self-ownership

motherjones: We learned something new today....

Wed, 30 May 2012 21:33:44 -0500

We learned something new today. Er.

(via)

Separation of church and what?

Also, being a libertarian doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an Austrian too. Austrian...

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:14:00 -0500

Also, being a libertarian doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an Austrian too.

Austrian economics is one of those terms that’s thrown around a lot, but I don’t think most people truly understand what it is they’re supporting.　

Libertarian Scientists Cannot Exist.

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:03:10 -0500

realpolitiks:

Reason: The Austrian school rejects the scientific method and empirical data.

Furthermore, the Austrian school rejects most of modern macroeconomics because it cannot be reduced to micro problems.

… The title “Sane Libertarians Cannot Exist” is also appropriate for this post.

To clarify, the Austrian school doesn’t reject the scientific method per se. Austrians just don’t believe it is a sufficient means to analyze economic behavior. Economics is a social science studying human beings and humans act. This is a key point to understand.

We’re not atoms or chemicals. Economics is not like a science experiment where you combine two substances and arrive at the same result each and every time. Unless you alter the would-be actions of human beings, you cannot accurately apply the scientific method to economic behavior. The scientific method has its place and it’s much more suitable for the natural sciences than it is the social ones.

I can’t even play video games anymore without letting my economic views affect the way I...

Wed, 30 May 2012 17:26:44 -0500

I can’t even play video games anymore without letting my economic views affect the way I play.

I’ve been playing a lot of Diablo 3 lately and I’m pretty sure the in-game currency is going to collapse similar to the way it did in Diablo 2.

Inflation is already really bad because the amount of money entering the game is drastically higher than the amount exiting the game. I thought the developers planned in advance for this but it doesn’t look like it after all.

So yeah I’m not too worried about saving money right now or being poor in the short-term.

Smoothie. (Taken with instagram)

Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:51 -0500

Smoothie. (Taken with instagram)

On Selling Organs

Wed, 30 May 2012 11:42:47 -0500

On Selling Organs:

squashedcomments:

libertarians-and-stoya:

Intentions =/= results. Banning the selling of kidneys doesn’t stop the selling of kidneys nor does it help those who could really use the money (not to mention those who fucking need kidneys).

So get off your high horse and explain to me how prohibiting self-ownership and the freedom of bodily choice plus creating a prohibition is in anyway helping anyone.

So what’s the harm? We’re talking about the commodification of the human body. Currently, you just own your body. Nobody can take it away from you. As soon as people start selling things, all your organs become assets. Alienable. Suddenly somebody else can own a chunk of your body. That’s not okay.

Suddenly somebody else owns a part of your body because you sold it to them. You agreed to remove an organ from your body to give to them in exchange for money. But once you give the organ to them, it’s no longer yours so it is no longer a part of your body. It’s not as if the recipient now owns a certain percentage of the donor’s body and suddenly has a certain claim over their actions. The donor simply has one less organ than they did before the transaction.

I’ve never heard a single decent argument against selling organs. Every argument basically comes back to an emotional one: I don’t like the idea of people selling their organs for money so I want to make it illegal even though the transactions are voluntary and will save lives.

intjcuber: buttcamp: have you ever just listened to a recording of you talking and then felt...

Tue, 29 May 2012 23:29:33 -0500

intjcuber:

buttcamp:

have you ever just listened to a recording of you talking and then felt terrible for anyone who’s ever had to talk to you ever

It’s probably narcissistic but I love my voice; it’s one of my best qualities.

Yeah I agree. Almost everyone tells me I have a nice voice.

So I’ve been watching the shit out of True Blood lately. Great show.

Tue, 29 May 2012 23:04:37 -0500

So I’ve been watching the shit out of True Blood lately.

Great show.

A societal crime

Tue, 29 May 2012 21:51:00 -0500

A societal crime:

A Long Beach hospital charged Jo Ann Snyder $6,707 for a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis after colon surgery. But because she had health insurance with Blue Shield of California, her share was much less: $2,336.

Then Snyder tripped across one of the little-known secrets of healthcare: If she hadn’t used her insurance, her bill would have been even lower, just $1,054.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Snyder, a 57-year-old hair salon manager. “I was really upset that I got charged so much and Blue Shield allowed that. You expect them to work harder for you and negotiate a better deal.”

Unknown to most consumers, many hospitals and physicians offer steep discounts for cash-paying patients regardless of income. But there’s a catch: Typically you can get the lowest price only if you don’t use your health insurance.

That disparity in pricing is coming under fire from people like Snyder, who say it’s unfair for patients who pay hefty insurance premiums and deductibles to be penalized with higher rates for treatment.

The difference in price can be stunning. Los Alamitos Medical Center, for instance, lists a CT scan of the abdomen on a state website for $4,423. Blue Shield says its negotiated rate at the hospital is about $2,400.

When The Times called for a cash price, the hospital said it was $250.

Wow so when patients pay hospitals directly for the services they need out of pocket we start seeing a drop in prices? Who could have guessed such a thing would happen?!?!!?

Photo

Tue, 29 May 2012 21:08:52 -0500

hob-nob answered your question: Company A operates in a market and is “licensed”… Give me a...

Tue, 29 May 2012 20:45:00 -0500

hob-nob answered your question: Company A operates in a market and is “licensed”…

Give me a real world example.

Little kids selling lemonade.

Blogging about food without a dietetics license.

Selling ice cream without a dairy license.

Every restaurant in existence that doesn’t sell alcohol because they lack a liquor license.

gettothemepark: iced out I own one myself.

Tue, 29 May 2012 20:15:34 -0500

gettothemepark:

iced out

I own one myself.

agoodwomanis answered your question: Company A operates in a market and is “licensed”… Why...

Tue, 29 May 2012 20:13:35 -0500

agoodwomanis answered your question: Company A operates in a market and is “licensed”…

Why didn’t Company B get a license?

As Brian stated in a reply, “Company B didn’t get a license because Company A’s lobbying efforts made sure they couldn’t afford it while established Company A could.”

But to clarify, even if the license only cost a single penny I’d still side with Company B. Why should they be required to have a license to operate in the marketplace? Why can’t customers decide on their own whether Company B’s products or services are worth the money?

I believe a business is licensed to operate in the market when my two feet bring me through their doors time and time again.

Company A operates in a market and is “licensed” to provide their goods or...

Tue, 29 May 2012 20:02:31 -0500

Company A operates in a market and is “licensed” to provide their goods or services.

Company B operates in the same market, does not have a license, but still has a strong presence within the market with an established customer base.

Company A takes legal action and uses the government to force Company B out of the market because they don’t have a license. This is done to protect the consumer.

See what’s going on here?

iambinarymind: “Profit” represents how much a business is...

Tue, 29 May 2012 18:06:04 -0500

iambinarymind:

“Profit” represents how much a business is satisfying the demands of people.

Profit never comes before people.

Profit comes from serving people.

antigovernmentextremist: Caveman Blogger Fights for Free Speech...

Tue, 29 May 2012 17:11:56 -0500

antigovernmentextremist:

Caveman Blogger Fights for Free Speech and Internet Freedom

There are fewer things I hate more than the license mentality.

Photo

Tue, 29 May 2012 17:06:30 -0500

Photo

Tue, 29 May 2012 14:19:45 -0500

"On taxes, the Democrat favors a top income tax rate of 39.5%, and the Republican favors a top rate..."

Tue, 29 May 2012 12:14:58 -0500

“On taxes, the Democrat favors a top income tax rate of 39.5%, and the Republican favors a top rate of 35%. Well, ain’t democracy grand? We get to debate a whole four and a half percentage points. We better spread this system all over the world!”

- Tom Woods (in 2007) but still relevant today. (via eltigrechico)

logicallypositive: Also when I ask this I’m genuinely being curious and serious and not trying to...

Tue, 29 May 2012 10:05:02 -0500

logicallypositive:

Also when I ask this I’m genuinely being curious and serious and not trying to be a dick. But earlier I was reading and someone said something to the extent of “under a socialist regime, there will be more time for leisure and people will have to do less work” and I’m wondering exactly how you prove/substantiate such a claim. It seems like blind idealism to me unless you have some sort of evidence/deductive framework in which to back it up. It reeks of the response I heard all too often at Occupy Detroit, that “there wont’ be any homeless after the revolution so fuck them right now” (although in a kinder, more gentler fashion). Like it’s a nice though but how exactly is socialism going to bring about that result?

The one reply to this post didn’t add much.

maozedongisnotcool said: when everyone is employed and you abolish wage labor / pay based on output/productivity, then people have to work less since more people are producing or doing more work