Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

An Open Forum - Fire Away!

Recs

31

July 30, 2012 – Comments (161)

Since I'm not writing often, I'm backed up on ideas. Instead of firing off multiple blogs (which time does not permit), or writing a blog you don't really care to read about, let's do an open forum.

Fire away any question / criticism / thought / comment, etc... on any of the topics listed below. 

Economics
Politics
History
Health/Nutrition
Information Security

These topics generally consume my time.

Have at it.   As long as you stay within those broad topic outlines, I'll respond as best I can.  All sides of the dscussion are welcome and will be respected.

David in Liberty
Follow me on Twitter
Facebook me

161 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 30, 2012 at 4:58 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Wait,...

Is this your idea of Quantitative Easing?

Report this comment
#2) On July 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Been saving this one for a Tom Woods chat, but I can never seem to make it to them, so I'll let you take the first stab at it.

How would the free market deal with child welfare issues?  Generally speaking, a free market society could solve legal disputes by one party filing suit against another; however, when children are involved, this seems rather complicated.  Often, the worst abused children are not even aware that they are being abused at all.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!  (I'm kidding with that part, but I've had this challenge presented to me a few times and have never been able to think of a sufficient answer).

Report this comment
#3) On July 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM, miteycasey (30.89) wrote:

How do we get out of the economic mess we are in?

I think The Bernick has proven no matter how much money is sloshing around, or how low rates go,  people really don't want to borrow money to spend right now.

Report this comment
#4) On July 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

smartmuffin,

Good one!

The State does a pretty horrible job of protecting children (you know, not even including blowing off all their limbs in a predator drone strike ordered by a Nobel Prize winning President.)  That doesn't mean a free society would do better, but consider how many people "care about the children", I think it's nothing out of the ordinary for humans to look out for kids.  The extraordinary misfortunes that some adults cause children make headlines. But like all headlines, they represent the extremes, not the norms. 

The general libertarian and natural rights answer is that the child should be allowed to escape abusive households and not be 1) picked up by the Police State and forced back home or 2) picked up by the Nanny State and shoved into some awful juvenile program/foster care.

Any attempt by abusive parents to block their children from leaving (e.g. locking them in the basement in chains), is a violation of the freedom of movement, since the child has no path of egress to leave the situation.  

The Statist might object saying that without the All Loving and Caring State,

1. How would we ever find out if a child is locked up in the basment?

2. Who would have the authority to do something about it?

The answer to #1 is, the same way we find out now. If the parents are really horrible monsters, we may not, just as we may not now.  At some point, we usually find out, and it's not because cops are doing random sweeps or becase the State has magical powers.

The answer to #2 depends on the community itself.  Like I pointed out above, it's normal human behavior to want to protect children.  Depending on how the community decides to enforce judgments against parents who abuse their children will depend on many factors.

For more on this, there is a chapter in The Ethics of Liberty

http://mises.org/daily/2568/

This article by Kinsella has a pretty good breakdown of some of the disagreements among libertarians about child rights:

http://mises.org/daily/2291

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#5) On July 30, 2012 at 6:02 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM, miteycasey (99.79) wrote:

How do we get out of the economic mess we are in?

If  history is any guide, the only way to quickly correct the economic troubles and return to a properous and sustainable growth is to radically slash the government budget, lower taxes, and allow wages to fluctuate as needed.

In other words, the answer is liberty.

Such was the solution, in some form or other, for every economic panic that hit America from 1776-1929, most notably in 1920, 1907, 1893, 1873, 1857, and 1819 just off the top of my head.  

And in each crisis, it passed within 18 months and we returned to the general low level of unemployment that is characteristic of a society with a great deal of laissez faire.  Around 3%.

We'd kill for 3%

But in 1929 that started to change, as Hoover intervened in the labor markets - keeping wages up, drastically increased government spending, and created a slew of agencies to interfere with market processes and prevent the necessary correction that many argued for.

FDR would take Hoover's programs and expand them. And the US didn't recover until 1946-47, when the government budget was finally drastically slashed.

It is the mark of the liar (Paul Krugman) to claim that Hoover was a liquidationist (false) and that the war stopped the Depression (false) or that FDR made things better (also false).

Yet scum like Krugman write textbooks and that's what is taught.

And so no one advocates for more freedom to solve these issues. They bicker between Republican managed economy and a Democrat managed economy.  Either way, we're effed.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#6) On July 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

what a great post david, i wish more people like you on the fool

Report this comment
#7) On July 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

what is your opinion on the absorbtion of vitamin supplements?

Report this comment
#8) On July 30, 2012 at 6:07 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

what is your opinion on the absorbtion of vitamin supplements?

Are you asking if people should take supplements?

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#9) On July 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

I am just speculating that they are of dubious utility since the absorbtion rate seems to be low.  i am just asking your opinion.

Report this comment
#10) On July 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

I am just speculating that they are of dubious utility since the absorbtion rate seems to be low.  i am just asking your opinion.

Well that's an interesting point of view that I haven't investigated. You could be on to something.

That being said, I do think most people should take supplements, with the proper caveat that they perform due diligence.  Modern lifestyle is drastically different than human behavior for most of evolutionary history, and I think it's pretty obvious that we are missing certain inputs that our bodies expect.  

Protein and D-3 are pretty much no-brainers.  Protein will always get absorbed into the system, as far as I know:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-how-much-protein-can-you-absorb-and-use-from-one-meal/

D-3 is naturally produced when you get sunlight, so I don't have much doubt over that supplement.

Beyond that, I'd have to investigate it on a case-by-case basis. I'll probably look into that with Omega-3, since I'm thinking of adding that in my own life.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#11) On July 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

well, taking a vitamin wouldn't hurt (but may not do much good), but as somebody that came from qatar, i am sure you are familiar with the d-3 problem in that region.

Report this comment
#12) On July 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

well, taking a vitamin wouldn't hurt (but may not do much good), but as somebody that came from qatar, i am sure you are familiar with the d-3 problem in that region.

4 years in Qatar. I probably spent no more than 20 hours total in the sun the entire time I was there LOL.  Yeah, I was just a little vitamin D deficient....

Maybe a D3 supplement does little more than give me piece of mind. I don't know. I get a lot of sunlight now, living in southern California next to a beach, and I still take the supplement twice a week. I don't burn and never use sunscreen.  So something's working...

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#13) On July 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

you lucky bastard, here it is just farking hot and no beach, just unhappy women expressing what they think, lol

Report this comment
#14) On July 30, 2012 at 6:59 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

So I probably shouldn't post pics from my weekend of surf and sun... Noted.

LOL

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#15) On July 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

look, at this rate we won't get anywhere.  information security- do you think a feistel chiper is secure or could be made secure?

Report this comment
#16) On July 30, 2012 at 7:15 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 7:03 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

look, at this rate we won't get anywhere.  information security- do you think a feistel chiper is secure or could be made secure?

Secure in this field is always a measure of degree, since nothing can be made perfectly secure. A properly constructed block cipher is not designed to maximize security. It's meant to balance the needs of security and efficiency.  They are best for bulk data, but can never be made completely secure.

To understand the limitations of cryptography, the differences between block and stream ciphers, and symetric vs asymetric encryption (Fiestel is symetric, while asymetric is used for highly secure infomation like key exchaghes), check out The Handbook of Applied Cryptography.

David in Liberty

 

Report this comment
#17) On July 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

well david, i was about to sell some encryption software to an 'unfriendly nation'. then i found out it was the same as selling weapons,  and i do have a copy of applied cryptogaphy, the second edition.

Report this comment
#18) On July 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM, PainterPoker (21.44) wrote:

What do you think about the new Tesla Model S?

Do you think this car is going to catch on? Will SoCal residents be buying these cars up like BMWs?

It has great features: full panoramic sunroof, 7-seats, up to 300 mile range. This car could change the game. I also feel the company is undervalued but only time will tell

 Thanks 

Report this comment
#19) On July 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

maybe herbert's mom, made money the old fashioned way, the oldest profession, lol.

Report this comment
#20) On July 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

You mentioned health/nutrition, so what is your optimal healthy state?  Are you there yet?  What do you do to stay healthy?

Report this comment
#21) On July 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

well david, i was about to sell some encryption software to an 'unfriendly nation'. then i found out it was the same as selling weapons,  and i do have a copy of applied cryptogaphy, the second edition.

Just print out your source code and sell it as a book. Now it's protected under free speech laws.  I hear that works :)

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#22) On July 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

@dbjella, i just shoot artards, that always improves my mood, lol.

Report this comment
#23) On July 30, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Hi David- just the usual 5 o'clock dilemma.

Shaken or stirred? I understand 'stirred' has less impact on Global Warming.

Report this comment
#24) On July 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

david would you like to join me in another country?

Report this comment
#25) On July 30, 2012 at 8:31 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM, PainterPoker (< 20) wrote:

What do you think about the new Tesla Model S?

I think that's a BEAUTIFUL car!  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Maybe one day I'll buy a used one off Craigslist :)

Battery cars still have a stigma of being less powerful for the buck. Consumers simply haven't given them a shot yet, for a variety of reasons. I don't mean to imply that consumers are dumb (though they seem so at times). But the development of the battery car hasn't been quite as organic as a market would like to see. Obviously, this car does not have a power issue!

Can't help you on the valuation part. I'm not a very good stock picker. At least not compared to some of the excellent ones you can find on this site.  

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#26) On July 30, 2012 at 8:48 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

You mentioned health/nutrition, so what is your optimal healthy state?  Are you there yet?  What do you do to stay healthy?

I like that your question implies that optimal health is unique to each person.  What is optimally healthy for one person will not be the same for another, since we are all unique beings.   The model of one-size-fits-all, promoted by the State, can never bring about optimal health for a large number of people.

And that failure should be obvious to any American.

As a quick background for those that don't know me very well, I've lost 35-40 pounds on the Paleo diet in the past year and dropped 3 whole pant sizes, and almost at the 4th.  I'm nearing my optimal health.  Chronic heartburn, lethargy, and bloated feelings are completely gone.  I sleep better and I have far more energy.  

Here's how I did it.  

Diet

In the morning I generally have some combination of 1/2 lb. of bacon (every day), 2-4 eggs (every day), yogurt (no sugar added) (not every day), 1 banana (not every day).

If I'm hungry for lunch, which is rare, I have a chicken salad.

Dinner is typically steak and vegetables.

For drinks - water, coffee, and tea.  (Optimally, though I like to party.... =D)

Here's what I don't eat. And this is most important:

1. In general, never eat anything that comes in a box or a can. 

2. Never east fast food.

3. No grains.  Bread and pasta especially!  The occasional bowl of rice isn't the end of the world, but that's about it. (I still love my beer - preferably hand crafted with few if any preservatives).

4. No sugar (except fruit, which I eat sparingly).  Which means no juices, no gatorade, no energy drinks, etc.  I still do drink a little wine here and there, however.  Even the so-called "Organic Juices" are loaded with sugar.

Exercise

Stop running. It's a waste of your time. It's not a bad thing. It's just not optimal for anyone.  Sprints are great.  Steady-state cardio strapped to a treadmill is a loser.

Stop lifting weights with movements that have no relation to fitness. You're super sexy with your bicep curls. You're also wasting your time.

Do High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT).  My workouts last 20 minutes from the time I walk in the gym to the time I walk out.  Often less than that.  But I'm not resting and I'm not wasting any time.  Go hard.  Then go home.

Types of HIIT I recommend:

Crossfit - moderately sustainable if you scale. Also a lot of fun.  I prefer it.

P90X - completely unsustainable but the best workout around.

Tabata Cycles - perfectly sustainable. Also a lot of fun, but can be somewhat repitive.  

Walk Briskly

If you can, go for a walk or a hike. And walk at a brisk pace. I used to hike a lot when I lived up in Simi Valley. Great for weight loss.

Fast

If you're still reading, try Intermittent Fasting. I'm on a cycle right now. Every day for the next 3 months, I eat during an 8 hour window and then fast for 16 hours.  It completely changes your perspective on eating habits.  Most of your cravings are habitual and not based on any need to eat.

Ok I'll stop here. If anyone wants follow up, I'll be happy to expand what I've written about.

And I don't think I'll ever reach Optimal Health, btw, simply because I still love to party too much and when that Jameson starts flowing, well... . there's no telling what I'll do :)

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#27) On July 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM, NOTvuffett (82.68) wrote:

david would you like to join me in another country?

C'mon man!  I just got back.  I've had enough overseas fun for a while!

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#28) On July 30, 2012 at 9:10 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

For drinks - water, coffee, and tea

You need to mix in scotch somewhere ;p

Report this comment
#29) On July 30, 2012 at 9:16 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 9:10 PM, awallejr (86.74) wrote:

You need to mix in scotch somewhere ;p

I would not protest if you poured me one :)

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#30) On July 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM, NeuroNerd (< 20) wrote:

This is probably going to come across as pedantic and I'm sorry to backtrack in the discussion, but I can't let this misconception stand.  It's a health hazard.  I'm going to begin with the caveat that vitamin supplementation, by and large, is a good thing as long as you don't take it to extremes.  However, like any good thing, too much of it can kill you.

 You CAN, in fact, overdose on lipid-soluble vitamins like Vitamin D-3, though admittedly the levels for D-3 toxicity are quite high.  It's far less toxic than an excess of Vitamin E, for example.  However, infinite vitamins are NOT okay.  Any chemical compound is poisonous if you take the levels high enough, including water and oxygen.  In the words of Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison."   

For the record, you are correct that you can't overdose on Vitamin D-3 from sunlight, but this is because the body has a built-in biochemical safety valve to shut down synthesis of Vitamin D-3 once a certain concentration is reached.  Vitamin supplements, of course, circumvent this safety valve, since the nutrient is delivered in final form, requiring no synthesis.

 Moral of the Story: for advice on your health, talk to your doctor.   

Report this comment
#31) On July 30, 2012 at 9:30 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM, NeuroNerd (22.29) wrote:

 You CAN, in fact, overdose on lipid-soluble vitamins like Vitamin D-3, though admittedly the levels for D-3 toxicity are quite high. 

I certainly didn't advocate consuming any amount of D-3 you wish.  I said use due diligence, which would include, at the very least, reading the instructions.  If a fella can't make it that far, perhaps they need more than just a vitamin supplement :)

Moral of the Story: for advice on your health, talk to your doctor.  

Unfortunately, that's not going to help very many people. Most doctors get very little training on nutrition, and what they do get is the regurgitated and scientifically disproving theories about fat and grain consumption, particularly that "fat makes you fat" (false), whole grains provide the most nutrition (horribly false), and that "a calorie is a calorie" (false and misleading.)

I would not go to a doctor for nutrition advice. Heck, I wouldn't even go to an orthopedic for exercise advice, since very few understand that minimalist shoes correct rather poor running form, while they still advice you to wear shoes that promote bad form.

Doctors are great at surgery, however.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#32) On July 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

"Doctors are great at surgery, however."

 Ehhhh.  Most of them are so good at it, they want to perform it even when it isn't medically necessary.

 I think they're all a bunch of quacks myself.  To me, a doctor is an annoying brueaucrat I have to deal with in order to get access to occasionally necessary medication.  You show up, you tell him what he wants to hear, and he gives you permission to buy the pills you need.

Report this comment
#33) On July 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Then again, I've spent most of my adult life dealing with military doctors, so that might explain some of it...

I'm in a remote location now so I get to see civilian providers... who the DoD reimburses at about half of what they would get for seeing "regular" patients, so I'm sure they aren't especially motivated to work hard and see that my needs are fully satisfied either.

Report this comment
#34) On July 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

a doctor is an annoying brueaucrat I have to deal with

They weren't always like that. It's too bad that government destroyed the medical practice (way before Obamacare).

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#35) On July 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

On a different note, David:

As a man entering middle age, for the last few  years I've begun "feeling my age", as it were.  I've seen all of the ads for "natural Testosterone replacement".  With all of the positive effects attributed (renewed vigor, lower fat & increased lean muscle, improvement in mood, libido & sexual function), it would seem they have finally found the fountain of youth.  What's your opinion of the effectiveness of hormone replacement/augmentation for regaining the stamina, energy, and enthusiasm of youth?  Honest or hype?

Report this comment
#36) On July 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

David: you're lonely and you have an attention deficit problem that prevents you from concentrating on anything except in short bursts.

 In other words, you're just like the rest of us. Get used to it. And get over it. END.

Report this comment
#37) On July 30, 2012 at 10:22 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

wolfman225,

I wouldn't touch it. 

How's your diet? How much sugar do you consume? How much exercise do you get? How many grains do you eat? Where's your protein coming from? 

Before taking that drastic step, try teaching your genes to express themselves the way a man's should.  

I'm going to sound over the top a little bit, but what drew me into the paleo diet was seeing the results of others. And what they experienced can only be described as finding the fountain of youth. All it took was eating real food and a minimal (i mean that) amount of exercise.

Check out what Unconquerable Dave did, btw.  He is not at all unusual among this community (outside of his sheer awesomeness, which is immense):

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-unconquerable-dave/#axzz229BdaQT8

So honestly, give this a shot before you do that. This is the proven fountain of youth. 

David in Liberty

 

 

Report this comment
#38) On July 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

David: you're lonely and you have an attention deficit problem that prevents you from concentrating on anything except in short bursts.

Says the guy with nothing better to do but to stop by and give us his own attention seeking short burst. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#39) On July 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

David: currently your post has 8 recommendations and 37 comments (so far).

 

Any post that has more comments than recommendations can be categorically described as a failure at TMF.

 

Please consider this info when contemplating whether to post future posts. THANK YOU in advance.

Report this comment
#40) On July 30, 2012 at 10:30 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

ROFL good comeback troll.

I'm pretty sure TMF is perfectly happy with the recs I get.  I know I am.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#41) On July 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

First, MyDonkey is a jackass.  Shut up, stupid.

David, my diet pretty much sucks.  I'm an over-the-road truck driver.  I understand what you mean about the benefits of Paleo.  My brother has done great with it.  Unfortunately,  it's not really an option for me, due to the lack of ability to store fresh foods and store/prepare meat.  The majority of my diet is either pre-made foods I can heat in the truck, or the high carb, commercially processed food in the truckstop restaurant.

About the best I can do is to try to drink as much water as possible and maximize use of the soup/salad bar when I do hit the buffet.  I'm not terribly overweight, but I am out of shape.  I've gotten a set of exercise bands.  I'm just looking for something to help me with my mental state to create and hold the enthusiasm for exercise (after driving 500-600 miles during the day, it's hard to get up for a workout).

Report this comment
#42) On July 30, 2012 at 10:37 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

don·key

NOUN:
pl. don·keys

The domesticated ass (Equus asinus). Slang An obstinate person. Slang A stupid person.

Report this comment
#43) On July 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

^Yeah, what he said.

Report this comment
#44) On July 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Please stop using your telepathic powers to compel  MyDonkey to visit your blog.

It’s not right.

Sky

Report this comment
#45) On July 30, 2012 at 10:50 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

wolfman225,

I hear ya brother. And thanks for sharing that and putting yourself out there.

Do me a favor, and roll down your window when you ride.  The glass blocks UVB rays, giving you only a lifetime of UVA. I don't want you to end up like this:

http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056/NEJMicm1104059&iid=f01&

Plus, fresh air rules.

Second, I totally understand.  

Let me put myself out there for you. I've battled depression befor. And I had it real bad on high carb diets. And I worked in a bomb shelter for 3 years straight. Hated every second of it.  Never wanted to exercise afterward.

Our bodies go to sh*t fast.

Have you ever heard of Confinement Training? It's exercises that people can do in a jail cell that would keep you lean the rest of your life.

Burpees, Handstand push ups, air squats, on and on, done in rounds for time or in short bursts of massive energy.  Maybe something like that could work for you.

Also I would try intermittent fasting. Bring 1 meal a day and a pre-made salad and a bag of almonds.  That way you don't have to eat the crap at the truck stops.  Give yourself 8 hours to consume that, but eat nothing else for the next 16. Also gives you time to pick a meal for tomorrow when you get a chance.  Fewer meals = less planning.  You can't do a lot of planning with your job.

Finally, just hang in there man.  

My dad is missing his right leg above his knee.  He's on paleo and HIIT now.  If he can do it, we all can. If you've never read his story, and need some inspiration, go here:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/striving-for-greatness/567251

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#46) On July 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

'Preciate it.  As for the window, I've had a "trucker's tan" for years. :)  For the rest, I'll keep plugging along.

Report this comment
#47) On July 30, 2012 at 11:05 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

My brother's been on several diet/exercise plans, and they've all worked to a varying degree over the years.  He rotates among several different ones (he was even doing the "Spartan" workout for awhile, brutal). 

He's suggested two that might work for me, the first is IF.  That may work for me, although my schedule is so erratic it's hard to keep to any schedule (you should see my sleep patterns!).  The other is one of the first diets he tried.  It's based on food combining.  Basically, it involves not mixing your starches and proteins.  Anything is permitted, in moderation.  That one seems the easiest to adapt to the dietary problems with life on the road.

Report this comment
#48) On July 30, 2012 at 11:08 PM, wolfman225 (68.32) wrote:

I sent a Follow request.  It should show up as @LarryBlack10, my handle on Twitter.

Report this comment
#49) On July 30, 2012 at 11:16 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

wolfman22,

Got it!

FYI, there's several different ways to approach IF. It's not one-size-fits-all, either.

Take a look at this overview and see if one might work out good for you.  The real great thing about IF is what it does to your brain. It re-wires you, so to speak (I did it for two months earlier this year. This is my second round.)  Really altered the way I think about "having to eat."  It also boosted my confidence and self-esteem.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-intermittent-fasting/#axzz22AN6Fnvu

(I do Condensed Eating Window, but that's not the only way!)

Another thing to think about:

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

Before I learned to cook, I would go to In N' Out Burger and tell them to use the lettuce as a bun, instead of the bun itself (it's actaully called a "Protein Style Burger"). I would go to the Chinese joint and get only the chicken in one half of the tray and meat in the other, hold all rice and noodles.

Was it perfect? Nope.  Was I eating crap?  Somewhat.

But it was still better than a high carb, high sugar, low fat human destroying American diet.

Work it in stages bro.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#50) On July 31, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

David,

How long if you been studying Nutrition, and which sources do you use other than MDA?

Report this comment
#51) On July 31, 2012 at 12:36 PM, rofgile (99.31) wrote:

whereaminow:

How do you figure out what is your chosen task?  How do you find the perfect employment or labour to work towards in your lifetime?  Is there such a thing, or are there different tasks at different points in ones life?

And, have you ever read Henry Ford's autobiography?  I think I am dwelling on this 'question of what one is meant to labour towards' lately.  Ford's bio is quite interesting on how he got into making cars.  His story of building cars on a farm in Dearborn, MI reminds me of the small 3d printer companies that are popping up out of garages right now.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#52) On July 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Why are my responses not showing up?

 

Report this comment
#53) On July 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Oh but that one does. Stupid TMF..

Report this comment
#54) On July 31, 2012 at 2:02 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 31, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Valyooo (99.88) wrote:

David,

How long if you been studying Nutrition, and which sources do you use other than MDA?

A little over a year. Karen DeCoster introduced me to MDA back last March, I think.

Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat" is an excellent book. Anything Taubes writes on nutrition should be read.

These are good:

http://robbwolf.com/
http://eatingacademy.com/
http://www.mattmetzgar.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/
http://www.theketogenicdiet.org/

For the nitty gritty science on low carb ketogenic diet, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Ketogenic-Diet-Complete-Dieter-Practitioner/dp/0967145600/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343750036&sr=1-6&keywords=ketosis

For IF

http://www.leangains.com/

For fitness, MobilityWOD is a fantastic site
http://www.mobilitywod.com/

Also see
http://diystrengthgear.blogspot.com/

When I came back to the US, I was lucky to hook up with a fitness coach who taught me crossfit and happened to be a huge fan of the Paleo diet. He also introduced me to IF.  Even though I don't train with him anymore, he still passes great info my way whenever he finds it, and vice versa.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#55) On July 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

rofgile asked an interesting question.  i think most people just stumble onto what they are going to do in life.  as a young man i studied chemistry mostly, but i didn't really want any of the available jobs so i took a job as a programmer.

Report this comment
#56) On July 31, 2012 at 2:14 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#51) On July 31, 2012 at 12:36 PM, rofgile (66.53) wrote:

How do you figure out what is your chosen task?  How do you find the perfect employment or labour to work towards in your lifetime?  Is there such a thing, or are there different tasks at different points in ones life?

Tough questions. I'm not sure there is a such a thing.  My whole life I shunned computers, then found myself staring at a lifetime of manual labor and said "f**k that" and began studying computers.

But if I had my choice, I'd be playing Center Field for the Cubs. (I gotta be better than most of the ones they've had LOL)

I'll say this though, I think my path to InfoSec was the smartest I ever took.  Instead of trying to decide what I wanted to do, I studied the market place and found the area where labor was in demand.  There were lots of openings but few people that could meet the qualifications.

I think if you take that approach, you'll never have trouble finding work (that being relative to others, of course. It's never easy to find a new job!)  The other benefit is that you'll be overpaid (I am) because it's so hard to replace you.

So I didn't necessarily have a calling (or really care) about InfoSec, per se.... Though I do find it to be fun now and then. And I'm definitely glad I did it.

And, have you ever read Henry Ford's autobiography?  I think I am dwelling on this 'question of what one is meant to labour towards' lately.  Ford's bio is quite interesting on how he got into making cars.  His story of building cars on a farm in Dearborn, MI reminds me of the small 3d printer companies that are popping up out of garages right now.

I haven't read it, but sounds like I would enjoy it.

You know, just being aware of the fact that you are capable of making a change and capable of doing something great, lifts you above the majority of people in this world that simply exist from moment to moment with no sense of self worth.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#57) On July 31, 2012 at 2:54 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Another thing I would add to that....

If you really want to find out what labor combines your passion with your ability, you have to try a lot of different ideas and be ok with failure.  Perhaps even enthusiastic about failure.

I can't even count how many ideas I've tried and failed at (not always enthusiastically...).  And yet, one thing that actually worked was writing.  At least to the extent that I know I can do it and enjoy for the rest of my life.  (Money for it? Who knows?)

If you try a lot of ideas, when you hit one that works it'll seem like an accident.  But it probably wasn't.

Hope that helps.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#58) On July 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, ath002 (< 20) wrote:

Hi David,

Thanks fpr the effort.

What do you think of dairy? Avoid or not?

 Thanks in advance

Luis 

Report this comment
#59) On July 31, 2012 at 3:28 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

david, you almost always make excellent points.  having been trained in chemistry/biology/etc. i took a job in programing because it was a passion of mine.

Report this comment
#60) On July 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM, 4everlost (29.41) wrote:

David,

What do you think would happen if the DoEd, the DoEnergy, the DEA, HUD, the EPA, the FDA, the DoA, the DoI, the DoT, the DoL, the DoC and HHS were phased out over the next 5 years and their budgets were returned to taxpayers in the form of a massive reduction in taxes?

Report this comment
#61) On July 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Eudemonic (66.44) wrote:

 Add this documentary called "Forks Over Knives" for more insight on diet and health.

Report this comment
#62) On July 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

 On July 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, ath002 (< 20) wrote:

What do you think of dairy? Avoid or not?

If you have any symptoms of lactose intolerance, absolutely avoid it. Most people can handle a little dairy with no problem, but a large number of people cannot.

I support raw milk consumption and eat raw milk cheeses (they're delicious btw).  I don't drink milk, but if I did it would be raw or full fat. Skim is terrible for you.  Same applies to butter.  Stay away from low fat products.  Stay away from mass marketed products.  Go for stuff straight from the farmer or as close to that as you can get.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#63) On July 31, 2012 at 3:51 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

it is a curious fact that lactose is a form of sugar although not a very sweet one, and many become less tolerant to it with advancing age.

Report this comment
#64) On July 31, 2012 at 3:54 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#60) On July 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM, 4everlost (39.85) wrote:

David,

What do you think would happen if the DoEd, the DoEnergy, the DEA, HUD, the EPA, the FDA, the DoA, the DoI, the DoT, the DoL, the DoC and HHS were phased out over the next 5 years and their budgets were returned to taxpayers in the form of a massive reduction in taxes?

What a good looking question!

1. We'd be freer

2. We'd be safer

3. We'd be wealthier

4. There would be greater employment

5. There would be fewer laws

6. There would be fewer criminals

7. There would be less crime

8. There would be less violence

9. Many of these agencies (such as HHS) would be replaced by many market oriented private companies that would respond to and compete for consumer satisfaction.  Go ahead and add the SEC to that list, which has already proven it is less effective than several competing private equity research companies.

10. We'd have more roads, and they'd be cleaner and safer.

11. We'd have less pollution, since the EPA actually standardizes an arbitrarily selected level of pollution, whereas a free society bans such violations of private property.

12. We'd be healthier, since the FDA has given us nothing but terrible advice and billions of pills

13. And you'd have a lot less overpaid, fat lazy welfare cretins we call Civil Service Employees.

And that means you'll have a more beautiful country.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#65) On July 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

the process of making cheese involves microbial action, so most of the lactose is consumed.

Report this comment
#66) On July 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#65) On July 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, NOTvuffett (82.42) wrote:

    the process of making cheese involves microbial action, so most of the lactose is consumed

Which is why strict paleo adherents do not eat dairy. I eat a little.  I really enjoy good cheese :)

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#67) On July 31, 2012 at 4:05 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#61) On July 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Eudemonic (49.77) wrote:

     Add this documentary called "Forks Over Knives" for more insight on diet and health.

Agree with the processed food claims. Disagree with the animal claims.  The science does not support that assertion.  I think anyone who wants to choose a vegetarian diet should be free to do so, however.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#68) On July 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

i also thought 4everlost point was a good one.  let us just take a couple of examples- Department of Energy, and Department of Education.  To say they have failed in their mission would be an understatement.

Report this comment
#69) On July 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM, 4everlost (29.41) wrote:

I thought you might appreciate a softball!

Have you ever seen this?:

Anarcho-Collectivism versus
Anarcho-Capitalism Debate

Report this comment
#70) On July 31, 2012 at 4:18 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

 #69) On July 31, 2012 at 4:11 PM, 4everlost (39.74) wrote:

I thought you might appreciate a softball!

Have you ever seen this?:

Anarcho-Collectivism versus
Anarcho-Capitalism Debate

I had not seen it. The first 3 posts confuse "capitalist" with crony capitalism or corporatism. Not a good start.

The term capitalist is a loaded one. It was coined by the enemies of private property, so I guess I can't object when they use it to refer to corporatism.

I'm sure you know, Anarcho-capitalism (I prefer voluntaryism), refers to a system of voluntary exchange of goods and services based on a system of private property rights. Crony Capitalism and Corporatism are violations of private property rights and have no place in a free society.

That being said, any joker that thinks he can set up a community with communal property rights and no State, is free to do so in a free society, granted that his participants agree to it. (And are free to get the eff out when the eventual chaos comes). But sadly, they never extend the same courtesy to us...

Oh well

Socialism. Ideas so great you have to be forced to accept them.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#71) On July 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#68) On July 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM, NOTvuffett (82.42) wrote:

i also thought 4everlost point was a good one.  let us just take a couple of examples- Department of Energy, and Department of Education.  To say they have failed in their mission would be an understatement.

In the case of the Dept of Education, their mission was to make people more easily controlled. It's part of the collectivist thinking that grew out of the Cold War.  Many ivory towered professors recommended destroying individualism through formal schooling in order to increase affection for the State and make it easier to defeat the Communist menace.

So perhaps they achieved their mission. Communism Russia is now replaced with rampant Statism and a dumber population. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#72) On July 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

"5. There would be fewer laws

6. There would be fewer criminals

7. There would be less crime

8. There would be less violence"

Yes eliminating a ton of laws will lead to less laws and fewer "definitional" criminals and fewer "definitional" crimes, but point 8 does not follow.  This has always been a point of contention between you and I.  What you will see is drug cartels clicking their heels now because they can do what they please.  They won't fear any little private army. And the Russian mob?  Bring on the extortions. 

And when the body count rises for those private little armies you will see the Country transformed into embattled city states and barb wired compounds.

Report this comment
#73) On July 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#72) On July 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM, awallejr (86.72) wrote

Yes eliminating a ton of laws will lead to less laws and fewer "definitional" criminals and fewer "definitional" crimes, but point 8 does not follow.  This has always been a point of contention between you and I.  What you will see is drug cartels clicking their heels now because they can do what they please.

 Why do we only see this kind of violence in areas where the service/good is outlawed? There are profits to be made everywhere. Fantastic profits!  More profits than a cocaine dealer (or a 1920s booze smuggler) could dream of.

Why don't people in other lines of business engage in such unruly behavior?  Why do all the violent criminals always seem to end up in the businesses that are outlawed?  And then disappear when that type of exchange is no longer outlawed?Why are booze sellers so peaceful now, but weren't during prohibition?

 David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#74) On July 31, 2012 at 7:21 PM, fireman9119ca (73.67) wrote:

Heatlh and Fitness.

David 

Please give me your view on Testosterone Therapy.  I am a 45 year old firefighter and many of the fellas on the job are getting Testorterone  shots to bring up thier T counts through a doctor. The idea is not to get bigger by any means but to simply get our levels  back to where they were 15 years ago.

I can say collectively we feel sharper, stronger, less sleepy, better abitlity to focus and I have suddenly stopped crying during sad movies. (well except for Rudy of course.)

 Imput please

 FM

 

Report this comment
#75) On July 31, 2012 at 7:38 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Why do we only see this kind of violence in areas where the service/good is outlawed? 

It was there before the laws were made too and after as things were legalized.  Think the mob isn't still in the booze business?  Or gambling?  Of course they are.  But you get rid of the DEA and pretty much any federal enforcement agency the shores will certainly be flooded with drugs.  And the Drug lords will have a field day, afterall who will be there to stop them.

The Mob doesn't worry about local police, they are too easy to corrupt.  The Feds concern them.

Report this comment
#76) On July 31, 2012 at 7:41 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

 On July 31, 2012 at 7:21 PM, fireman9119ca (80.93) wrote:

Heatlh and Fitness.

David

Please give me your view on Testosterone Therapy.  I am a 45 year old firefighter and many of the fellas on the job are getting Testorterone  shots to bring up thier T counts through a doctor. The idea is not to get bigger by any means but to simply get our levels  back to where they were 15 years ago.

I can say collectively we feel sharper, stronger, less sleepy, better abitlity to focus and I have suddenly stopped crying during sad movies. (well except for Rudy of course.)

 Imput please

 FM

Crying during Rudy is manly! 

I do not understand why you would want to let someone give you a shot, which will then require you to keep getting shots while the underlying issues are not resolved, when you could solve the underlying issues and not need the shot at all.

I was in the Marines when I was younger. I understand the grunt mentality. Everyone in a testosterone-high environment becomes naturally insecure.  This makes young Marines go out and spend thousands of $$ per year on supplements they don't need and rarely work. (I'm not talking about protein and Vitamin D).

It's part of what drives cops to abuse steroids.

And I guess it makes firefighters want to get T shots.

So you've boosted your testosterone. You feel great. Of course you do. In the same way the markets feel better after Dr. Bernanke adminsters a shot of funny money.

But you still have not addressed any of the underlying issues. If you took the time to solve those, you wouldn't need the shots and you'd be laughing at the guys getting them.

I'm just sayin...

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/#axzz22FL8EwTH

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#77) On July 31, 2012 at 7:45 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

But you get rid of the DEA and pretty much any federal enforcement agency the shores will certainly be flooded with drugs

Wouldn't that lower the price of drugs, thus reducing the profits for the drug dealers?

I guess you don't understand this, but no drug kingpin wants decriminilization.  They are getting way richer this way. 

You'll never admit it, but you're on their side. You're helping them increase their power and their wealth.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#78) On July 31, 2012 at 7:47 PM, fireman9119ca (73.67) wrote:

Gracias David,  I will read up, Great site

 FM

Report this comment
#79) On July 31, 2012 at 8:00 PM, EvanBuck (99.80) wrote:

David, just wondering, who are you supporting/going to vote for President this year?

Report this comment
#80) On July 31, 2012 at 8:12 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 31, 2012 at 8:00 PM, EvanBuck (42.01) wrote:

David, just wondering, who are you supporting/going to vote for President this year?

I am going through the very difficult decision of not voting (I don't want to encourage any of them) and voting for Gary Johnson.

But right now, not voting has a slight lead. If Gary is polling at 10% then I will take the time and risk my life driving on government roads to cast my meaningless ballot, since any decent amount of support for him will at least aggravate the establishment.  But if he's at less than that, they won't care, so why should I?

Political action will only come after people are convinced of the beauty of liberty.  Ron Paul did a lot, but there's a long way to go.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#81) On July 31, 2012 at 8:16 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

I guess you don't understand this, but no drug kingpin wants decriminilization.  They are getting way richer this way"

Are you kidding me?  You want to take a poll of all the mobsters and drug dealers sitting in federal prison if they felt that way?  Think Gotti would have agreed with you?

Local authorities are simply incapable of dealing with these guys.  And you set them loose as you would as per #64 and you will see happen what I said in #72.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#82) On July 31, 2012 at 8:23 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

You want to take a poll of all the mobsters and drug dealers sitting in federal prison if they felt that way? 

You want to take a poll of the ones who aren't? You just took away their competition! You did them a favor! LOL

I have history on my side (as well as an understanding of how exchange works).

You have trillions of dollars spent. The largest prison population in history. Liberties destroyed. Police militarized and dehumanized. 

And have accomplished nothing. 

No thanks. Those who prefer society would rather take our chances with those drug kingpins than have any more of your "solutions." They're worse than the disease!

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#83) On July 31, 2012 at 8:25 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Those who prefer society

Those who prefer a free society.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#84) On July 31, 2012 at 8:28 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

David, in response to #26...

I don't care what the paleo diet "experts" say. In my experience, nothing feels more primal and natural than long distance running. Infact, endurance hunting is a viable explanation for the reduction of hominid body hair and the expansion of human brain size.

As a bit of a health-nut myself. I would advice people to kick off their shoes and walk barefoot outdoors until they feel comfortable enough to start jogging.

Report this comment
#85) On July 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

awellejr,

In seriousness, this is pretty basic human behavior. When you jail a drug dealer, you benefit his competition. They make bigger profits. Nor can you end drug consumption through legislation, so there will always be profits to be made. Hence, eventually, the person you jailed will simply be replaced by someone new. And the cycle continues.

You don't accomplish anything but wasting our time, money, and lives by trying to outlaw normal human behavior.

(There's way more too, but I'll save that for later.)

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#86) On July 31, 2012 at 8:38 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 31, 2012 at 8:28 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

David, in response to #26...

I don't care what the paleo diet "experts" say. In my experience, nothing feels more primal and natural than long distance running. Infact, endurance hunting is a viable explanation for the reduction of hominid body hair and the expansion of human brain size.

As a bit of a health-nut myself. I would advice people to kick off their shoes and walk barefoot outdoors until they feel comfortable enough to start jogging.

Like I said, it's not bad for you. It's just not optimal fitness.

The biggest problem with steady state cardio is that even without going to extremes, it causes insulin spikes. And controlling insulin production (something our bodies do naturally when we consume our evolutionary diet), is the key to a lean, fit body.  Losing control is the primary cause of American obesity.  It's why people can run and run and run and never lose weight. The after effects destroy their ability to control insulin production.

I can't say that humans never jogged, but I bet they didn't do 40 minute steady state runs for the heck of it every day.  They stalked and sprinted, seems to be the consensus of evolutionary biologists. Which makes sense.

I still go for a barefoot run every now and then. I'm also amazed at how much easier it is now after crossfit. Running is a good time. It's just not a way to acheive optimal fitness.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#87) On July 31, 2012 at 9:02 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.70) wrote:

Hey David,

I hope this question falls under the economics topic-

Where do you mainly invest your money in stocks, bonds, physical metals or under the mattress...? I understand if you don't want to get too specific about that.

And a question that is totally off topic-

What do you think of Theo Epsteins rebuilding plan for the Cubs? So far I've been digging it, but I suppose you could chalk that up to eternal optimism (which sure the hell beats the alternative).

Cheers

Report this comment
#88) On July 31, 2012 at 9:18 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 31, 2012 at 9:02 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.74) wrote:

Where do you mainly invest your money in stocks, bonds, physical metals or under the mattress...? I understand if you don't want to get too specific about that.

I spread it out.  The majority is in physical gold, then physical silver, then a mix of stocks (some miners, but a lot of tech stocks),. the remainder is split between cash and the gold funds I trust (which is then converted in physical gold when the amount gets too high).

I could do a whole blog on how I do my budget. I'm pretty good at saving money.  Maybe people would like that.

And a question that is totally off topic-

What do you think of Theo Epsteins rebuilding plan for the Cubs? So far I've been digging it, but I suppose you could chalk that up to eternal optimism (which sure the hell beats the alternative).

Cheers

Cheers to you! Well, so far so good I guess. I want him to make moves that make sense for a team that needs a complete overhaul of its philosophy of player development. I'm tired of plugging holes caused by a terrible farm system with overpriced free agents, and then not having money left over to sustain whatever brief success (luck) we get.

And he really nailed it with this Rizzo kid.  And I liked what he did in the draft, addressing the complete lack of pitching talent in the organization.  So that's a start.  The trade deadline is moving.  Gotta move Dempster, Garza, and I would love to see Maholm moved while he's hot, Soriano moved if we can, and just about everybody else too! (Including Castro if it makes sense. I think he's overrated.)

David in Liberty*

*and usually in misery from Opening Day until October...

Report this comment
#89) On July 31, 2012 at 9:39 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

david, just to digress for a moment, do you believe it is possible to build a secure block cipher?  we both know on theoretical grounds a one time pad  or equivalent is an unbreakable code, that coupled with steganography would make it unbreakable and probably make it so that the perception was there wasn't a code to break.

this approach of course has the flaw of limiting the amount of data conveyed.

as a person drawn to math/logic etc. a block cipher sounds sexy but i don't trust them. 

Report this comment
#90) On July 31, 2012 at 9:54 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

NOTvuffett,

I've never really considered the possibility. It's an interesting question.

I do take the defeatist line that any cipher intended to be used more than once will eventually be cracked.  It just seems pointless to fight that.  I don't think developers of block ciphers consider the possibility either. They just try to make as many "passes" as possible before it's crackable. 

Then again, that's not my field of expertise. As an infosec professional I have to understand it, but in my area I am primarily concerned with protecting private property from web based attack, so I spend most of my time with network architecture, malware, mitigation of actual attacks, and of course scanning the wild for the ever present next threat......

But I'll think about it and try to post an intelligent response here.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#91) On July 31, 2012 at 10:08 PM, jwebbzor (< 20) wrote:

David, #86)

The biggest problem with steady state cardio is that even without going to extremes, it causes insulin spikes.

So does high intensity, anaerobic exercise...that is the point. Exercise increases blood glucose levels, which causes an insulin response.

You are correct in saying that running at a steady pace is not optimal for humans to stay healthy. Studies have been done on adenosine monophosphate-activated kinase (AMPK), which appears to have an effect on insulin sensitivity. AMPK activity is highest after exercise of varying intensity. So, if people are looking to lose weight and get their insulin sensitivity back, they should engage in HIIT, like what you do in the gym.

I guess I disagree with the stalk & sprint theory of human evolution. In the plains of Africa, I don't think humans were well equipped to hunt with that style. We have two-legs, essentially no explosive speed, and no inherent killing mechanism (no claws, teeth, or brute force); as opposed to a real stalk & sprint hunter: a tiger, which has all of the above advantages, and still sometimes goes hungry when it can't catch a meal. Realistically, we probably did run 40+ minutes at a near constant pace while we slowly chased/tracked our prey to exhaustion.

Just food for thought. I'm a semi-competitive runner, so my personal bias influences my viewpoint.

 Josh

Report this comment
#92) On July 31, 2012 at 10:19 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

david, i am even boring myself now.  let me ask you a question more appropriate for this forum. 

do you believe an unmanaged economy would fare better long term than an economy that they try to manage?  to me it just seems adam smith's allegory of 'the buzzing of the bees' was one of the rare moments of genius that makes it into human society.

Report this comment
#93) On July 31, 2012 at 10:43 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

jwebbzor,

You make very good points. I certainly can't argue with any direct knowledge how humans got their exercise in a hunter-gatherer society. 

My initial comments are colored by my own experience, so allow me to expand them a bit. I was attempting to go from horribly out of shape from years of sitting in front of a computer to back in the shape I was as a young Marine. Tall task, I have learned.

I started with running. I figured, heck, it's what I always did back then. I ran every night for months. I lost a little bit of weight. Unfortunately, I ended up with a classic case of Chronic Cardio.  I had to keep consuming carbs to get the energy to run. In the end, I burned out. Then my new super high carb diet bit me in the a** and I ended up gaining so much weight I was heavier than I was when I started!

So that left a bitter taste in my mouth and I started looking for alternatives. I found that HIIT allows me to control those cravings. The workouts are very intense, but don't leave me feeling desperate for carbs (or any food for that matter) afterward. A simple protein shake and I'm good.  Like I said, I still run every now and then.  But as a staple of an exercise routine I can't recommend it based on my personal experience.

David in Liberty

 

Report this comment
#94) On July 31, 2012 at 10:58 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On July 31, 2012 at 10:19 PM, NOTvuffett (82.37) wrote: do you believe an unmanaged economy would fare better long term than an economy that they try to manage?  to me it just seems adam smith's allegory of 'the buzzing of the bees' was one of the rare moments of genius that makes it into human society. 

"Better" is going to mean different things for different people. I think an unmanaged economy is morally superior and I have concluded that it would provide for more sustainable growth.  On the other hand, it would mean a greater distribution of wealth.  

(More wealth will always lead to a greater distribution of wealth. That's basic math. However, that point is often missed by those who want equalization of wealth. It is interesting to note, though, that CEO pay has expanded far greater under a managed economy than it did under a relatively unmanaged one from previous generations. I think that can be explained by the explosion in funny money since the end of the gold standard, but that's another whole blog's worth of my rantings.) 

It's somewhat unfortunate that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" became more famous.  It's less apt.  Buzzing of the bees came from Bernard Mandeville.   

Whenever you attempt to "manage" an economy (besides the fact that such management must be instituted through violence), you must alter the price structure. 

Since prices always tend towards equilibrium, any managmenet must move them towards a new equilibrium that is no longer based on the subjective valuations of buyers and sellers in a free exchange. 

Hence, you are replacing the values of market participants with your own. You are replacing many ideas with one idea. You are replacing many plans with one plan. 

This is why managed economies will never produce more in the long run than unmanaged economies.  In a market, consumers and producers work together to direct output that satisfies the most significant wants at an certain array of prices

The managed economy cares not for the satisying the most wants, and replaces it with satisfying the wants of a coercive minority.

Taken to its extreme, it ceases to be an economy altogether, and is instead a nightmare of people giving orders (the coercive minority having the wants satisfied) and the rest of us taking orders. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#95) On July 31, 2012 at 11:39 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Dave we can never agree on this since we are prognosticating over a "what if."  You have been in the marines.  I don't know if you have seen combat, but if you did you have seen man's inhumanity to man.

We can never stop evil or bad people from being so.  All we can do is to try to minimize the damage.  The jails are full of bad people for a reason.  They are bad.  With respect to drug dealers and organized crime, yes you are right there will always be others to replace those who we remove.  So be it.  Rather that than ignore the situation altogether.

I have defended some of the most horrific and brutal people in my earlier days.  I stopped doing so despite the fact that I was gaining a "good" reputation and could have made a ton of money.  I didn't care. I just hated the clientele.

You are free to ignore me, but I am telling you now you cut these people loose and they will engage in unspeakable things.  They will threaten honest people's wives and children with torture and death.  No lie.  This does happen. The local authorities can't stop this. Al Capone is a clear example.  He wasn't taken down until Federal action occurred.

Oh and Mitt Romney can't sing (listening to that Obama commercial while I type this ;/).

Report this comment
#96) On July 31, 2012 at 11:45 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

I'm not arguing those people don't exist.

Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

Ahem... speaking of Obama... 

Yep, let those men loose and you never know how many innocent people they will kill.....

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#97) On August 01, 2012 at 12:20 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

You will know.

Report this comment
#98) On August 01, 2012 at 1:22 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Well I am going to hyjack your thread David and welcome anyone asking me questions.  But being on point, and with scotch encouraging me, I submit there have been 2 critical laws passed since the early 1900s.  I suspect no one would guess the 2 I am thinking of.  The NLRA and RICO. 

Why those 2? Well during the early 1900s management ruled labor.  In fact many large companies had literally private armies basically forcing labor to adhere to management rules.  You even had mini cities where the workers were paid in tokens that they then used to pay rent to management and  buy things in management owned stores.

Karl Marx always expected the "revolution" to occur in an industrialized country such as the US or Germany.  And it was possible with the US until the NLRA was passed.  That law switched power from management to labor.  Management could no longer coerce. They were forced to negotiate. And as time went by labor did see an improvement.

But along came organized crime.  They saw a way to control the unions and basically turn the cards against management and basically corrupt the system.  Enter RICO, a set of laws to combat organized crime.  And guess what, it worked. 

Now I am not saying organized crime has been eliminated.  It hasn't.  It will always be there in our lifetime. But at least there is a weapon to be used to minimize the damage.

This is the issue that I submit liberterians simply can't address with any seriousness.  It is the bane of their theoretical society.  They assume all people will behave appropriately when in reality that just won't happen. Uncontrolled crime can destroy societies.  And a libertarian society can never control crime.

Report this comment
#99) On August 01, 2012 at 1:43 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

This is the issue that I submit liberterians simply can't address with any seriousness.  It is the bane of their theoretical society.  They assume all people will behave appropriately when in reality that just won't happen. Uncontrolled crime can destroy societies.  And a libertarian society can never control crime.

Spoken like a person who has never spent more than 15 seconds googling these things or searching Libertarian websites.  Yeah, we've got serious answers on every issue under the sun, but just can't wrap our heads around two run-of-the-mill expansions of State power. Yeesh.

It's late. I'll see you tomorrow.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#100) On August 01, 2012 at 2:01 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Was spent in arguing with you David in many threads.  You have yet to stay on topic.  You always digress in the end. And I will repeat, a libertarian society can never control crime.  But since no libertarian society has ever existed I guess we can run in circles on suppositions.

Report this comment
#101) On August 01, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

 awallejr-  "Well I am going to hyjack your thread David and welcome anyone asking me questions."

#1.  What are your thoughts on the Cloward-Piven Strategy?
#2.  You say "We can never stop evil or bad people from being so...there will always be others to replace those who we remove.". But "a libertarian society can never control crime".  Is this a logical conclusion? I mean if crime has always been and will always be... couldn't you have said 'an Egyptian society' or 'a Democratic society' to support you premise? 
#3.  Would you agree that an armed society does more to control crime than any State political/social structure/ideology?
#4.  Are you sure that "Libertarians...assume all people will behave appropriately"?  Reference?
  Thanks and best from the Silver State.
(Oh, and 'hijack is spelled with an 'i')

Report this comment
#102) On August 01, 2012 at 5:37 PM, APJ4RealHoldings (31.67) wrote:

whereaminow,

A) what is an ideal solution to avoid monopolies and oligopolies? obviously the current system isn't working, your thoughts on an ideal solution and comments on the current antitrust system?

B) what is your thoughts (likes/dislikes) on local 'coupon' currencies that are being used such as the 'mountain hours' (videos on adamvstheman channel on youtube) ?

C) what is the best way to converse with friends/coworkers for them to see the libertarian light when their stance is currently, we need more regulation? 

Report this comment
#103) On August 01, 2012 at 5:41 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Starfirenv

Yes you are correct about the typo, a purposefully picayune point.  I try to proofread as best I can but once you hit post you can't edit.  Also in my defense I did warn this: and with scotch encouraging me.

I don't mind discussing serious questions and would prefer to limit them to one topic at a time otherwise this thread will become way too long.

Some quick responses are as follows: 

#1)  I don't favor the strategy at all nor do I support its endgame goal of guaranteed income for all.

#2)  You are ignoring my choice of words.  I said "control" not stop or eradicate.  

#3) Your question really is too vague to answer.  There are many ideologies, political and social structures.  In some cases the answer could be yes and in some cases the answer could be no.

#4)  The best reference I have is the many threads where David and I have argued the topic.  I really don't feel like searching for them though.

If you are sincere in a discussion pick the one you wish to discuss in further detail. Oh and at the end of your question #2 it is "your premise." And you don't get a pass because your response wasn't aided by scotch ;p

 

 

Report this comment
#104) On August 01, 2012 at 11:17 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.70) wrote:

David, happened to check FaceBook today and remembered a question I've always want'ed to ask.

What did you and Ron Paul discuss in the picture from your profile?

Report this comment
#105) On August 01, 2012 at 11:20 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

lol, maybe we should be investing in scotch now.  this economy makes me feel like i need a good stiff drink.

Report this comment
#106) On August 01, 2012 at 11:27 PM, EvanBuck (99.80) wrote:

@NOTvuffett You might want to look into Jack Daniels stock (NYSE:BF.B), lol XD

Report this comment
#107) On August 02, 2012 at 12:29 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Sorry everyone. Flying the red-eye to DC. Then I gotta recover somehow tomorrow. I will be back though.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#108) On August 02, 2012 at 12:36 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

I tip my hat off to Jack Daniels drinkers, but Johnny Walker Blue owns.  Even Libertarians should agree to that ;p

Report this comment
#109) On August 02, 2012 at 4:14 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Starfirenv asked:

#4.  Are you sure that "Libertarians...assume all people will behave appropriately"?  Reference? 

awallejr responded:

#4)  The best reference I have is the many threads where David and I have argued the topic.  I really don't feel like searching for them though.

Really?  I said that "many" times?  Interesting, since I've never believed any such thing.  I just think you're lazy and pay no attention to my responses.

One of the most important works I've cited in many threads is Rothbards Myths:

Myth #5 Libertarians are utopians who believe that all people are good, and that therefore State control is not necessary. 

and

Myth #6 Libertarians believe that every person knows his own interests best

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html

awallejr,

Since you are part of a dying generation of Statists about to be replaced by a vibrant and intellectually dynamic generation that has a far wider disparity in views from libertarian to green to socialist (interestingly though, a better understanding of their opponents' positions), how do you expect to reverse this trend by barely paying attention in debates and not even having the common courtesy to learn the basic tenets of their positions?

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#110) On August 02, 2012 at 4:59 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

David I admitted I was being lazy, but here you go:

 http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/government-for-the-21st/537838

Note your reply in #35 and my #37.

I know we have had this argument about organized crime in a libertarian world elsewhere too but I just can't find which thread.  

Report this comment
#111) On August 02, 2012 at 5:16 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

awallejr,

You're still being lazy. Nothing I said there assumes anything about anyone's behavior at all, good or bad or anywhere in between.

You're obviously an intelligent person to get as far as you have in life.  So there must be something inside that you that will not allow you to understand the simple things I write.  Are all the people here smarter than you?  They get it.  They know what I'm saying, whether they agree or not.

I'd be pretty embarrased at this point.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#112) On August 02, 2012 at 6:06 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

whereaminow

All you do is prove my point in #100.  You always insult and digress when appropriately challenged.  You asked for a link and I gave you one. You are just being obtuse in responding to my argument that your theoretical world (and it will always be theoretical) will fall to realities, most particularly organized crime. Organized crime almost destroyed this country until a determined NATIONAL response was made.  And it may very well undo Russia.

Your argumwent in #35 of the link described a ridiculous response where people will have their little town meetings and eventually form  private police forces. 

So stop with the namecalling.  Look in the mirror. You started this thread and said discuss away. Why don't you just sermonize.

Report this comment
#113) On August 03, 2012 at 9:28 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

awallejr,

You're a lot like Jakila the Hun.  You make claims that you know all about libertarian theory.  Then we pressed, you get upset when it's exposed that you don't know squat.

You don't think that's lazy? We've been arguing back and forth for years. Do you know how many statist books I've read over that time?

Exactly how many books on libertarianism have you read since we started debating?

Lazy!

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#114) On August 03, 2012 at 9:45 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

"This is the issue that I submit liberterians simply can't address with any seriousness.  It is the bane of their theoretical society.  They assume all people will behave appropriately when in reality that just won't happen." - awallejr comment #98

It's always the same.  Statists walk around with their chest puffed out, then cry like babies when they get smacked.  You're probably the 3 dozenth such one to attempt to show off on one of my blogs and end up looking ridiculous.

Just admit you have no idea what libertarians say about this issue, so that we can move on.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#115) On August 03, 2012 at 11:18 AM, SkepticalOx (99.43) wrote:

I was wondering what your take is on the Libertarian answer to the following things, because I'm not sure I've found an answer that is satisfactory (just a disclosure, I'm finding myself moving more towards libertarian views as I get older - but there are things that still bother me):

1. In a (more) libertarian society, what would be the alternative to the police and police services be? The idea of private security forces and private jails doesn't sound like a good idea, given the perverse incentives (private jails earn money by having more people in jail - while that is not exactly a good for society).

2. Errrr, ok I had other questions but I guess a more general question would make more sense. In your view (I know the libertarian viewpoints range widely on this, so I want yours), what services should the state provide?

Report this comment
#116) On August 03, 2012 at 3:01 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

whereaminow

Kind of funny because you remind me of Devoish when I try to discuss with him.  You both always evade the questioning, digress, eventually name call.

I am not upset about the topic.  The namecalling isn't necessary tho.  You drew me in with your reply #64.

David this is why I think you don't even read your own responses.  I am not talking about all the ins and outs of "Libertarianism."  If there is a fundamental flaw in allowing for its existence, the rest is irrelevant in my opinion.

I have asked you over and over in this thread as well as the other thread I linked.  You never really answer.  And you do the same in #114.  You excerpt around the topic being discussed.

I will open it up to all Libertarians to answer my question then since you apparently can't.

How can crime (meaning all crime including street gangs, La Cosa Nostra, Russian mob, drug cartels, etc.) be controlled in a libertarian world?  

 

Report this comment
#117) On August 06, 2012 at 1:00 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Yeah I didn't think you would answer David.  While you called me a statist, despite the fact that I told you elsewhere that I am a social contract/Constitutionalist, you, in the end, are just a bullsh*tter.

Don't respond unless you will answer my question at least.

Report this comment
#118) On August 06, 2012 at 3:18 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Let me interpret, perhaps incorrectly, that there would be no crime as there would be no laws.

Pretty simple, huh?

It's just private property and commerce.

Report this comment
#119) On August 06, 2012 at 3:20 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Full Disclosure:  I neither agree nor disagree.  I only hypothesize...

Report this comment
#120) On August 06, 2012 at 5:31 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Well you do make a defintional point mtfool. Technically there can't be crimes if there are no laws making them so.  But I intentionally defined "crime" to include street gangs, La Cosa Nostra, russian mob, drug cartels, etc. because these will exist whether or not there are any written laws.  And it is how a society deals with them that can make or break that society.

Report this comment
#121) On August 06, 2012 at 6:01 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#104) On August 01, 2012 at 11:17 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.74) wrote:

David, happened to check FaceBook today and remembered a question I've always want'ed to ask.

What did you and Ron Paul discuss in the picture from your profile?

We had a great conversation about liberty and politics.  I asked Ron if he had any faith that government could be effective in protecting liberty. He said he had none. 

Very kind man who was generous of his time more than I could ever have accepted.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#122) On August 06, 2012 at 6:02 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#120) On August 06, 2012 at 5:31 PM, awallejr (84.64) wrote:

Well you do make a defintional point mtfool. Technically there can't be crimes if there are no laws making them so.  But I intentionally defined "crime" to include street gangs, La Cosa Nostra, russian mob, drug cartels, etc. because these will exist whether or not there are any written laws.  And it is how a society deals with them that can make or break that society.

You don't deal with them. You simply make them more powerful.  That's patently obvious.  I know you have to deny it or else face the risk that your life's work is meaningless.  That's a tough road to go down, but eventually a liberating one. I've been there.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#123) On August 06, 2012 at 6:04 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On August 06, 2012 at 1:00 AM, awallejr (84.64) wrote:

Yeah I didn't think you would answer David.

Answer what? Your rambling nonsense about how cosa nostra would take over the world if it wasn't for the RICO Act?

Provide an actual question.  I'm on the road and working.  I don't have time this week to interpret "drunken lawyer". 

Feel free to flick me off again when you get flustered.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#124) On August 06, 2012 at 6:07 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

#115) On August 03, 2012 at 11:18 AM, SkepticalOx (99.34) wrote:

1. In a (more) libertarian society, what would be the alternative to the police and police services be? The idea of private security forces and private jails doesn't sound like a good idea, given the perverse incentives (private jails earn money by having more people in jail - while that is not exactly a good for society).

It's not an alternative to police services. That's what awallejr is stuck on. He thinks we must "do without" if we don't have a State.

It's competition. It's the same market principles that apply to every other economic good and service, simply applied to protection services.

There is no such thing as "perverse incentives" in voluntary exchange. Perverse incentives are provided by the State.

Dozens of books have been written on these topics.  Hundreds of journals and articles.

If you'd like, I'll point out a few of my favorites.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#125) On August 06, 2012 at 7:24 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

You don't deal with them. You simply make them more powerful.

David this just an inaccurate statement.  And this is the question since you like to avoid it:

"How can crime (meaning all crime including street gangs, La Cosa Nostra, Russian mob, drug cartels, etc.) be controlled in a libertarian world? " 

 

Report this comment
#126) On August 07, 2012 at 8:56 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

"How can crime (meaning all crime including street gangs, La Cosa Nostra, Russian mob, drug cartels, etc.) be controlled in a libertarian world? " 

One thing to understand is that you're asking the exact same question as "how would a free society handle - Insert Horrible Calamity Here", whether its so-called market failure, or not enough roads, or a meteor shower.

It's all the same question. In your view, a Dear Leader has to be given some kind of authority from the people to act. In our world, people are free to act. In your world, you have to wait for orders from on high.  In our world, order comes from the ground up.

Another way to look at this is to ask why those entities are not present in stateless societies?  It's pretty simple.

1. States outlaw perfect legitimate human behavior, such as the sale of drugs, which provides opportunites that are not available to these characters in a free society.

2. States often outlaw the ability to defend yourself.

Don't take my word for it, though. Why don't you actually invest the time in reading?  Is Yale University Press good enough for you?

One of the interesting things about this discussion is you seem to be completely ignorant of the origins of the modern nation-state. They are, in fact, exactly the same as the origins of the very crime organizations you are concerned about.  See Oppenheimer's The State for the most detailed history on how they came about.

And their behaviors are quite similar as well.  (And nobody has killed more people in human history than the nation-state. And that include the US, which has dropped bombs in nearly every country on the planet - usually without provocation.)

Take, for example, the recent murder committed by Barack Obama. He killed a 16 year old boy, simply because the boy's father might have been a bad guy.  That's some cold blooded vendetta stuff straight from 19th century Sicily!

So I hope that answers your question. 

1. Free societies do not outlaw normal human behavior. Therefore, there is less opportunity for the crooked to gain power, as drug dealers do today and alcohol dealers did during the Prohibition of alcohol.

2. Free societies do not outlaw self defense.

You have this childish vision of town law from the 1800s as the libertarian answer. You made that clear from a previous comment.

I was thinking more along the lines of the capabilities of Executive Outcomes, the only "market-oriented" military force that's existed since the rise of the nation-state.  They were so efficient at "getting rid of bad guys" that it actually scared world leaders. You should check out their story.  The Russian mob, the cosa nostra, EO would wipe the floor with them.  Alas, governments hate competition, and EO was forced to disband by the UN.

Now I've answered your question.

Here's mine:

What is your society going to do about the murder of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki?

After all, can you really badger me about violence in a libertarian world, when the man you voted for turns out to be a cold blooded murderer?  What are you going to do about this?

David in Liberty

 

Report this comment
#127) On August 07, 2012 at 9:48 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

Perhaps the more intetresting question is which came first?  Crime or law?

Report this comment
#128) On August 07, 2012 at 5:02 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

Not really a question, just a comment based on what's going on in this thread and similar experience I've had myself on other websites.

I've always found it interesting that on message boards, people will ask you or me or some other average Joe libertarian to explain to them essentially the entire framework of the theory in a simple and coherent manner from beginning to end.  Ask is probably the wrong word actually, they usually demand it.

Then, when you suggest they go read a book or something (I usually don't even demand a specific title, I usually say something like "anything by Rothbard, Mises, or Walter Block"), they get all indignant and refuse to do so.  Like, many people with a ****-ton more knowledge on these issues than you or I spent a great deal of time writing books specifically designed to introduce libertarian theory to statists, who then refuse to read them, but pretend to be interested in it by showing up in places like this and asking questions.

Seriously you guys, if you want to know how a private police force would work, stop annoying David and google "how a private police force would work" and I'm sure one of the several dozen books written on the subject will come up.  Many of them are available for free at mises.org.  If you're not willing to educate yourselves, stop wasting our time.

Report this comment
#129) On August 07, 2012 at 5:14 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

smartmuffin,

You nailed it.  Some people are only interested in the game of the debate.  I like the game too, but it's not everything. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#130) On August 07, 2012 at 6:50 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

smartmuffin,

This was a thread started by David to discuss an array of topics.  He pulled me in with his comment #64.

So basically David's answer is go hire mercenaries.  Fortunately David you have no real power.  Aside from these threads on a dying website, you will effectuate no change.  Since your delusions do not interfere with my realities I wish you good luck.

Report this comment
#131) On August 07, 2012 at 8:38 PM, APJ4RealHoldings (31.67) wrote:

am i the only person who can see comment #102?

David, I think I first asked you the A) topic back in 2010 - I would appreciate a response as I've been quite patient. 

Repost:

whereaminow,

A) what is an ideal solution to avoid monopolies and oligopolies? obviously the current system isn't working, your thoughts on an ideal solution and comments on the current antitrust system?

B) what are your thoughts (likes/dislikes) on local 'coupon' currencies that are being used such as the 'mountain hours' (videos on adamvstheman channel on youtube) ?

C) what is the best way to converse with friends/coworkers for them to see the libertarian light when their stance is currently, we need more regulation? 

Report this comment
#132) On August 07, 2012 at 10:17 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

awellejr,

Just like a good party loyalist to dodge uncomfortable truths.  While you yammer on about hypothetical violence, I ask about real violence committed by your leader and you scamper like a jack rabbit.

ROFL, they hate the light dont they?

APJ4,

Sorry man. Working up a response now.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#133) On August 07, 2012 at 11:03 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

OMFG I effing hate Motley Fool.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#134) On August 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Long comment eaten twice. Going to bed.

Report this comment
#135) On August 07, 2012 at 11:47 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Just like a good party loyalist to dodge uncomfortable truths.  While you yammer on about hypothetical violence, I ask about real violence committed by your leader and you scamper like a jack rabbit.

Lol please David, I asked you over and over to answer a question.  When you finally do, 80 percent of your reply had nothing to do with it.

One thing we probably agree on is that human history is basically a compendium of wars.

Nice attempt at a digression tho.  I saw several thousand names listed on a plaque at the Freedom Tower in New York. Now shoo and go hire your mercenaries to defend your theoretical world.  My last reply so have at it and someone please evoke the Godwin law.

Report this comment
#136) On August 08, 2012 at 12:17 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

So 20% of my reply did?

Hey at least that's 20% more than you gave me. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#137) On August 08, 2012 at 12:57 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

One thing we probably agree on is that human history is basically a compendium of wars.

And exactly how many of those wars were fought between private companies?

Report this comment
#138) On August 08, 2012 at 8:55 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

smartmuffin,

I find it interesting that he has an allergic reaction to mercenaries.  I think it's part of the naivete about our military that is hammered into American minds.

Early in my career, our platoon sergeant got up in front of us and asked how many were there for the education benefits as the primary reason they enlisted.  Nearly everyone raised their hand. He claimed that this was pretty standard.  And from my experience of 16 years in and around the military, I'd agree witht that.

They call it a "volunteer" army but that's not actually true. They're mercenaries.

I think it's funny when I find someone that is pro-military and and anti-mercernary.  In America, the only difference is the cult of the State.  Their military has fancy rituals and shiny dress uniforms.  A private military probably wouldn't have much of that.

But that's about the only difference, and not a particularly significant one in my mind.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#139) On August 08, 2012 at 9:07 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

On August 07, 2012 at 8:38 PM, APJ4RealHoldings (26.43) wrote:

A) what is an ideal solution to avoid monopolies and oligopolies? obviously the current system isn't working, your thoughts on an ideal solution and comments on the current antitrust system?

I know why I never answered this question. I could write 40,000 words on it easy.  So last night I sat down and tried to trim it to 5,000 and CAPS kept eating my comment. I tried switching from Firefox to IE, and it did it again. Only somewhere in between, I must have copied something else, because I lost everything and couldn't paste it back into a notepad. Ugh, was I mad.

Anyway, I'll make some quick points.

1. Monopolies are not inherently bad. That's just fear of "bigness".  

2. Every monopoly I've ever studied has only persisted with government assistance.

3. Antitrust laws are a scam created by economists to make money.  They created the fallacious doctrine of Perfect Competition, which makes everyone a monopolist, then whore themselves out to big business to help them crush competition.

4. Most antitrust laws are used on behalf of big business, not against big business.

5. If capital flows to the highest return, then it's real difficult to maintain a monopoly without using violence.  Just think that one through.

6. The State wants you to be afraid of the market (which, after all, is all of us), and monopoly is the perfect boogeyman to convince people that the State is needed to fight this so-called evil.

See these three sources to start:

Here for how the antitrust law is really used.

Here for how they lied to you about robber barons (they used State privileges, not some inherent market failure)

Here is an excellent article on Standard Oil

And I've never had a Progressive explain to me how, if monopolies are bad why are they happy to hand so much monopoly power to the Federal Government?

(Answer: at heart, a Progressive is just a Nationalist)

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#140) On August 08, 2012 at 9:51 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

It's very interesting, occasionally when someone I know to be a rational and intelligent person "thanks" me for my "service" I try to politely correct them.  I never joined the Navy to "serve" anyone.  I am not their slave.  The military is just like any other job in that you sign a written contract to perform certain actions in exchange for certain benefits.  Of course, the main difference is, since the other party in the contract is the state, you have no assurance that they won't just change it and leave you with zero recourse, but hey.  I get compensated very well for the job I do, and that's why I do it.  It doesn't make me a cold-hearted mercenary, it makes me a working man just like everybody else.

Of course, this line of reasoning is also part of my standard "why corporations wouldn't have wars" routine.  Without the brainwashing cult of the state, it would be SO much harder to find people willing to be soldiers.  Nobody would inherently want to serve as front-line infantry for Google out of some noble sense of self-sacrificing service.  They'd have to pay their soldiers a LOT more than the current state does, which would be incredibly impractical and inefficient.

As far as monopoly goes, Rothbard covered in great detail how monopoly is not possible without the assistance and/or sanction of the state.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

Report this comment
#141) On August 08, 2012 at 9:56 AM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

@smartmuffin

I'm curious, why did you join the Navy?

Report this comment
#142) On August 08, 2012 at 10:19 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

I would also like to point out that awellejr changed his objection.

His first objection was that libertarians had *no answer* for the violent gangs like cosa nostra. 

His second objection was that mercenaries are not acceptable. 

Notice the subtle change. He concedes that cosa nostra and their ilk wouldn't stand a chance against a private defense force.  So his first objection has been answered.

Now his complaint is that such a force wouldn't bow to the State. They're "mercenaries."

The game of the debate is fun, but it's not everything.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#143) On August 08, 2012 at 12:02 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in.

I didn't say your answer was not acceptable to the question David.  I simply mocked it.  David: "Hey let's form a libertarian society and should crime get rampant we will hire mercenaries to deal with it.  Of course we run the risk that the mercenaries might like their new station of power and usurp us but nothing ventured nothing gained."

Should a true libertarian society ever come into being let's discuss further.   Until then, ciao.

Report this comment
#144) On August 08, 2012 at 12:22 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

I didn't say your answer was not acceptable to the question David.  I simply mocked it

And that's exactly what people do when they don't have anything of substance to say.

You're not a trial lawyer, are you?  Yeesh.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#145) On August 08, 2012 at 2:46 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

AJP4 and anyone else I missed.

I'm flying back to the West Coast tonight and I'll get to any more questions I have yet to answer this week.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#146) On August 08, 2012 at 5:12 PM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

Well this thread is too long now.  Time to move on.   And as I said, David,  since your delusions do not interfere with my realities I wish you nothing but the best.

Report this comment
#147) On August 08, 2012 at 8:06 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

If they don't interfere with your realities, why is it so important to you that I answer your questions. Seems like genuinely odd and contradictory behavior, wouldn't you agree?

I hope you have an open forum one day. We can talk about Awlaki :)

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#148) On August 08, 2012 at 10:34 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

mtf00l,

No one big reason, just a whole lot of little ones.  I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life, pathologically loathe being in debt, didn't want to burden my parents, didn't have any confidence in the college system, appreciated the fact that the military actually seemed to want me, and to my great shame, had enough of the statist brainwashing in me that a small part of me really did believe it was a good cause and that I was helping protect America and all that crap.

I can also single-handedly disprove awallejr's assertion that David isn't making a difference.  He has been a great inspiration for me in my decision to reclaim my person from the United States government.  Lest his head grow too large, he wasn't the ONLY one, but he did help shape a lot of my opinions and inspire me to take some of the actions that I knew in my head were right.  When you're in the military, you're literally surrounded by people who constantly insist that you would be crazy to get out.  Most of the people you see separate do so involuntarily, which means the military didn't want them anymore, which means they were unskilled and not destined for much in the public OR private sector.  You see these people wash out and end up homeless and you start to think that the masses are right.  That you can't get out.  That it's too hard to make it in the real world.

Seeing someone who actually did it, and went on to achieve greater success helps a lot.  If he can do it, I can do it.  

Report this comment
#149) On August 08, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Leonorxmr (< 20) wrote:

what Julie explained I am blown away that anyone can get paid $9763 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this webpage (Click on menu Home more information)   http://goo.gl/NyzHw

Report this comment
#150) On August 09, 2012 at 1:47 AM, awallejr (83.91) wrote:

whereaminow

Ah let me leave here ;p  For the record you can be fun arguing with at times. 

Report this comment
#151) On August 09, 2012 at 9:29 AM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Uh oh.... Kodak moment....  Orange juice you, too, awellejr....

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#152) On August 09, 2012 at 12:08 PM, mtf00l (45.02) wrote:

I appreciate your response smartmuffin.  Thank you.

Report this comment
#153) On August 09, 2012 at 12:13 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

smartmuffin,

Thanks bro! And you've given me a blog idea...

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#154) On August 09, 2012 at 1:04 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

APJ4RealHoldings,

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Hopefully, you'll see this comment.

B) what are your thoughts (likes/dislikes) on local 'coupon' currencies that are being used such as the 'mountain hours' (videos on adamvstheman channel on youtube) ?

Local scrip has some usefulness and I certainly support it (to a point).  Local scrip currency saved a lot of lives in Austria during the Great Depression (that is, until the government at the behest of the central bank, outlawed it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6rgl#The_W.C3.B6rgl_Experiment

It's a great way for people to free themselves from the monopoly note issue of the government-created banking cartel.

However, it's not a long run solution, mainly because it has limitations in the accumulation of savings and the expansion of capital goods.  

That being said, it is absolutely superior to centrally controlled currency.

C) what is the best way to converse with friends/coworkers for them to see the libertarian light when their stance is currently, we need more regulation? 

Good question. I'm not sure I've ever had success breaking through that fog.

Here's a few things I try to point out:

1. I never allow anyone to get away with the comment that we "didn't have enough regulation" (or the famous "too much free market" nonsense).  You simply have to point out the facts. The mountains of existing regulations.  See this article for example.

2. Explain that insisting on government regulation is equal to asking for violence. It's basically admitting that peaceful solutions are not an option and the only choice is force.  The market offers a peaceful regulation (loss of profit and eventually bankruptcy.)  The market did a fine job of regulating the big banks, for example. The market regulated them into bankruptcy.  Peacefully.  The government, using its only weapon - violence, saved them from bankruptcy and then used further violence to implement new regulations.

People who lean Left tend to think of themselves as enlightened and peaceful people.  When you turn the tables, and show them how violent their solutions are, generally that gets them to back down a little bit.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#155) On August 09, 2012 at 9:06 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

David,

Here's one for you that I was going to e-mail and ask Adam Kokesh, but I'll let you take a shot.

Would you support a local/alternative currency even if it were run by pretty obvious socialists and statist shills?  The town I grew up in is very far left, here's a link to their website:

http://hourexchange.org/index.php/local-currency-2/local-currency-faq-frequently-asked-questions

They talk to a great extent about a living wage, social justice, etc.  I honestly can't tell if the benefits of local currency are worth the costs of associating with people who quite clearly do not support freedom in any real sense of the word.

Report this comment
#156) On August 09, 2012 at 10:27 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Is it always one HOUR per hour of labor?

Not at all. The COST of providing a service is not always relative to the TIME it takes to provide a service. In addition to the service provider’s time, there may be overhead and background costs involved. Exchanges involving HOURS are entirely voluntary, at whatever fee or price is agreeable to the people involved.

Well isn't that nice?  

They talk the pinko talk, but they walk the capitalist walk :)

Either way, I totally support it. As I've said, whatever arrangement people wish to make in a non-coerced, voluntary agreement, I'm all for it.  Even if that means going full on communal property and labor theory of value.  In this case, they're only helping "awareness" of socialist virtues (lol), while instituting a system that is very non-socialist.

Everyone knows where voluntaryists stand on socialism. But I support anyone who tries to break away from federal tyranny (including its monetary tyranny) up to the point that they don't violate my property rights.

From an economic standpoint, their arrangement is a little silly, however. Pegging the scrip to the value of the dollar, for example, means that one of the two will always be overvalued and the other, undervalued.  

Also I find their deferring to the almighty Federal government very amusing.  Like I said, at heart, Progressives are nothing but Nationalists.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#157) On August 10, 2012 at 12:33 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

Right, I mean I should clarify, I support their right to exist.  I do not at all mean to imply that they're doing something wrong necessarily or that the government should shut them down or anything else.  Even if they put a picture of Stalin on their money, I'd be fine with them doing it due to the voluntarist principles you mentioned.  They are not harming me in any way.

I'm just wondering whether it would be something I should consider participating in.  My parents neighbors (very good family friends) are small-scale farmers and I know that she accepts it and transacts in it.  I could probably get some and transact in it on a VERY small scale if I wanted to.  Just not sure it's worth it, after all, would that not be an implied consent that I agree with their values and their system?

Report this comment
#158) On August 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

smartmuffin,

after all, would that not be an implied consent that I agree with their values and their system? 

I don't think so.  Besides, it doesn't seem like they understand their own values and system!

And hey, if you become a participant in it, you can use some of your personal interactions to explain what you think about the world and maybe find some common ground.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#159) On August 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM, SkepticalOx (99.43) wrote:

I think you mentioned in the past that you were in the military (was it the Marines? I don't recall). While you probably don't agree with the government's excursions all over the world, my question is, do you actively discourage people from joining the military, or is it a good learning experience?

Report this comment
#160) On August 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM, whereaminow (22.35) wrote:

Skeptical,

I actively discourage, generally on the grounds that those giving the military orders have no interest in the rule of Law that the military is supposed to uphold.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#161) On August 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, actuary99 (93.21) wrote:

@David Wherever You Are

 Interesting diet, I'll have to try the fasting idea. I have no weight problem (yet) but I often have ravenous hunger to the point it bothers me I can't control it.

Questions:

1. What's the problem with grains? According to the nutrition facts, whole-wheat-million-grain bread is pretty nutritious (lots of fiber + good amount of protein).

2. Why do you think running is a waste of time? For cardiovascular heatlh & burning calories, it seems extremely efficient to me. Also I can't imagine any cardiovascular workout that is more convenient. High-intensity training stuff seems like it would be much better since it attacks a wider group of muscles. But other than that, what's the advantage?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement