[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Ya'll need Mises.

File: 6582f7133eae5f3⋯.jpg (330.35 KB, 1200x1003, 1200:1003, 1547158206994.jpg)


Is there any book, tesis, article computational analysis, whatever aside from marxian theory that understands capitalism not from a moral point of view, but from a deterministic pov, as in the current state of things isn't the result of some ideological or social manipulation scheme but rather that, capitalism is the only way to actually organize a society? Below I share a video I watched the other that got me thinking about the possibility of perhaps capitalism, or rather markets, being the common rule of law today due to the fact that a more elaborated system like communism wouldn't be able to compete.


>In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. An EA uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators.

>Step One: Generate the initial population of individuals randomly. (First generation)

>Step Two: Evaluate the fitness of each individual in that population (time limit, sufficient fitness achieved, etc.)

>Step Three: Repeat the following regenerational steps until termination:

>Select the best-fit individuals for reproduction. (Parents)

>Breed new individuals through crossover and mutation operations to give birth to offspring.

>Evaluate the individual fitness of new individuals.

>Replace least-fit population with new individuals.

also don't post boomer shit like USSR propaganda because it was doome due to geolpolitics and so on. I am taPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.



you can apply evolution theory to it

you try different things and the fittest socioeconomic system survives

however breaking nap is ok in nature



>however breaking nap is ok in nature

That's actually not true, though it wouldn't matter if it was. In nature when a creature fights another creatures, the attacker risks injury. Retaliation is inevitable except in the case of creatures which are either so fragile or so cowardly (for lack of a better term) that they can't or won't fight.


The closest I can think of is Rothbard's article on Chaos Theory.



male lions kill offspring of female lion to make female lion be able to get pregnant sooner


File: 6f3c304b3603c7a⋯.jpg (1.31 MB, 3150x4085, 630:817, kobayashi13.jpg)

File: 63266c922237a6f⋯.jpg (126.49 KB, 786x855, 262:285, Snip20190207_1.jpg)

File: d6496340948d3ff⋯.png (1.47 MB, 1200x891, 400:297, Dx16ndTVYAAILhk.png)

File: 1273cdb513d2acb⋯.jpg (132.68 KB, 1024x615, 1024:615, article-2092529-117A790C00….jpg)



Does /liberty/ have more great examples of rich commie kids, living the good life, enjoying their parents hard-stolen wealth, or otherwise moving as far away as possible from the socialist utopia their parents created for everyone else?

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Lol, all modern Russia



Isn't that what Marx himself was?



No because Marx never lived under a communist system. He did scam Engels out of money since his father was a factory owner.



that was wngels


she a liberal

File: a1d63b0103ef224⋯.png (228.9 KB, 580x570, 58:57, values-map.png)


is the west really going to fall? what will it mean?

6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Do you have anime?



What imagen of "the fall of the west" do you have in your head? all europeans die?



the west being outcompeted by less cucked civilizations e.g. chinks



Won't be the first time western civilization isn't at the forefront. Maybe the world will be better off for it anywya.

File: 445ec4ac1a93dd8⋯.mp4 (813.25 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Glory_to_Imam_Felix.mp4)


In case you haven't heard yet, some /pol/ack in New Zealand decided to go full Siege and shoot up a mosque, making a post to 8chan shortly before the event, and making a few references to the site in his livestream. There's a non-zero chance that 8chan wil get Zucced as a result of this. On the off-chance that happens, it may be in our interest to designate some other imageboard as a "bunker" in which we may congregate should this place go down. Any initial candidates? Livebunker.rocks is the only one of which I know, but it's more chatroom than true imageboard.

9 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 826f38784626d27⋯.jpg (1.57 MB, 3357x2350, 3357:2350, e248c158588c57ac85ad11a2ab….jpg)


Get in here, nya~!


Is there an option to create a board? Or do you need to contact an admin?



I want an imageboard webring.

I'll start:













>an imageboard webring.

I hope the time for giant imageboards like 8gag for 4cuck will be over. I want it to be like the olden days again where various niche imageboards dangled dicks together and shared users.

It's also easier to protect yourself from cianiggers that way.



fuck you. i never knew my headphones could be so loud

File: 69c1ff63679ead9⋯.jpg (63.73 KB, 220x316, 55:79, Intimefairuse.jpg)


This movie (In time, 2011) supposedly should be anti-capitalism, but it ends up being a pro-capitalism movie when read using economics as a framework.

The premises are that people are engineered to never get old, but they have a timer and when the timer expires they die. So, they use time as money since they can exchange it with other people. From the movie it's implied that there is an unlimited amount of time available, in theory, and the scarcity is artificial and probably created by the government. Yet, this is an anti-capitalism movie. You see where this is going?

But even if time was a scarce resource, why the hell would someone use time as currency? It doesn't make sense because when you have to pay your last two hours for a bus fare, the price is automatically too high and not worth it. We know that the currency isn't necessarely valuable because of its possible applications, but it's mostly a system to represent value and exchange it with other people. So, stability in currency is something seeked and time is certainly not stable as currency since its value change greatly base on how much you have of it. Nobody would really use time as currency, certainly not to the point of risking their life. Other things would be used as money, unless of course it wasn't the government to force people to use time as a currency, which is something that is happening in the society depicted. Forcing people to use a certain thing as currency is not capitalism.

Then we have the prices for goods that soar and the rich girl telling the protagonist something along the lines of "we do up the price so that people die". It seems that we have a central planning board choosing prices, which is absolutely not capitalism and not free market. I won't even discuss it firther here since this is literally chapter fucking one of basic economics of Sowell.

Then there is the problem of "if everyone had infinite time we would die of overpopulation". No, we wouldn't. If property rights were used, people would just not create new humans because it would be too expensive to mantain them. Also, there would be privatized incentives to get sterilized or at least have your fertility put on hold. Truth is, we already live in a situation where nothing is stoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



I can't spend all day watching lectures about liberty and history. I could, but it would be weird.



read book then


File: 1cb31bde293ee08⋯.png (5.24 KB, 116x116, 1:1, download (4).png)


In time does not represent a Capitalist dystopia but rather the Keynesian Dystopia of Central Banking in todays society.

If you relate time earned with money printing, inflation, and rising intrest rates then its quite easy to see what the movie was really all about.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


They stole this idea from David Firth



Those who already made it big don't want things to become cheaper, since that would enable competition. They can already afford it and don't want anyone else to be able to.

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.


What do you do to distract yourself from the fact that every year the economic control of the State is going to get worse, that the younger demographic is very socialistic, the threat of the default of the entire financial system, and the threat of nuclear war and/or other apocalyptic events that always loom on the horizon?

I watch shitty Japanese cartoons, play videogames from the mid-90s, and then remember I'm just distracting myself as I listen to vaporwave in a depressive stupor.

7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I don't know what to tell you, OP. I basically feel the same way, except I want to at least profit off the industries that are abused the most in order to travel the world before the collapse. I can't because of Nepotism and cash limitations though.



Some of us are already dead. Not everyone is "holding back" and can "live a little" with any effects.



If you're truly dead, go get a credit card from the bank and make an impromptu trip to Tijuana. Blow it all on cocaine and hookers.


File: 253ff47ea5d46c6⋯.jpg (13.42 KB, 217x255, 217:255, 6ee4404368f0cf6dadd639563b….jpg)


First time i've seen a good suggestion from a christian tbh. Well done.



>Not everyone is "holding back"

<Okay so just really get crazy

Was my post really so incomprehensible or are you illiterate?

File: 56efa2082d01f95⋯.jpg (45.9 KB, 542x535, 542:535, spook_buster.jpg)

File: e7a2136d5c958e8⋯.png (117.83 KB, 960x390, 32:13, ancap_virginstatist.png)


Over time, after becoming anarcho-capitalist, I've began to realize that Max Stirner is right. I started out as a deontological anarcho-capitalist, but over time, I realized that morals are spooks. I realized many truths along the way.

1) Being deontological is an oxymoron. One of the most famous deontologists is Kant and Kantian Ethics defines rules as what would be most beneficial if everybody followed them. What's that? Rules are only good if people benefit from the consequences? Wow, it looks like you are actually a RULE CONSEQUENTIALIST. Anyone who is truly deontological for truly "moral" reasons is entirely devoid of logic and instead creates morals purely out of "feels." It's a petty disagreement, but an important note to make.

2) Deontology leads to ridiculous conclusions. According to deontology, morality is objective. What if I were to trespass on another's property in order to save someone's life? Would I be wrong to save someone's life? Would the owner be wrong to defend their property? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? Us being both right implies this is a moral grey-zone, meaning morals are not objective.

3) Traditional consequentialism is retarded. No-one can know the true consequences of their own actions for certain. Consequentialism is just gambling with ethics thrown in. Consequentialism sounds good on paper, but the consequences of this philosophy is collectivism. That one can be sacrificed for the good of the many. It fails by its own principles.

4) Morals are spooks. Moral rules are implemented in the form of laws with the purpose of stability and because they are most beneficial to each individual. Personal morals are simply pleasing your own "ego;" your desire to feel good about yourself. For example, to an anarcho-communist, no-one can own property and they do nothing wrong by robbing others of their property. From their perspective, property rights is the aggression. The problem with communists is that a communist society is not beneficial to the individual, as force is used to steal and because communist societies inevitably collapse under authoritarianism and mass-starvation.

5) Being an egoist does not mean you don't believe in human rights. It's just that human rights are derived practically instead of "morally." Any intelligent egoist can recognize, thatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

64 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>I-I I totally don't care at all you guize!

I do care about this board, but not enough to put more effort in it that shitposting, especially when it comes to discussing these questions with your type of people.

>You nigger.

Pots shouldn't call kettles niggers. By your words. Lack of cultism is not a cult.


File: 25b850de17a780c⋯.jpg (51.51 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 25b850de17a780c2978309de8d….jpg)


pic i guess


File: cfce20937aee960⋯.png (170.89 KB, 668x1405, 668:1405, 1537583395525.png)


though you did remind me about one thing - during such discussions regarding different ideas it's a lot harder to not think in morals because the whole topic is what we wish things to be, so judging them comes from one's very own perspective and worldview. I couldn't denote your position as faulty without making what basically is a moral judgement, something that's not that hard to remove from your position during observation. I guess i got carried away, as making the type of argument i should have would just repeat what i already had said before. Weird. I guess i'll have to think about that later.



Note that I never stated nor implied that people are any better at determining what's best for anyone else than they are at determining what's best for themselves (in fact, they're demonstrably much worse at it). My point was that "doing what's best for yourself at all costs" almost always defaults to "doing what's worse for everyone else at all costs," even when it results in even you getting fucked over in the end. Egoists are the kind of people who always defect in the prisoner's dilemma, even with infinite iterations.


It's possible to acknowledge solipsism and whatever other implications to Egoism without actually adopting the mindset. It's basically the same as acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that free will actually exists, and yet understanding that it's better to believe in the fiction that you're in control of your life than to give up your agency and merely let things happen to you (not that you really have control over whether you believe in free will or not, anyway).

Or for another example, take Yoda's wisdom: "do or do not, there is no try." On the face of it, it doesn't actually make sense: of course it's possible to try and fail. But if you go to perform a task for which your statistical chance of success is 80%, and you resolve to try to complete that task but accept that there's a 20% chance of failure, then what you actually get is 80% of an 80% success rate. It's only when you absolutely won't take no for an answer and will do whatever is necessary and still fail that you know that you gave it a proper try. It's actually kind of magical when you see someone give up on something partway through and declare that they simply can't do it and you chew them out until they go back and do it and realize how much more they're capable of than they ever thought possible. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm merely suggesting that due to the human condition there are reasons why it may be beneficial to act as if things are different than they are.


File: 323afd0f26488bb⋯.jpeg (6.45 KB, 255x191, 255:191, 0f6cadbeacfdc19daebc84c3f….jpeg)


>My point was that "doing what's best for yourself at all costs" almost always defaults to "doing what's worse for everyone else at all costs," even when it results in even you getting fucked over in the end

Kind of an empty assumption of a point.

>Egoists are the kind of people who always defect in the prisoner's dilemma, even with infinite iterations.

If you actually studied prisoner's dilemma you'd know that from perspective of game theory all participants in it are already complete, absolute egoists. Here's an example - you walk into a shop where you can buy or steal something, while the shopkeeper can refuse to offer you an item. The item is valuable to you. If you steal the item you get it for free but cannot use the shop now, while if you buy it you can do it later. From that it's a slightly modified prisoner's dilemma, as well as an example of an RL event that proves you wrong.

(Shop/you) Steal Pay

Offer -1/2 1/1

Refuse 0/0 0/0

>it's better to believe in the fiction that you're in control of your life than to give up your agency and merely let things happen to you

Seems like your understanding of determinism is just as lacking.

>80% of an 80% success rate

Technically, these things aren't randon, they just have variables that we cannot immediately conceive and acknowledge.

>It's only when you absolutely won't take no for an answer and will do whatever is necessary and still fail that you know that you gave it a proper try

Yes, humans are very much animals and acting based on their instincts may prove beneficial short term, yet developing ability and skills to act rationally allows not only to not make mistakes long term, but to even remove this irrationality, albeit partially, like we've done now. One day, when man's mind will become a machine, there will be this Android level of random jankiness in us no more, allowing us to gain full control not just of our body, but our mind. PPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 5444784c00095fc⋯.jpg (74.41 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-democracy-cannot-exi….jpg)


Another forced trannypol meme that is owed a measured response is the Universal Basic Income. It needs to be put down wherever it rears its hyperinflating head so here's some information I was able to put together.

Estimated current US Population over 18:


Cost of $1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) per 18+ individual per year:


Current Total Federal Budget:


Estimate total gross revenue of 10% VAT (https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-would-rate-be-under-vat):


>but people already receive benefits

True, but this proposal still involves much more spending; let's look at some of the bigger ones and maybe exclude the lesser ones:

62 million people currently receive Social Security benefits receiving an average of $1,200 monthly, so that group of people would add a substantially lower number versus what is already collected, 148,000,000,000 instead of 892,000,000,000 were they not already receiving benefits of some sort.

42 million SNAP beneficiaries receive an average of $253 a monthly so they would cost an additional 376,488,000,000 on top of the 127,512,000,000 they already receive (504,000,000,000)

All told that is a decrease of about 367.5 billion, but still leaves a 2.7 trillion dollar deficit unaccounted for

At best a 10% VAT (i.e. increasing the cost of all goods and services produced or offered throughout the entire country) will only help fund the UBI by around 25%. You would need a VAT of almoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

64 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 11e5e1ac9aebe2d⋯.png (956.63 KB, 1328x2216, 166:277, 1510343533594.png)


Good luck not being branded a murderer and having mcpolice killing you and siezing your property.


File: a84806c21a17e63⋯.png (173.78 KB, 300x240, 5:4, ClipboardImage.png)


>moving the goal posts

>that far



I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that Ancapistan or private courts or whatever else are a bad idea. I'm not a statist, I don't believe government courts are good or effective, and I don't think that there is really any sense in which Ancapistan *wouldn't* be a utopia compared to the current situation. All I've been saying is that I think you're still thinking of property like a statist, and haven't fully explored the consequences of stateless society. I happen to think that the unimaginable levels of wealth that exist at the highest echelons of society are a result of the state, and that without the interference of the state, there is a practical limit to the amount of wealth that any entity, whether private or corporate, will be able to amass.

Thus my original post was suggesting that because unimaginable wealth is a result of the state, it's not actually a bad idea for the state to make at least a token effort to balance things back out. Not only is it ethical to try to make some money make it back to those it was stolen from, however ineffectively, but UBI is also practically a more effective method than the systems it replaces: not just defective means-tested welfare programs that keep people poor, but also things like minimum wage and medical bills accrued and defaulted on by those without the means for preventative care.



>UBI is also practically a more effective method than the systems it replaces

Really? Here: >>98902

UBI won't replace anything. It will be another layer of statism.



Yeah, I agree that Yang's proposal is terrible. I admit that most UBI proposals will be terrible. I hold that UBI as a concept is not a terrible idea (or at least not more terrible than any other law or government program). I also think that blowing it off as "it's wealth redistribution, therefore it's evil" as in >>99230 is misguided, since it works directly opposite wealth redistribution programs that are built into the very concept of the state.

File: b1bd8eaa3ba032b⋯.jpg (77.8 KB, 809x569, 809:569, Screenshot_20190313-232934.jpg)


what's the cause of this house debt and student loan debt crisis? why is student loan debt and household debt skyrocketing? why are people buying less houses? is it the government or a side effect of the free market?



>house debt

federal reserve low interest rates

>student loan debt

government laons


For future reference, the QTDDTOTT is here: >>97996

The answer to your question is the result of the degree industry getting subsidized from both sides. Widespread financial aid programs increase the ability-to-pay of every student, which causes the price to increase, similar to why inflation causes prices to increase. However, direct financial aid is relatively small when compared to tuition cost, so it's clear that there's more happening here. The other contributor on the consumer side is that even "private" student loans are almost all bought up by the government even if a private institution gives them out. Since the government will buy them up immediately, banks assume next to no risk when giving out student loans. This means they'll approve almost every application for a student loan, which increases the demand for student loans, and an increase in demand causes an increase in price.

On the supply side, private and public universities alike receive a healthy amount of government funding to subsidize their costs. As the government has an effectively infinite willingness-to-pay, any subsidized university can't go bankrupt, and there's no longer any incentive for universities to minimize cost. As a result, programs, departments, and hiring decisions which would be considered useless waste in an unrestricted market are approved without question, and university operating costs begin to balloon to ridiculous proportions. Further, government interference in other forms actively encourages universities to waste money on useless, nonproductive overhead. Thanks to Title IX and the flagrant abuses thereof, every university now spends millions on hiring diversity officers, setting up an evaluation system to deal with Title IX reports and similar accusations, gender studies departments, and other such subversive nonsense. And that's only scratching the surface of the subsidies provided.



maybe milenials take gender studies degree and then realize they dont earn money so they cannot pay debt

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Should chicagoans and other non-misesian libertarians even be called libertarian?

<Economist Milton Friedman considered Mises inflexible in his thinking:

>The story I remember best happened at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting when he got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists." We were discussing the distribution of income, and whether you should have progressive income taxes. Some of the people there were expressing the view that there could be a justification for it.

>Another occasion which is equally telling: Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Machlup gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to Machlup for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again. It's hard to understand; you can get some understanding of it by taking into account how people like Mises were persecuted in their lives.

based Ludwig

6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



Caplan is a liberal who is mostly annoyed the (neo-)liberal program isn't being instituted radically and fast enough for his liking FYI.



>Bryan Caplan

isn't he the guy who tried to "debunk" Austrian economics?


>As for Milton Friedman, I would not call him a libertarian. Same with Hayek. They were classical liberals, perhaps, or whigs, but not libertarians.

Milton and Hayek both wanted UBI.

milton is believe is a self professed neo liberal. Hayek also believed there should be a central bank. I think you're right about Hayek being a classical liberal though



Hayke had plently of radical policy proposals .e.g denationalizing money but he's still regarded as the more "respectable" Austrian.



I have to wonder whether Hayek actually believed the shit he said about things like the minimum wage, or if that was tactical counter-signaling on his part to keep him well-respected in academic circles.


> Hayek also believed there should be a central bank.

You have a source on that? It's the first I've heard of this, and considering his work on ABCT I find it hard to believe he'd ever advocate for a central bank.


File: d53ef7c17fa66e3⋯.jpg (65.86 KB, 1065x800, 213:160, pinochet_reaction.jpg)


>Milton Friedman: "some economists… like me [advocated for a progressive income tax*]"

*context is correct and there is no exaggeration

File: 90e6c9e5e7b6e09⋯.jpg (538.53 KB, 720x540, 4:3, liberty_gang.jpg)


What is the best ethical justification for libertarianism? Mises used a utilitarian defence and argued that libertarianism ought to be adopted because it produces the most happiness and prosperity in the long run. This justification isn't particularly strong however, because many people have endgoals which they prioritize over liberty or prosperity. There is Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which essentially says that any action which infringes on the rights of others cannot be argued for without a contradiction, and thus that action is irrational. He also has the position that libertarianism is the best means of avoiding conflicts between people. Then there's Rothbard's view on the matter, which he explained in The Ethics of Liberty. The basic jist of this view is that it is natural for humans to exercise control over themselves and their justly-acquired property, and thus wrong for someone else to infringe on someone else's person or property and inflict their own will. There are probably other justifications which I am forgetting or unaware of as of yet, but which is the most concrete.

24 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: aa6f05f10ddf984⋯.png (117.25 KB, 960x390, 32:13, ancap_virginstatist_meh.png)


Where my fellow Chad Rule Consequentialists (basically deontology, but with a different underlying thought process) at?



statists are drone state worshippers.



>still identifies with his own mind and thinks that he is his own thoughts

You can't even say what you've said without implying you're a fucking idiot for saying it.


Libertarian ism is the passive stance. The onus is on the active stance to justify the initiation of force.


File: db81eb773853c1e⋯.png (985.63 KB, 800x600, 4:3, troof.png)


>"Okay, but what about people who choose violence instead of argumentation?

File: b2bc5d96f9731fb⋯.jpg (90.59 KB, 600x1006, 300:503, download_20190310_180627.jpg)


is pic related a good way to destroy competition in a free market?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



What does Rothbard propose?



Not the guy above you, first of all. Concerning such regulations as "drive on the right lane", Rothbard believed that such rules are either customary, or enforced by the owners of the roads, who will have an interested in enacting uniform rules. In a way, we have that in the computer business. Every programmer tries to make his program run on Windows, because that is the standard. Some also make it for Linux. Very few eschew these options, and write a program for some extreme fringe operation system. It is legal to do so, but few programmers do, most follow the standards, simply because the customers expect that. It would be the same with road owners.



God, I wish we had at least private roads.

>having a beer with my boomer dad

>discussing politics and current events

>say that roads should be privatized

>owners will have an incentive to mainain them to raise the property value

>"son, we already have that shit in countries like saudi arabia"


>"yeah, the prince would own some road and get people to pay for it, it fucking sucks"




is a private community a good idea?


File: eaf6aba98fc0286⋯.webm (741.19 KB, 768x576, 4:3, Youre_Illogical.webm)


>the prince would own some road


File: bacce701719e643⋯.jpg (68.59 KB, 540x532, 135:133, domino pizza.jpg)


2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



The Vast Vast majority of the Cuban population continues to support the Communist party and the massive leaps in development it has made on the Island (With Cuba far outranking pretty much all of its immediate neighbours in terms of its quality of life under most metrics)

I can't imagine that the "Cuban Mises Fellowship" or whatever it is has that much traction over there


File: 945e2f61a0caef2⋯.jpg (59.43 KB, 612x613, 612:613, 945e2f61a0caef25bb928a7ce4….jpg)


>the massive leaps in development it has made on the Island

Yeah, by forcing abortions on women who carry children that would drag down the statistics:


If that is development, then thanks, I want none of it.




>I can't imagine that the "Cuban Mises Fellowship" or whatever it is has that much traction over there

For a country that kills and imprisons dissidents, I doubt there would be many people overtly joining the group either.



The last pending death penalty's in Cuba were Commuted last year iirc


Ignoring the fact that he is refusing to even use his real name and credentials thus putting this articles reliablity into immediate question

Just teaching people that how to use condoms and that Abortion is an option if they get pregnant isn't "Forcing women to get abortions"


File: 831a239c541d553⋯.png (37.24 KB, 394x370, 197:185, shigs.png)


>Ignoring the fact that he is refusing to even use his real name and credentials thus putting this articles reliablity into immediate question

From the article:

>(Dr. Jose Marti (a pseudonym is a physician practicing in Cuba. He has asked Population Research Institute to withhold his real name for fear of reprisals. — Editor.)

You know, as happened to Dr. Óscar Elías Biscet: https://stream.org/castro-regime-tortured-doctor-for-protesting-abortions-infanticide/

>Just teaching people that how to use condoms and that Abortion is an option if they get pregnant isn't "Forcing women to get abortions"

And yet, the article:

>Dr. Carlos Ciro Machado, a doctor who arrived from Cuba as an immigrant just a few months ago, related to TV Marti last July a case he himself witnessed. Dr. Machado said he saw a premature baby in a bucket and called the doctor in charge. He was told to let the baby die because it might die in spite of medical care and raise the infant mortality rate. Dr, Machado then called the head nurse and she said the same thing. Despite their opposition Dr. Machado gave the baby medical care, but the baby died anyway six hours later. Cuba is more interested in its international image than in caring for the health of its people, said Dr. Machado.

I am pretty sure throwing babies into trashcans qualifies as infanticide.

File: 6991aa7c06fcc0e⋯.png (73 KB, 280x399, 40:57, ClipboardImage.png)


How French “Intellectuals” Ruined the West: Pozzmodernism and Its Impact, Explained

Pozzmodernism presents a threat not only to liberal democracy but to modernity itself. That may sound like a bold or even hyperbolic claim, but the reality is that the cluster of ideas and values at the root of Pozzmodernism have broken the bounds of academia and gained great cultural power in western society. The irrational and identitarian “symptoms” of Pozzmodernism are easily recognizable and much criticized, but the ethos underlying them is not well understood. This is partly because Pozzmodernists rarely explain themselves clearly and partly because of the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies of a way of thought which denies a stable reality or reliable knowledge to exist. However, there are consistent ideas at the root of Pozzmodernism and understanding them is essential if we intend to counter them. They underlie the problems we see today in Social Justice Activism, undermine the credibility of the Left and threaten to return us to an irrational and tribal “pre-modern” culture.

Pozzmodernism, most simply, is an artistic and philosophical movement which began in France in the 1960s and produced bewildering art and even more bewildering “theory.” It drew on avant-garde and surrealist art and earlier philosophical ideas, particularly those of Nietzsche and Heidegger, for its anti-realism and rejection of the concept of the unified and coherent individual. It reacted against the liberal humanism of the modernist artistic and intellectual movements, which its proponents saw as naïvely universalizing a western, middle-class and male experience.

It rejected philosophy which valued ethics, reason and clarity with the same accusation. Structuralism, a movement which (often over-confidently) attempted to analyze human culture and psychology according to consistent structures of relationships, came under attack. Marxism, with its understanding of society through class and economic structures was regarded as equally rigid and simplistic. Above all, Pozzmodernists attacked science and its goal of attaining objective knowledge about a reality which exists independently of human perceptions which they saw as merely another form of construPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

22 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



was john nash wrong?


File: f0beb0edaebb0f7⋯.gif (251.17 KB, 500x377, 500:377, f0beb0edaebb0f74014ecd4d2b….gif)

yeah because game theory is gobbledigook








yeah but his science was right

File: d440108147144d5⋯.jpg (17.56 KB, 300x166, 150:83, goodlucknipponsan.jpg)


What sectors do you think the next recession will be in? How bad do you think it will be?

My predictions:

- The city of NYC, the city of Chicago, or the State of Illinois will declare bankruptcy.

- Money will flow out of the municipal and state bond markets, causing interest rates to rise in these markets.

- Loads of municipal and State bankruptcies.


File: ba2e9483486223d⋯.jpg (234.6 KB, 978x760, 489:380, Screenshot_20190310-194157.jpg)

here's my prediction:

>trump can't get re-elected because he isn't fulfilling campaign promises

>Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden win 2020 (pic related)

>Bernie or Biden make it so banks are forced to give out high risk investment loans and have to give consumer loans

>amount of savings drastically decrease

>economy goes into a recession like 2008

this will all happen conveniently when China's economy begins to collapse because all they do is print money.



Funny you should mention NYC bankruptcy: >>>/n/752955



bankruptcy is a natural part of a market economy

bailouts aren't

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]