zoink
1yr ago
From: The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression https://archive.is/qz0b8
I tried to to explain what fraud is, if it is to be considered a species of aggression (and to briefly debunk Child), in A Theory of Contracts (p. 34). As I wrote there,
The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan’s not knowingly engaging in ‘fraudulent’ activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition ‘no fraud’ is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen’s $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief.
In other words, for the libertarian, fraud is a type of aggression (namely, theft), just because it is a means by which one party receives or uses or takes the property of someone else without their consent–and there is failure of consent because the first party’s misrepresentation meant that one of the conditions to transfer of title was not satisfied. (I have elaborated on this in various articles and posts: see, e.g.: Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, pp. 60-61, where I tried to explain how a coherent theory of contract and fraud does, in fact, support a type of fraud claim compatible with the non-aggression principle; my exchange with David Heinrich in Comments: debt and the trade against risk; my comments in Objectivists on IP; my exchange with Heinrich regarding “limited liability” and corporations in this thread (2); my exchange, again, w/ Heinrich, regarding fractional reserve banking, in the comments section of Randians go from Mises to supply-side economics)
Looking at fraud this way, it is clear that for there to be fraud–at least of the type that counts as aggression–there must be some victim who did not give genuine consent for the defrauder to use or take his property. There must be a victim of the fraud, and the victimization must be of a type in which there is an ostensible title transfer but which fails because of lack of true consent.
zoink
1yr ago
Communists should be seen at the same level as Nazis. Communists get tenure at major universities.
zoink
1yr ago
Of the non-Christians, they said not even to share a meal with them!
Are you referencing 1 Corinthians 5:11?
I always took pretty much the opposite interpretation of that verse.
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the greedy and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to leave the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the evil person from among yourselves.
New American Standard Bible
zoink
11mo ago
Just like any tool there are situations where it can be effective and situations where it isn't. If your goal is getting true information the key is having ways to confirm the information then come back if the information was incorrect. Repeat. Another method is having multiple people with the same information, you then separate and torture them until their stories match.
zoink
10mo ago
I've commented on this before. I work for a company that's core market is pure Red Tribe. Our headquarters is in a very red state, pre-Trump I am confident that vast majority of executives voted Republican. Execs bought the bailey of wokeness hook, line, and sinker. Wokeness is just being a good moral person and taking action against evil. There is real, malicious racism in much of society and we all have problematic unconscious bias. Fascism is on the rise, we need to take to heart the lessons of World War 2 and never let it happen again. Pride is about not torturing people to death, DEI is not not hiring someone because they are black, or not trying to sleep with a subordinate. They got confused when our pride line went over like a lead balloon, or we host events at organizations that teach CRT. Now think how it all goes at corps where the execs were Democrats or even progressives before Trump's presidency.
This might become my go to example of cancel culture:
Besides, the proof is in the fucking pudding! Unlike most people in politics or journalism, pollsters have a track record that can be tested against actual results. They can be held accountable for political bias that might render their polls less accurate. Rasmussen has indeed had strongly Republican-leaning results relative to the consensus for many years. Despite that strong Republican house effect, however, they’ve had roughly average accuracy overall because polls have considerably understated Republican performance in several recent elections (2014, 2016, 2020).
Even when you can track and mitigate the "bias", the wrong thinkers must be purged.
zoink
10mo ago
What is your top baby/kid advice? We are in the third trimester with our first. Revolutionary must have gadget, let them cry it out, co-sleep don't co-sleep, have a closet lined with mirrors to lock them in?
zoink
10mo ago
I currently (could all change when the kid comes) subscribe to Caplan's philosophy. Pretty much if you feed them and don't beat them they'll probably turn out how they're were going to turn out. Both of us do feel like our parents kind of left some things out and we got a bit of a late start on some things so hopefully we can influence our kids at least a little.
zoink
10mo ago
Thankfully we do, all 4 of them are within 30 minutes. She's been talking to our mom's quite a bit.
zoink
10mo ago
This is literally what my wife said today. "If breast feeding isn't working find me the Keurig formula thing"
zoink
10mo ago
We are a little older so we're looking to move as quick as possible. The real question is probably more what's too soon rather than too long, as long as fertility stay high, which wasn't a problem with this one.
zoink
10mo ago
Why no co-sleep? Suffocation or too dependent of a child? Any suggestion on a good carrier? Everyone around here is all about Baby Bjorn... $239.99, that is a plate carrier...
zoink
10mo ago
A bunch of us decided to get knocked up around the same time. We're thinking rotating date nights where we unload the kids on one couple. Though 6-9 months might be a little young for that.
zoink
10mo ago
I am 95% confident that in 30 years I'll be happy I had as many healthy kids as possible. The issue is that we are in our mid 30's so time is on on our side. My brother in law wanted 6 then his second wrecked him and my sister (who is tough) so I'm 70% confident that I could push through 4 which I think is the max we could safely push to at our ages and handle the miseries that will come with having 3-4 young kids. I think it will mostly be on my wife. I'll need to take on a lot of responsibility and cut back on my frugal desires to keep her on board. I think I'd rather have more kids then a few extra hundred grand at retirement.
I usually describe this as women's economic floor is higher than men. I think there is institutional misandry and racism against white and Asian men in at least the United States. However, I believe it's still and will remain relatively "easy" to set a solid floor as a man. See the Success Sequence: "get at least a high school education, work full time, and marry before having children. Among Millennials who followed this sequence, 97% are not poor when they reach adulthood." Even if institutional racism and misandry increase it's far more productive to spend one's time improving oneself than any other way of fighting the racism and misandry.
The crass way of saying it is: "Leave external locus of control to women."
Now conscription... if that comes back...
Before I start let me preface with I love my wife, none of the following is malicious and I don't think these things are fully conscious. I do know women who are better at finances then their husbands. So people don't think she is a bum she came in to the relationship with about 200k of equity in a house, she brags to everyone how awesome I am with finances, she likes to help on major projects around the house or organize things while I'm working on the vehicles, and I would be 100% fine being the breadwinner if she decided to be a stay at home mom.
She struggles mentally keeping track of cash flows and balances. Mostly it's little things that aren't a big deal. Like when we were dating we went to Costco, spent about $100 dollars, and I had forgotten my wallet. While walking to the car she reminded me to transfer her half the bill. During that period in our relationship I had regularly covered full shopping runs and I had been picking up the tab of our weekly dates to the tune of $75-$100 a week. One time she saw the bill and was shocked that that's how much we'd been spending. A few months before I'd floated her $8k to get her into grad school before the student loans came in.
When we got married we agreed to combine finances but didn't close her bank account because there were some bills tied to it and so she could have some autonomy. The one time I put up some resistance was when she wanted a couple grand because she felt she'd spent thousands more than me on the wedding and transferring her a couple grand would be fair. This was hard for me because it meant I was going to have to dip in to the emergency fund for the first time in years. She suggested we make a spreadsheet only to find that I'd spent thousands more than her. She polished off her $20k inheritance before we got married because she wanted to have some fun before the wedding saying "it was her money" (I had never asked for justification or protested).
She recently suggested that we should follow Dave Ramsey and become debt free by paying off $60k in student loans from a couple failed attempts at graduate degrees by liquidating the emergency fund and the rest of the crypto, all of which I had accumulated before we started dating. She recently talked about how after kids she wants some cosmetic surgery. I remarked that was going to take awhile to save up for, and she said not to worry she'd save up the money. Apart from the inheritance her cash flow has been negative for years and I don't see how that's going to change. She has lamented how she is doing a disproportionate share of the housework, I told her to wait until I get home and I'll help. She doesn't like it being dirty in the 2 to 4 hour difference between when she gets off work and I get off work. I also leave for work an hour and a half before she does.
Which there was just had an announcement on: https://fervoenergy.com/fervo-energy-announces-technology-breakthrough-in-next-generation-geothermal/
zoink
10mo ago
there are many more who use that as an excuse for the real goal of de-electrification.
Like some sort of primitivists? I go with mistake theory, I think it's more that leftism is virtually ignorant of the concept of trade offs. Any negatives are because of a lack of will; just get the right people in power and spend money and we can have zero carbon energy for our dense, walkable, clean, safe, cities.
Random story time! This is one of the first times I've encountered SSPX since my brother-in-law's wedding. His cousin joined CMRI a few years ago and came down for a wedding. He attended an SSPX for the Latin mass and was shocked to see half the congregation openly carrying firearms. Our families are both very evangelical Protestant, and as a recent convert, he is fervent about informing us that we're all destined for hell. Personally, that's never bothered me much. I mean, why should I care if another religion thinks I'm going to hell? I certainly don't believe I'm heading there, at least not for the reasons they believe.
Of course, this caused some tension within the family. What stood out, even more, was when he admitted that if he had his way, the US would be a theocracy, and all other religions or denominations would be banned from public practice. I pointed out that after enjoying the freedom to practice and grow his religion under the Protestant commitment to religious freedom, he would then take that very right away from Protestants. It seemed like an odd thing for a lawyer not to have considered before.
My wife and I are third-generation alumni of the same evangelical school. That's probably the primary purpose of non-elite religious schools. My father pursued a degree and went on to manage restaurants, and her dad was a baker. Both were very successful in their careers, and one could argue that they could have achieved that without a degree. Nevertheless, they cherished the sense of community and connections they gained from the school, becoming leaders in it. While my parents covered my entire tuition, hers covered half. They both loved that school. Nowadays, it costs well over 100k for a mediocre education, and the administration seems to have forgotten that the main point was to find a life partner. Personally, I knew the reason I was going there - it was free - but I couldn't understand why other kids were plunging into debt and not even coming out with a spouse. The state school was much cheaper, and, in my opinion, the girls were more attractive.
Furthermore, from the perspective of many parents, the theology professors at this mediocre academic school seem to turn about a quarter of the students into atheists. So, what exactly is the niche that this school is trying to fill? As far as I know, institutions like Liberty and College of the Ozarks are doing just fine.
zoink
9mo ago
I did a Scandinavia trip (every capital) this time last year and virtually the only mask I saw were on Americans and Asians. Was going to do the Helsinki to Stockholm boat but did Tallinn to Stockholm instead. Good time.
zoink
9mo ago
The sedevacantist group with ties to the mafia?
It's all Greek... er I mean Latin to me.
Yes, sedevacantist. He did go in to that, but not mafia, gonna have to look in to that one.
- a sedevacantist, particularly from out-there hardliners like the CMRI, would go there and 2) any regular Latin mass goer would find lots of open carry shocking.
And based on my culture waring these surprised me as well. I figured he'd hate a group like SPXX with almost more passion than the Holy See. Also I ribbed him about being surprised at open carry because his church is in an area of the country nationally famous for open carry. He said only like three guys in his congregation open carry. He's fresh moved there and is a Cali boy so I'm thinking he's still learning the ropes.
Democrat intellectuals are completely unpalatable to the general public. They have to have plausible deniability when it comes to the Marxists who hate the United States and want to teach preschoolers sex-ed. The media can tell you not to believe your lying eyes when it comes to schools putting strap-on-sucking books in libraries, but a presidential candidate would be hard to run cover for.
I don't usually discuss intellectual property outside of libertarian circles because the starting points are usually two divergent to have a productive conversation. Intellectual property is like debates on abortions personal vs private property cutting to the very core of morality. As will quickly be noted intellectual property is just a social construct which will then be countered with property is just a construct. Then why does the construct of property even exist? To paraphrase Hoppe, original appropriation and private property are a solution to the problem of social order; a way of resolving and avoiding conflict. Why does conflict around property arise? Because stuff is scarce and rivalrous. If stuff was not scarce and rivalrous then why would why would there be disputes, why would the concept of property be needed?
As this video was used to point out how small of chunks of a songs pattern constitute an IP claim? You keep getting smaller and smaller until you're at basic sounds. I'm not a musician so my terms are going to probably be wrong, but in the same vein how much can one alter the pitch, tone, or even volume before you have created a unique enough pattern? The over arching questions: what is the level of uniqueness to gain and/or avoid an IP claim?
The sorites paradox isn't absent for physical property but it is much less. In the vast majority of cases physical property can be defined, boundaries can be set up, literal lines can be drawn. I'm not sure how that's possible with IP. IP dictates what other people can do with their property even if they have had claim to that property longer than the IP claim has existed - how people can combine atoms and organize 1's and 0's.
Then there's the utilitarian argument but I have not idea how you measure the gains vs the losses.
More options
Context Copy link