3RU7AL

I don't know what you mean by dypramid... 

You're missing the Irony. 

Al Gore made all of his money as a prophet claiming the beaches were going to be underwater within our lifetimes.

The established companies are diversified.  Look up some of the heavy hitters producing the country's electricity and you'll probably see wind and natural gas operations among their other (aging) facilities.

Al Gore recently purchased a multi-million dollar home on the beach with money he collected as a shill for the green energy industrial complex.

I would believe those who actually do something practical and effective to ensure clean water and air.

Do you think the water and air is as clean/good as it could or should be?  If not why not?

Ok, sure, but do you have the ability to grow your own food, weave your own clothes, and build your own house?

Yes, yes, and yes. Whether I do this efficiently requires skill, which can be gained through an apprenticeship or through trial and error. 

Great, so where does "law and order" come from?

From the very mechanism I just described. It's simple game theory: each participant engages interaction with a set a preconditioned stipulations to which each party agrees.

Each player participates to the extent he or she is willing. Each player is allowed to exit with no less than they came in.

This forum is a great example: I agree to terms before joining this forum. There are rules and regulations imposed by the sites owner, and overseen by his/her moderators. If at any point I don't agree with terms, I can simply exit the arrangement.

Since the owner of the site as per the descriptions "owns" the site, I don't have any claims, so my exiting the arrangement would amount to no longer participating on the site. 

Can we rely on mob rule?

How is that different from democracy?

How do we defend against vigilantes?

Private security.

People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.

Nothing which can't be learned again; like riding a bicycle.

The research on that particular topic is all fairly recent, so how many samples do we really have?

individual freedom stops when it interferes another's individual freedom, this has always been so.  Criminals pay a price for their choice.  "greater good" is removing that choice.

standards of evidence?  I mean I just said how the "studies" on cholesterol were all faked, bs, made up. 

that's one of many examples.

For me the pro climate change arguments have equal if not less credible than the anti. 

Perhaps more evidence will change that but I haven't seen any yet.  Al Gore was so convincing and positive, see how well that went for him.

If your willing to believe that the entire scientific community has been engaged in a massive orchestrated shill effort for the last 40 years; but the large energy companies that have been actively funding anti climate change politics, studies, and attempts to change public perceptions in order to oppose and stifle policies that harm their bottom line are acting out of the goodness of their heart, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

Not at all. Consider David Riccardo's Law of Comparative Advantage in a microeconomic context. Whatever I decide to do with my time will produce an opportunity cost. Now I may not be reliant on anyone to provide my basic needs, but that doesn't mean that it would be in interests to attempt to do some of these tasks somewhat inefficiently unless my goal is isolation, which you unwittingly conflated with individualism.

For example, I know how to cook; but I still go out to eat. Do you I "depend" on chefs to eat? By delegating some tasks to others who have also taken on an opportunity cost to specialize, I can focus on my own specialization(s) and cultivate expertise and efficiency as a result.

So no, I disagree with your description of a society. A society is a circuit of specialized individuals who trade resources (whether it be property, skills, or even company) in order to bring about a condition in which they believe they ought to live. As individuals, the extent of their participation begins and ends with them.

This countermands Statist proproganda because it doesn't mesh with the notion of "dependency," which is just a platitude democracy proponents use to justify coercing minorities and dissenters into participation.

I chose not to take what others say on faith, you are free to do so, scientist have been wrong even to the death of others, so believe and trust in them if you will, I'm not so easily convinced.

well I hate to say it, but it's being destroyed and getting worse.  The democrats want more government control over our lives, anti constitution etc I could go on and on, but that's a different thread I suppose.

a dipyramid geometry patter <> with a fat middle class girdle i.e. very few at the top and at the bottom of the social order

If the government can be manipulated into serving others instead of the citizens, general public then really that's made my point.

They have been wrong about the food pyramid after lo these many years.

it's that policy won't achieve its intended result if it seeks to "solve" crime. General policy can only achieve some amount of acquiescence by exploiting the fear of death. But even that goes so far. 

Correction: I believe every individual is a "unique snowflake." Though, I don't know how this is relevant.

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

Mitigated? Make non-violent illegal stuff legal. Solved? Not in the near future bc as long as Ferrari's exist and only some can have it, some will want it and get that Ferrari anyway they can... falling under legal or illegal. The real question is... Can you cage a human? I'm neutral to stuff, i'm a minimalist... but is the world like me... no. People exist... the more we cage someone from living, the more there will be crime. Location and family matter too... if i didn't come up in a loving family and middle class, i'm the type that would have resorted to crime most likely seeing that even with a cushy life i did criminal behavior in my drug days... why? Bc i wanted cash and cool stuff... and to get high and have sex. Thank Zeus i didn't go to prison bc if i did and had a record i wouldn't have my job most likely...so, i'd either be dead by now or a drug lord. You can't cage humans. I would have lived no matter what... and fortunately for society, my way just happened to go down the legal route. It's a roll of the dice.  

Of course, I don't simply presume that the absence of a central government would be a fix. But it would be a start. A moral revolution would have to take place as well. 

I think there is a 'terminological' issue to be resolved.

There is a sense in which I can choose which direction to walk (either to the library or to the shops,say).  A leaf blowing in the wind has no desire to go in any particular direction and does not make any decision about how it will be blown around.

The danger is that one can 'define free will away' and it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two cases, when there is clearly avery big difference between choosing where to walk and being unconsciously blown hither and tither by the wind.

Given that determinism is 'true' (for present purposes!), I think the interesting question is how 'entities with free will' (such as people) differ from object that don't have it (such as fallen leaves).   Reducing them both to a 'lowest commin denominator' is trivial, but (to me)that only scratches the surface of 'free will'.

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

It's not a mystery. And yes crime will never be solved. Can it be mitigated? Yes if you can make the cost of committing the crime larger than not committing the crime. Can you write a policy measure which operates on an algorithm addressing the subjective values of each individual citizen? Good luck.

People who have basic food, clothing and shelter are less desperate and less likely to become criminals.

This is perhaps the largest abuse of statistics: conflating an observed trend with psychic readings of the future. Those who often cite a statistic do little to avoid the ecological inference problem. For example, Athias has purchased sweets every Saturday since he was twelve. It's likely he'll purchase sweets this Saturday. This is a sound inductive argument. Next, 60 percent of men who are six feet tall and above have purchased sweets every Saturday since they were twelve. It's likely that Athias will purchase sweets this Saturday as well. This argument is unsound. There's no empirical data on Athias in determining the prospect, just the group in which he is categorized. 

All the statistic can tell you is that which it observes at the moment, which is already based on an assumption using "confidence intervals." You can make an inductive argument assuming all conditions remain the same, but that'll never tell "what is likely?" 

Where did he state that debt wasn't bad?

I do agree with him that the baby boomers who are now retiring are going to be a huge problem. 

Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system.  I'm all ears.

Get rid of taxation; get of rid of centralized governments; privatize everything. Let policy be subject to the free-market. Does this not suffice? 

Don't help them, just wait until they commit criminal acts and then pay $31,000.00 per prisoner per year.  Sounds great.

First, not subsidizing them is not the same as not helping them; second, are you under the impression that because there's a correlation between poverty and crime that your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument is valid--i.e. criminality is inevitable among the poor? Weren't you the one that created the thread, "Poor = Bad," where you contradicted that notion? 

Cloning, artificial fetal selection, DNA engineering, and a return to the survival of the fittest.

Just poor people with bad DNA and poor lifestyle choices.

Public schools cost $20,000.00 per year per-child.  Most families with 3 kids don't make $60,000.00 per year.

Then perhaps it would behoove us all to not subsidize the behavior of those who don't plan for their families.

This is demonstrably false.  Debt-free corporations have no chance of competing with Debt-full corporations.

Please demonstrate this falsehood.

Please explain your road-map to utopia.  I'm all ears.

Did I mention "utopia"? Is getting rid of taxation utopian? Or the government itself? How? 

I speak not of "utopia" but of "approach." And that approach is autarchy (not to be confused with autocracy.) Does that not suffice?

Mass collected 1 billion from the poor last year through lottery tickets.

Most of the taxes except the adult american tax is pretty small in cost, and I don't have a rape victim tax.  I do have a rape tax because rape is evil.  I have an unintended pregnancy tax to discourage people from having premarital sex.  I have an STD tax to encourage more people to get their STDs treated.  Alcohol should be discouraged with a tax.  Same with smoking.  The adultery tax is supposed to discourage non consenting adultery.  Adultery breaks families apart.

"The United States Political System is Overall Meritocratic in Nature"

Do you believe that every infant has an equally fair shot at becoming a billionaire?

You might actually be surprised on how many people would say yes to this...

I think your idea is headed in the right direction, but rather pay people to do good we could reward people when they do good.

a system could be put in place where a child/parent is rewarded for grades or staying out of trouble, perhaps doing community service, mentoring etc

this money would be kept for college/trade school, whatever.  Again I remember seeing it but don't recall the name.  High risk kids in a very poor area had the opportunity to earn money by meeting very low standards, like showing up for school and getting at least a C average, if you got higher the reward reflected it. 

they could get as much as $100, I don't recall the exact criteria or time frame.

I would like your idea to be more of a reward/earned system rather than an entitlement. 

There's a happy medium between the ideas imo.  

They system needs to be setup so you earn your way to the total freedom of your idea.  Some will not have the competency or ability to handle such a system as you described.

there is so much that could and needs to be done. 

Society can't be fixed because there's just no honest will to do so. 

I'm not sure if it's still a thing, but kids would be robbed for their name brand sneakers. 

People have become attention whores. 

Then there's the hypersexual tv, video games, clothing etc etc  Drugs and crime are glorified. 

They seem to like these life styles and only a few rise above it, those are the ones who succeed.

Throwing money at a problem doesn't work, it never really has afaik.

To you believe the money that went to Baltimore was used appropriately?  Talk about a tale of 2 cities.

If you don't like the word alpha we can use strong leader, positive role model whatever, I find them interchangeable in this context.

The professor from your video not only focuses entirely on just federal taxes (state, local, and perhaps fica taxes notwithstanding,) but also neglects to mention that federal transfers are subject to taxation as they are a part of personal income--and that assumes that the entirety of those specific taxed demographics collect on the entirety of the federal transfers available. You may want to redo those numbers or cite a more detailed analysis of taxation. What would be the issue with eliminating taxation?

#2 as an individual, debt = bad.  I get it.  However, if you run a business, especially real-estate, debt = good.

Debt is always bad. One is borrowing against one's future (definite) when one incurs debt; so it's incumbent upon on one to redeem this loss and turn a profit through investment (indefinite.) 

But what you seem to be forgetting is that all of the rules for individuals and for individual businesses DO NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT DEBT.

We live in an incoherent system where basic principles that are true on one scale are absolutely NOT true on other scales.

So do away with the incoherent system. Does that not suffice? 

Of the 500 estimated serial killers in U.S. history, 16 percent were adopted as children, while adoptees represent only 2 or 3 percent of the general population.

Okay....and out of those 500 how many had no father in the home???

I thought the point was obvious but I'll expand it I guess.  The aggression, lack of morals, self control, responsibility, is, in large part, due to the lack of a dominant role model to keep them in check and teach them.

This has escalated to the increased violence we see today.

Society is becoming more and more desensitized to the violence for a number of reasons. 

As the number of "feral" children increase the crime probably will.

The Walgreens raid is a pretty good example.  These braisen events will increase in frequency and intensity.

Consider this, lack of consequence for many who rioted and burned down businesses which they called "protests"

Now these organized robberies and looting with little to no consequences.  For many and the number is increasing there is no fear of prison or consequences.  The social moral decay is at a crisis imo.

many kill their own kind far less often, so yes maybe we should be.  boys growing up with not positive role models is a huge factor.  I know you know this and are just trying to be unnecessarily argumentative.  You can pretend you don't follow the analogy but I know you are much smarter than that.  Some moms can fill that role to a point but it's not the same and we are seeing the results.  How many criminals are from traditional homes compared to broken homes?  I only bring that up for other readers since you know darn well it's a major causative factor.

lol I'd hardly call what she was doing child abuse given the size/age disparity, more like tough love.  Point is she was not going to tolerate his behavior and was involved in what he was doing, what he does at some level, unlike a child waving what looks like a real gun around at a school yard.

This really isn't all that uncommon a thing.  Even in nature.  Can't tell you the name but you could probably find it.  The bull/alpha male of an elephant herd was killed, the juveniles became aggressive, tearing up the local villages and even attacking and injuring other elephants.  Long story short, they brought in another adult to be the alpha and all of the behavior went away.  The dominant male or female keeps the younger and subordinates in line, humans aren't that much different imo.

Problem Behavior in Kindergarten and First Grade

...remember the mom who grabbed her son and beat him because he was with antifa?  More of that needs to happen.

My measure to prevent this is to ban smash and dash.

The husband can find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.

I already told you. Start rewarding parents for residing together and stop rewarding the ones who reside alone. If you don't want to do the best thing for your child and raise him in a 2 parent environment, then put the kid(s) up for adoption. 

Stop glorifying and supporting single-parent households, it's not helping the kids at all. The data is very clear on this.

I'm not talking about reducing/cutting taxes; I stating to eliminate it all together. The government can service its current debt with its gold stock, spr's, and land; it can default on its future obligations (i.e. social security, government pensions, welfare programs, etc.) And the bank sponsored politician (which is likely all of them) can service the rest of the debt by selling their own assets. Does this not suffice?

Like I said in a poorer household more often than not the wife would also have to work which would mean either the husband gets lucky with a high wage (isn't likely) or they will be both financially worse for having a child because both of them are not working and of course the financial burden that is a child. So basically the poor family is screwed during and after the pregnancy given how much money is lost. 

If we can acknowledge that the Bible is a complex form of literature, then we all (even Christians) have to acknowledge that we're just not capable of understanding scripture like we would a modern day instruction manual that we can throw away once we understand it.