Alright, you convinced me. I actually got the book today.
2 Likes
The EconTalk podcast was interesting, Polo. Thanks. Enjoyed the history related to Friedman, Greenspan, etc…
@Basement_Gainz. That thread has really moved on, but I wanted to say. This was a good comment. I’m pretty sure most of @zecarlo 's ire was aimed at me. That’s cool. I’m used to not being the smartest person in the room. I like her novels, and I’m cool with having dreadful taste in books. If you ever want some recommendations for some dreadful literature, I can set you up with some really trashy romance novels. No problem.
You need to be at least a level TEN Deplorable to like Ayn Rand, Beans. I estimate that you’re only about a level three, so they probably aren’t for you. Ha! Also, it’s helpful to have crap taste in books, and know jack about philosophy. Fortunately, I meet all of the above criteria. Seriously, there are a lot of good books out there, @countingbeans, and we all like different things. I got @Drew1411 to read Atlas last year on his vacation, which was cool. My kid read Anthem as required reading in high school, so that was also fun for me. I like it when people I like will talk books with me.
2 Likes
I got you … every once in a while when I’m listening to an EconTalk episode and he runs through his preamble of having the archives going back to 2006, I can’t believe I’ve been listening to them for like 10 years.
For how stale the subject matter can seem from time to time, I really love how Russ Roberts can play Devil’s Advocate even for stuff that he agrees with. He’s a very good interviewer - his style is somewhat similar, imo, to Uncommon Knowledge.
1 Like
I like Uncommon Knowledge, and hadn’t listened to EconTalk before, so I appreciate the recommendation.
Unrelated, except you put up a Rippetoe podcast, and I didn’t realize he’s a Libertarian. You guys might get a kick out of this. It’s a clip from a longer interview, but I’ve only seen this part. Ha! He’s pretty funny to listen to. Not very PC.
1 Like
No ire. I don’t get why someone can not like someone or not admire someone or simply disagree with someone and not have it mean anything more than that. Everyone needs something for some inner narrative or agenda or to be able to apply some label.
I have a question about libertarianism and libertarians. In the real world, would you follow your principles and ideals if it meant death for you or your family? I mean, if respecting someone’s property rights meant your family would perish would you still respect those rights. I’m sure this must have been asked before.
An example would be a natural disaster hits and your neighbor has food and water for weeks but won’t share. You can’t hold out until help comes without access to his supplies.
Ouch… I figured I was well over 5 maybe into 7 territory based on being a straight white male, pro gun rights and loathing third wave feminism, identity politics, post modernism and other lefty nonsense.
If they were shorter, I would read. It’s mostly the time commitment. Plus I’m sure I’ve already gotten the jist of everything she’s going to say.
1 Like
if you’re asking if most people will resort to crime, theft or worse, to survive… Yes, they likely will.
See the whole of human existence as an example.
That doesn’t seem like a fair scenario to judge someone’s political beliefs though. Would a pacifist use violence to stop someone from raping their wife? One would hope they would. But is that a fair example to judge their principles?
I’m impressed, Beans. I may have underestimated the level of UP TO NO GOOD you’re capable of. Good to have you back.
Alrighty. That’s fine. You threw out the word “ignorant.” My impression was that you came into the thread ready to pick a fight with anyone who said anything at all positive about Rand. You seem to be of the mind that people have to swallow someone’s philosophy or ideas whole, or reject them altogether. I don’t do that with any political party, or ideology.
Think I’m doing it wrong? Cool. “That’s your opinion, man.”
Use of the extreme hypothetical generally has problems.
There’s one I recently saw. Something meant to be an extreme gotcha/ logical trap for the pro-life people, about choosing between saving a 5-year-old child or a refrigerator full of embryos. People seem to love these logical “traps” but they’re usually not very useful, IMO.
I am a Catholic. My principles are rooted in the teaching of Jesus Christ. My political views are libertarian.
2 Likes
This is an awful argument, but I see why the pro-choice camp will cream all over themselves about it.
In the end, it’s moral relativism, which is fine if they want to play it. But all it is, ultimately, is a justification for being okay with abortion. Once you have to use a moral equivalence test in an absurd hypothetical to justify being pro-choice the pro-life people already “won”.
To answer the question, of course I’d rescue the 5 year old. The under developed people in the test tubes have less immediate value than the five year old to civilization as a whole. Harsh and brutal way to look at it? Sure, but life isn’t all that tender…
But more to this, nah it’s totally cool when it’s about healthcare, lol.
1 Like
I would probably try to take my neighbor’s supplies. I’m a sinner and well aware of it. My neighbor would be completely and totally justified in using whatever force was necessary to prevent my theft of his belongings-100% and without question.
1 Like
I would find some way to boil water with a camp fire and make a makeshift shelter. You can live a month without food easy. Start walking toward somewhere with food.
Or offer my neighbor money or goods in trade for his food/water.
Your need isn’t a claim on someone else’s property.
My man, I think you are misusing the word “easy” here … especially for our soft, domesticated asses.
2 Likes
Sorry. By “easy” I really meant “with a high chance of survival”. I forget the other numbers they throw out there. You die in 1 night without some shelter (potentially) and 3 days without water I think.
Not eating for a month would suck, but you’d live. Especially if you’re fat like me.
We used to watch that show naked and afraid, you can definitely go a month without food, but you’re pretty much done in about 5 days. You just don’t have the energy to do anything.
1 Like
Fair … from what I know, it ain’t easy, but it can be done … I’d imagine there are health implications associated with that kind of shock to our metabolism - especially since we have abundant access to highly nutritious food - that type of access doesn’t exist outside of society (i.e. in nature).
That’s my point of reference as well, Naked and Afraid … it does NOT look easy in any sense … These people are end up blacking out just standing up due to their extreme caloric deficits … that shit looks brutal but, yes, usually they do survive it.
1 Like
You did not answer the actual question. The choice is respect his rights and your family dies or do what you have to in order to survive. The basic question is: what happens when ideology meets biological reality?
And for those of you who talk about going a month without food, you would be OK watching your kids suffer? Could they go a month without food? Keeping in mind the only reason they are starving is because your neighbor doesn’t want to share even though he has enough for himself and you. Are you willing to watch them die in order to protect the rights of someone to be a jerk? And imagine a society made up of people like that. Would it even last long enough to be considered a society?