DonFanucci

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A? Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time. 100% true.

Two takeaways from this thread: 1) Most people are not in honest pursuit of the truth on political matters. 2) Pushing one level below concrete policy into philosophical thought on the issues is met with insult and diversion back to the level of the concrete policies. Everyone seems interested in the precise definition of 'poverty'. Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

So what if it's taxes? I should be able to keep my property and do with it as I see fit. If I can't, then I'm a slave. That why private property flourished as the right to life was discovered. They are intertwined. As James Madison believed, private property is the implementation of all rights. What is the right to open a shampoo parlor other than the right to use your property? What is the right to free speech other than the right to use your printing press, or your radio station, or your computer? If someone takes my money, they've impaired my ability to control my life. Theft is a violation of individual rights and it's wrong. If this is the case, then everywhere on earth is a free country. North Korea is a free country. In fact, I bet if you asked Kim Jong Un if North Korea is free, he'd argue the same thing. You want to start a newspaper in North Korea? Well, you're completely free to do so. You just have to get permission from Kim. It's just a higher price. You are providing an argument that justifies unlimited dictatorship. The world is moving in the wrong direction, and if we want to figure out why, the first place we need to look is our own opinions.

I was referring to the proposals of Trump and Clinton, but of course some are true right now: A government monopoly in education, an utterly distorted health care market with forced redistribution, forced retirement planning, a fascist regulatory state, obscene tax rates with my money spent on things I oppose, a proposed revision of the first amendment, and proposed tariffs cover just the freedoms I listed. That's the thing right? All those freedoms are pretty much available in all countries no matter they left or right lean with a few exceptions like Cuba or whatever. So the freedoms are there. You're just complaining about the price. "those freedoms are pretty much available"... I can't not pay my social security tax and invest it now instead, I can't start a bank with a few of my neighbors, I can't hire someone for $6 an hour, I can't start a medical practice, I can't open a shampoo parlor for that matter, I can't start an insurance company and offer whatever insurance my customers want, I can't stop paying for older people's medicare, I can't stop funding the EPA with my tax dollars. Soon I won't be able to hire a Mexican. How am I free to open a school if my customers are all forced, under threat of jail, to give money to my competitors? This is a very unusual definition of 'available'. The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?

I was referring to the proposals of Trump and Clinton, but of course some are true right now: A government monopoly in education, an utterly distorted health care market with forced redistribution, forced retirement planning, a fascist regulatory state, obscene tax rates with my money spent on things I oppose, a proposed revision of the first amendment, and proposed tariffs cover just the freedoms I listed. Edit: Looks like I forgot immigration policies that prevent me from hiring foreigners.

LOL thanks that gave me a chuckle. Individual freedoms.... all you guys care about is not paying taxes. Glad someone finds a silver lining in the trajectory of the west. A right to choose ones education, ones healthcare, ones retirement, who to hire, what business to start, how to run ones business, how to spend ones money, what to think and say, and who to trade with are not individual freedoms? I guess all I care about it my tax rate.

Oh oh looks like my strategy is taking shape here word by word (notice the coopt) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0 " Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party. Mr. Trump campaigned on some issues that Democrats have long championed and Republicans resisted: spending more on roads, bridges and rail, punishing American companies that move jobs overseas, ending a lucrative tax break for hedge fund and private equity titans, and making paid maternity leave mandatory.Some Democrats are even co-opting Mr. Trump’s language from the campaign. Every single person in our caucus agrees the system is rigged, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan. Still, there will be areas of bright-line disagreement. Democrats are speaking out against Mr. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist, and will oppose his promised tax cuts for the wealthy and his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants." If Dems can execute this perfectly ,we would have a single payer aka socialized medicine, free college,complete rejection of conservative ideology and the government bigger than the size of Trump's ego . And 2020 election will be fought on who is more populist than the other. Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.

This is very concerning, but I think it's worth noting that these racists are largely disgraced in the eyes of thinking people. I am much more worried about the racism on the left, which enjoys widespread cultural acceptance, has a solid intellectual backing, and is taught to children throughout the country. Disgraced or not, I think they pose a real physical danger to many minorities. Very true, and very disturbing. We should look for causes for the rise of racism. At some point in the not too distant past, America reversed direction on the path to color blindness.

This is very concerning, but I think it's worth noting that these racists are largely disgraced in the eyes of thinking people. I am much more worried about the racism on the left, which enjoys widespread cultural acceptance, has a solid intellectual backing, and is taught to children throughout the country.

Just keep on whacking that straw man. Nobody's wanted equality since Lenin. What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich. If an ideal means the violation of rights and destruction when consistently implemented, why would you want to implement it to any degree at all? It's silly to think that people will rise up if there's inequality. They will rise up if they perceive inequality as unjust. They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just.

While I wish that were true, the President has no power to affect the long term intellectual trends in the country. Again, this is something that is being taught, as I was taught it, at the university level. A Trump presidency won't change what professors teach. It can't make it unacceptable for Lena Dunham to preach that straight white men are a problem, and that she feels good about their extinction. People on the left need to stand up and say 'this is wrong'.

This is definitely very disturbing. I think people need to start asking the tough question. Why is it that after decades of left wing controlled public schools and universities, race relations are in a downward spiral? I think the answer is that the new left is extremely racist, and has been feeding racism for years and years. Of course there are racists on the right wing, but they have no intellectual impetus behind them. They are rightfully disgraced in the eyes of every thinking person. But on the left you see a real rise of self-righteous, intellectually motivated and justified racism. For example, you open New York Magazine and see the following article entitled "Another Way White Men are Ruining it for the Rest of Us". In what universe is that OK to publish? The same universe that you turn on your TV and see Samantha Bee blame "white people" for Trump. The same universe that it's OK for Hillary to chastise "white people" for not listening, and for Bernie Sanders to apologize for things he never did, but people of his skin color once did. The same universe where this child , and is praised for it. What could be more disturbing than teaching a helpless child to feel guilt for things that he has no choice about, to feel guilty for the color of his skin and his lot in life, in essence, to feel guilt for his existence? This is exactly what I was taught in school, at the university level. Self hatred by white people, particularly white men, is thought of as a moral virtue- something that should be praised. Why would one expect that teaching children of every race that white people are immoral because of their skin color will make people more color blind? I think what you should expect to get is exactly what we see- growing resentment between races. People should be speaking out against this stuff as ardently as they speak out against the disgusting stuff you see from the racist right.

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth.

Anthem was good but I wasn't into the dystopian fiction at the time. I still had hard time reading the Hunger Games even though my wife loves it. Fountainhead did it for me. I would read it every year but I was a sheltered teenager then. It took me a while to figure out the inefficacy of the propaganda. Fountainhead was good. Less preachy than Atlast Shrugged. I like both books and generally agree with the overarching theme, but am not as radical with it as most. Still agree with a progressive taxes policies, social safety nets, etc. - just approach it from a "less is more" mindset and prefer any governance that can be done at the local level to be left at the local level. She was exactly right about what's destroying the country right now- collectivism and altruism. Collectivism on the right via Trump's nationalism. Collectivism on the left via Bernie's socialism. Both supported by the idea of self sacrifice as a virtue. Sacrifice to the nation for trump, or sacrifice to the collective for Bernie. It's a collective war of all against all now. Blacks vs. whites. Women vs. men. Rich vs. poor. Natural born vs. immigrants. Pick your identity group.

That turtle neck can't be comfortable.

What are some other good ones?

This board is terrible now, and this is a prime example of why. WTF does this have to do with a Joel Greenblatt or investing at all? Joel funds charter schools. And I agree with you for the most part, Scott.

No, I think you're right. The idea is that you didn't do every single thing that occurred in the process of your success. Therefore, you owe some of your success to other people. You need to give some of your success back to those others- the implication being that it belongs to them and you're returning what is rightfully theirs. It's simply a fact that Amazon wouldn't exist without the internet. Of course no one could dispute that. The idea is that this means Bezos owes a moral debt to the creators of the internet. He owes them a part of his success, and he can help remedy this debt by donating money. Now what I'm saying that this is a perverse reinterpretation of what it means to deserve success. Obama is using 'creation from nothing in a vacuum' as the standard of evaluating whether someone deserves their success. Does Prem Watsa deserve his success? Well, he didn't invent insurance. He didn't invent contract theory. He didn't invent water purification. He had great teachers. You can go on forever. If that's the standard by which to evaluate whether someone deserves success, no one deserves anything. Warren Buffett didn't come up with discounting cash flow theory. By Obama's standard, he better give a huge portion of his money back- after all, what would he have achieved without this knowledge? Elon didn't invent the internet, nor did he invent money. Evaluated against the standard of creation from nothing, Elon barely deserves anything for PayPal. Thankfully, most people still don't evaluate 'earning' by this standard. What allows for Elon to truly deserve his success is not that he created it ex nihilo but that it was achieved because of his choices.

I know you're just having fun with the title of the podcast, but I hear that line often enough that I looked it up in context, and I think it's one of those memes that are actually pretty clearly not what the person meant and is used to ascribe them beliefs that they don't have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that It's pretty clear to me it's exactly what he meant. Analyze what he's saying. You worked hard- that doesn't justify your success because a lot of people work hard and don't attain success. You were successful because someone else paid for the roads you used. You were successful because you had a good teacher. You were successful because of the founding fathers. You were successful because the government helped create the internet. In essence, you are not fully responsible for your success. Now, who here exactly is he rebutting? No one believe that businesses don't have employees. No one believes that children don't rely on teachers. No one thinks fighting fires ought to be done by a single individual. No one who says, I built my business, thinks that no one else was involved. When someone says they built their business, what they mean is that they, as an individual, knowingly took the actions necessary to achieve their success. Obama is switching the idea of 'responsibility' from meaning under ones control to entirely of ones making. The result is to undercut those who believe they deserve the fruits of their success. The political position this justifies is obvious. You think you deserve that $20 you made selling lemonade? Well, not completely. Someone else invented lemonade.

Actually this is not true. The founding fathers of America were very much anti-democracy. America was designed as a republic- a form of government focused on the protection of individual rights. This is why we have separation of powers, the electoral college, indirect representation in congress, etc. In a republic, voting isn't all that important because the issues you can change via vote are supposed to pertain only to the execution of the government's protection of rights.

This looks awesome, thanks!

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman. I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence. I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years! +1 +1 Why are you guys so rude?

That is from Karl Hess, Barry Goldwater said it, Karl Hess wrote it. I'm not sure if he ever mentioned the Sex Pistols, but who doesn't like the Sex Pistols? I used to play Bass guitar back in the day. I can't sing to save my life though, so you're going to have to do that. Iiiiiiiiiiiiii am an anarchist (who for the most part conforms because I like my comforts...) Maybe a little adjustment of that lyric alteration would be needed for phrasing! This thread has finally become productive.

Lol! Bring on the brigade! No seriously, if you have an argument to the contrary I'd be interested in it. I've done a lot of research and thinking on these arguments over the years and all the evidence, carefully examined, points one direction. Anti trust is an unnecessary evil.

I would have to disagree with that, I can't think of a single anti trust case that I thought was justified. I can think of some really stupid ones off the top of my head... Microsoft for giving away a browser, IBM for dominating mainframes, Alcoa for literally being too efficient, Staples-Office depot was totally insane, the list goes on and on. It seems like more of a way for competitors to coerce each other because they can't compete in a voluntary market. Like Benioff at Salesforce trying to get his cronies in Europe to block Microsoft's bid for LinkedIn. Standard oil? Bell System? Quite. There is some evidence that the Standard was losing its monopoly due to free market competition anyway. But, some markets do tend toward abuse of monopoly positions which isn't good. I've never seen any evidence of bad monopoly positions, if that 'monopoly' was achieved on an actually free market. Re standard oil... "Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits. That story continued for the remainder of the century, with the price of kerosene to the consumer falling to 5.91 cents per gallon in 1897. Armentano concludes from the record that “at the very pinnacle of Standard’s industry ‘control,’ the costs and the prices for refined oil reached their lowest levels in the history of the petroleum industry.”" https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/ This isn't the only case of this. Alcoa was also attacked for being too efficient. I really don't see a single economic reason for anti trust. There's also the injustice of punishing people for being good. I don't know much about Bell, but I'm fairly confident it's not correct to classify its markets/business as built on voluntary exchange. Government monopolies should definitely be broken up.