

"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.'

Saw that. Love how outraged "Christians" get when people quote Jesus at them.

[BobCox2]

Just a callback to <WHY> I didn't like Ron Paul:

So you like him now?



Your being unclear...

[krischan]

Just a callback to <WHY> I didn't like Ron Paul:

"Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.'

That on its own seems to hit the nail on the head.

Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense," said Ron, via Twitter, in reference to the murdered SEAL sniper.

Adding something to the saying might lead to a wrong application of it, however.

PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? I don't quite understand what he means with ot then. That murdering him was meant as a cure? Has the killer been caught BTW?

Jesus didn't say that if somebody lives by the sword that it's OK if others kill him by the sword in return. He also didn't say that if you live by the sword, you deserve to die by the sword. He didn't even say that it's generally wrong to live by the sword. It's just about what's probably going to happen to you if you use potentially lethal violence, no matter if for your goals or for goals of others or for a greater good.

[jmervyn]

Saw that. Love how outraged "Christians" get when people quote Jesus at them.

I think it's more about what a dick move this was by Ron, when he's been playing them for decades. He walked it back, but those true colors shine through.

Glenn Beck congratulates Ron Paul on joining the Westboro Baptist Church (the crazies who protest military funerals because "God Hates Fags").
And in fact he's not exaggerating. He may have been exaggerating when he said that, but recent events have rescued the statement from the category of exaggeration. The Westboro Cultists and Idolators really did ride to Doctor Paul's defense (Update II).
A Medal of Honor winner, Dakota Meyer, asks if he's lost his mind.
Nope. He's just freed now to express it honestly. He's the same soaking-in-your-own-hatred nasty hippie he's always been.

So you like him now?



Your being unclear...

I'll answer legitimately, despite your question likely being snark. I definitely find myself aligned often with him on policies, to include many of the military ones. America as the World's Policeman is worse than a thankless job, and we ought to be far more like the Founders' concept of Swiss-like neutrality and disinterest. However, Paul has in the past opposed ALL allegiances and particularly those with Israel, which he views as having undue influence in the U.S. Even if that were true, which I don't really accept (I think of all the lobbies, the "Jewish lobby" is the most overrated - and they were squarely supportive of Obama despite his anti-Israeli desires).

Libertarians come in a multitude of flavors, some vanilla and some with nut clusters. However, Paul's always been a fruitcake of the anti-Semitic Chuck Hagel variety, to which I am wholly opposed. Having him hold up his status as an Air Force veteran to defend his massively-prick-ish behavior makes him look even more the putz.

That on its own seems to hit the nail on the head.

It's also something a giant prick would say immediately after a kind and caring human (which by all accounts this man was, despite his method of military service) died. Ergo...

Adding something to the saying might lead to a wrong application of it, however.

"Might"? Try "did". With malice aforethought.

PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? I don't quite understand what he means with ot then. That murdering him was meant as a cure? Has the killer been caught BTW?

Killer's name is Routh; he was arrested shortly after and the murder weapon (a pistol) found in his home. The sniper (Kyle) and another vet were involved in PTSD rehab efforts - and I doubt you know it but firing ranges are often extremely therapeutic.

He didn't even say that it's generally wrong to live by the sword. It's just about what's probably going to happen to you if you use potentially lethal violence, no matter if for your goals or for goals of others or for a greater good.

Just so; He didn't disapprove outright of soldiers (particularly the Centurion)and tax gatherers but rather of their potential for malicious conduct - particularly worth comparison with His attitude regarding the religious/civil authorities and their hypocrisy.

[krischan]

Again, we have a disturbing level of agreement, except you didn't notice all of my sarcasm

"Might"? Try "did". With malice aforethought.

I would call it living by the sword in a figurative manner. That's what politicians of all factions are doing most of the time when addressing each other, friends, opponents and enemies. Insinuating malice is just another way of using words as a weapon. I don't have that many problems with doing that, but it depends on the case.

Just so; He didn't disapprove outright of soldiers (particularly the Centurion)and tax gatherers but rather of their potential for malicious conduct - particularly worth comparison with His attitude regarding the religious/civil authorities and their hypocrisy.

Jesus also taught to love your enemy and to show the other cheek. It's not just about "you shall not murder/kill".

Christianity isn't the religion of the strong and the rulers, but of the weak and the ruled, so I'm very wary about politicians appearing as if they have Christian virtues. The Christian religion actually supports them (and the church as well!) in abusing religion in order to strengthen their rule.

[jmervyn]

Again, we have a disturbing level of agreement, except you didn't notice all of my sarcasm

Ooops. It never translates well.

Jesus also taught to love your enemy and to show the other cheek. It's not just about "you shall not murder/kill".

Sure, but there's an incredible amount of hypocrisy directed at Christians under the accusation OF hypocrisy. The bait-and-switch of translation regarding "murder" and "kill" for starters, which leads inevitably to the questioning of the role of a sniper in warfare. There's no more personal sense of murdering someone on the modern battlefield than that felt by the sniper, who sees his enemy's face in a very real sense.

Christianity isn't the religion of the strong and the rulers, but of the weak and the ruled, so I'm very wary about politicians appearing as if they have Christian virtues. The Christian religion actually supports them (and the church as well!) in abusing religion in order to strengthen their rule.

Indubitably. I may lay into Steve for his insane claims about Dan Brown style theocratic conspiracies in Gov't, but all you have to do is look at Obama's embrace of Jim Wallis to recognize the truth of that.