rkbabang

Not that I know of, but it is possible. There will always be trafficking in stolen goods, people not excepted. It can't be stopped 100%. Certainly the illegality of prostitution makes the problem much worse than it otherwise would be.

What really should be illegal and unacceptable in any civilized society is using force (either as an individual or a group, such as a government) to stop peaceful people from doing something simply because you find it distasteful.

Your wife wouldn't be a victim of force/violence/aggression, no. We don't (and shouldn't) lock people up for cheating on their wives. As far as human trafficking goes. Car sales are legal and stolen car trafficking occurs. Selling cars is engaging in peaceful free-market commerce, trafficking in stolen cars is not. Prostitution is simply engaging in peaceful free-market commerce. Kidnapping and selling human beings against their will is not. In both cases the peaceful free-market activity (voluntary commerce between consenting adults) should be legal, the theft and/or violence should not.

It is up to each league (as they are private organizations) what their policy on them is and whether or not to test. Personally, I'd love to see what humans can do using all of the performance enhancing technology available. Maybe there is a market for a competing baseball league in which anything goes? Or maybe not. But to echo what Ericopoly just said above, sending armed men to kidnap and imprison people for it is ridiculous.

And it'd be nice for all drug penalties to carry less time in jail than crimes such as rape, murder, and kidnapping.

The trouble with the Mrs is one example. Your guilt is another. These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention. However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts. There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates. Same for polyamory. So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals? It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts. However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well. Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once. He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior. We are social animals with social instincts. Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit. Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual. We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not. That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different. Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts. There was a victim in Madoff's crime. It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free. So you should imprison him. However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime. You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist. It is just like the old usury laws. It was fine to lend money to people for free, just a crime to get paid to do it even if the borrower was perfectly willing to pay interest.

For one you need bullets to handload your own ammunition. I don't think for a minute that loaded ammunition would be $5000 per round and gun powder, brass, and bullets would be cheap. But even if that is the case, I'm a firm believer in the division of labor. My time is worth too much to spend my spare time in my basement reloading ammo. Someone with a factory can do it much more efficiently and I am perfectly willing to pay the market price for those factory loaded rounds. It goes back to the morality of using force to stop people from selling something at a price they want to a buyer who is willing to pay.

All this talk about morals and health is just B.S. How is it moral to use force to stop two consenting adults from exchanging money for a mutually agreed upon product or service? "But I don't like people doing that" isn't a justification for using force against another human being. Not if you think human beings are "more valuable than animals".

One problem with the $5000/bullet idea. If I pay $5000 per bullet I will be much less likely to practice, in fact I wouldn't practice at all. So when the time comes and I have to fire my gun in an attempt to save my life, having only fired a gun once or twice in my life (at $5000/bullet how could I justify more practice than that?) will I be more or less likely to hit the person I am aiming at? And more importantly will I be more or less likely to hit someone else? If you wan't to save innocent lives ammunition should be cheaper so that people can practice more.

I agree completely. Not only that, there would be a couple of new industries to invest in. What do you think of that new chain of brothels with the drive-through bays setup like Jiffy Lube?

What do you think will replace it? If I Zorrofan knows that, then he'd be busy creating it. Or at the very least investing in it. And I doubt he'd share it with us yet.

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the vast majority of millionaires are both straight and married, which means that there would be almost as many women millionaires as men millionaires.

Smart kid. Your profession is a little easier to explain than mine. I design integrated circuits. When my son was little I was trying to explain this to him and told him that "I make chips" he asked "Like Doritos?".

None of these are specifically about investing, but I think they all apply. I love RAH. "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events." --Robert A. Heinlein "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." --Robert A. Heinlein "One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others." --Robert A. Heinlein "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." --Robert A. Heinlein "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." --Robert A. Heinlein

I read this book a long time ago, so I don't remember all of the details or the story, but I have never forgotten the message. IIRC: 1) Spend less than you make. 2) Regardless of what ever happens in your life or what stupid decisions you make or have made in the past whenever money comes in always, always, always pay yourself first, at least 10%. There may have been other nuggets of wisdom that I have forgotten, but those are the two that have always stuck with me. If you follow those two pieces of advise alone from a young age you can't help acquiring wealth.

Does the Nano offer speed granularity between 1 and 2x or are those the only two choices? I guess if that's all you have, it's motivation to learn to get used to it. I haven't tried the nano for podcasts, but the iOS podcast apps I've seen - including the official Apple one - allow you to pick anything you want between 0.9x and over 2x, so that's another thing that might make your experience better. The Nano offers 0.5X, 1X, and 2X (there might be faster, but I've never tried faster than 2x). So yes, if 2X doesn't work I need to go back to 1X. It would be nice to have more granularity.

Liberty, thanks for the tips. I use an iPod Nano right now, so I can't try the ios app, but maybe I'll switch to a iPod touch eventually and I'll try it. I always try 2X first and if I can follow it I keep it there, if not I'll switch it back to 1X. I'd say I keep it on 2X 90% of the time, there is very rarely anything I can't follow at that speed. I've lived in New England my whole life and we talk kind of fast compared to the rest of the country so maybe this is the reason. I don't know.

Thanks I'll check it out. I have a half hour commute each way and I listen to either audiobooks or podcasts every day at 2x speed (2 hours/day of content). So I'm always looking for something else to listen to.

+1, I'll 2nd these recommendations. I read these a long time ago and loved them. If you like this period, have a listen to the "Death Throes of the Republic" part of the Hardcore History audiobook length podcasts from Dan Carlin. They are episodes 34-39 here http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1&sort=0&page=2 it looks like he charges for his old episodes. I've been listening to him for years, so I originally got them for free as all his latest episodes are available for free here: http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive. If you use itunes search for Hardcore History I'm not sure how far back in the archive you can get there for free. Highly recommended. His earlier episodes on the Punic Wars are excellent as well. All his stuff is excellent.

Which "real problem"? I agree compared to things like the US's foreign policy feeding the military industrial complex the welfare system is a very tiny problem. But my original comment was in response to someone who mentioned single parent households. There are two major causes of single parent households, which are the primary reasons that there are a lot of them now and were not many of them say 80 years ago. 1) is the welfare system (you get more of what you subsidize) and 2) is the war on drugs. So when you are talking about single parent households as "the problem" then yes, the welfare system is a major cause of it. Can you cite data for this? For the drug war it is easy: from(http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50% One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense. African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project) If you are in jail, you are not being a father to your children. If you have served time in jail you are less likely to be able to support your children and welfare is often a better option for the mother(s). Since the drug war targets young black and Hispanic men almost exclusively these communities are devastated by fatherlessness. It is very easy for rich white folk to put their fingers in their ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you" and pretend that this isn't happening, but, sorry, it is. As far as welfare goes I'm not going to look up the statistic now, if I get a chance I will. But from memory, the black community in the US had no fatherlessness problem (compared with today) in the 1950s and black poverty was decreasing at a rate of about 1%/year right up until Johnson's so called "war on poverty", when the statistics for black fatherlessness and poverty immediately took a turn in the other direction and has never recovered. Nixon's war on drugs starting in the early 70's only exacerbated both problems and continues to this day.

Which "real problem"? I agree compared to things like the US's foreign policy feeding the military industrial complex the welfare system is a very tiny problem. But my original comment was in response to someone who mentioned single parent households. There are two major causes of single parent households, which are the primary reasons that there are a lot of them now and were not many of them say 80 years ago. 1) is the welfare system (you get more of what you subsidize) and 2) is the war on drugs. So when you are talking about single parent households as "the problem" then yes, the welfare system is a major cause of it.

Heh. So, just an anecdotal story for you. My daily commute used to be the 4 train in Manhattan up thru harlem and the bronx. And it's rush hour one summer evening, and everyone is standing. The proximity to other warm bodies oppressive, everyone is exhausted and wants to get home, and there are these two spanish women, overweight, from the south bronx (based on where they got off to "go home"), and they are loudly having a conversation. The topic of which is LITERALLY how to (1) trick men into impregnating them so they can collect both welfare and child support (2) exactly how many children to have which is the optimal amount to collect the most from city/state/federal welfare programs and (3) how to use various monies given to them for the sake of their kids to buy, well, stuff (cable tv, cell phones etc). One girl was telling the other how she actually accomplished this. I mean, it was detailed and everything: the specific programs, filing processes, how long it takes to process, where to go buy things afterwards, etc. At some point I knew it wasn't just hot air. And I could not believe what I was hearing! I almost burst out laughing because it seemed so ridiculous once I knew they was completely serious. And the looks of the other passengers was equally incredulous. So maybe it's not everyone, maybe it's not a majority, maybe those were the only two people in the entire country who consciously made that choice. But to say something like "But to imply that poor people - particularly those born into poor circumstances - remain there because of conscious decisions is, in my humble opinion, either ignorant or self-serving." is in some cases factually wrong and (in my mind) frankly is a very middle/upper class thing to say! The reality is that you, and I, simply do not know the thought processes of some of these people, so we can opine all we want about why we think they are in their situation, but we really have absolutely no clue. Just my 2 cents. I personally know women like this. I'm glad people on this forum have lives free of such scumbags, but you should move to Massachusetts, where I lived most of my life (the Fall River or Worcester areas would be best) and you will certainly run into such women. I can only imagine what it is like in some parts of NYC or LA. Anyway I've said enough on this topic, I'll let the rest of you get back to your own world where you watch unicorns jump over rainbows.

So you saying this was done on purpose by Malaysia Airlines? Are they trying to getting rid of some of their planes this year for the insurance money or something?

so, are you saying people getting hit by lightning aren't actually cursed? No they are not cursed, that's absurd. People get struck by lightning because they angered Zeus.

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin? Hitler is the better, obviously. If you like Stalin you have to like vodka and we can't have drunks walking around the streets. We should all be Nazis because Hitler was a teetotaler. What's to stop you from being a drunk if you are not a member of the NSDAP? Hitler is my pick as well for three reason. 1) I'm not a huge fan of Vodka. 2) Stalin killed more people. and 3) I'm not Jewish so I'd be safer under Hitler, Stalin killed just anyone.