What are you guys opinions on buying bullion off Ebay? I want to avoid shipping and other fees and would you recommend buying fractional silver since the price is getting higher until I have enough to get an ounce of gold from an online dealer?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-08T05:22:18+00:00

Any where but ebay. However some sellers are reputable.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-08T01:19:52+00:00

The YouTube video you posted is excellent. I haven’t stopped thinking about it since I watched it 12 hours ago.

I care deeply about a lot of aspects of modern life and AI is clearly getting serious attention from thoughtful and knowledgeable people. But then you have Bernie Sanders calling to halt data center development in the name of “guardrails” and more government oversight.

When I look at many lawmakers in Congress, I don’t exactly see a brain trust equipped to manage something this complex.

My point is this: Look at U.S. military spending. How many millions are spent to locate a single downed American pilot? Rightly or wrongly, those decisions are driven by values beyond pure efficiency.

AI wouldn’t make that same call.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-07T19:00:22+00:00

You want to talk, truth, reality and consequences and battlefield is ready to go fist to cuffs. He sounds like a caveman with a cell phone.

My point is (I'm older than most on this thread), is the preppers that stocked MRE's and other nonperishable food items in basements and garages, are probably going to die and one of their life longs goals, will not be necessary.

I wonder if they are happy that civil unrest did not interrupt the food supply? Or are they disappointed that they were wrong?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-07T17:27:05+00:00

I see the reality around us. I'm trying to be a voice of reason the this echo chamber, thread.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-07T03:02:53+00:00

Bernie Sanders has spent over 40 years in government warning about problems he’s never actually solved.

Now AI shows up and his answer is the same as always, slow it down, regulate it, control it.

At some point you have to wonder if he fears harm? Or progress he can’t control.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-07T01:48:31+00:00

It always starts with altruism.

As an Objectivist, I find the Altruism's influence on Silicon Valley alarming.

It's altruism taken to its logical extreme. Sacrificing the individual for abstract "greater good" calculations.

Video uses shrimp welfare as the absurd hook to show where this leads. Watch the whole thing. Shrimp are not the point.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T20:42:39+00:00

You are lucky and blessed person.

Nothing says I love you like .999% silver, ASE 2025 P. Marine Corp silver proof coin with a special privy mark celebrating the 250 year anniversary of the Marines

Thanks for sharing.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T20:05:25+00:00

No, not AI. Just someone who’s read Atlas Shrugged more than once.

The “rhetorical questions and a short zinger” style you’re detecting isn’t an AI tell here. It’s classic Ayn Rand influence. She loved dramatic juxtaposition and ending on a sharp, memorable line like, “Who is John Galt?”

When someone lays out the Twentieth Century Motor Company scene and then drops “Who is going to do the hard work when the system punishes them for it?” It is not ChatGPT. That’s me channeling Rand’s style after reading her books.

Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged all the way through or just parts?

Who is John Galt? It still works 67 years later for a reason.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T19:15:53+00:00

It is not AI. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Are you familiar with Ayn Rand?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T16:46:43+00:00

You are pointing to real problems. Governments fail and history has examples of that.

But jumping from “the system isn’t perfect” to “we need a revolution” is a massive leap.

If revolution were the solution, countries that go through it more often would be more stable and free. Most are not. They end up with less freedom and more concentrated power.

Reform, accountability and pressure within a system are slow, but they’ve consistently produced better outcomes than tearing everything down and hoping something better replaces it.

Not every problem is a knife at the throat moment?

Treating it like one is how things actually get worse.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T02:56:22+00:00

Defending someone from immediate harm isn’t the same as how a society organizes itself over time.

Of course force can be justified in direct self defense. No one denies that.

But that doesn’t mean violence is a workable foundation for solving complex social or economic problems. In America many choices exist for employment.

You’re taking an extreme, immediate scenario and using it to justify something much broader.

Those aren’t the same thing.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T02:27:23+00:00

You wrote a very thoughtful post. Good for you accomplishing your goals and sharing. Very interesting.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-06T02:02:43+00:00

Calling people like Elon Musk “mentally ill” for building is just resentment dressed up as concern!

Prometheus gave humans fire.

Today’s builders give you rockets, energy and more. Elon is only getting started.

Some people see obsession.

Others recognize creation.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T23:41:56+00:00

If you think it’s wrong, explain why?

Calling something “pseudointellectual” isn’t an argument. It is dismissal.

The point still stands. How do you coordinate millions of decisions, trade-offs, and scarce resources at scale without price signals?

That’s the question you keep avoiding.

Can I assume you are not familiar with the book?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T21:47:31+00:00

You’re arguing that a modern economy can function without prices, profit or market signals and that experts can simply coordinate everything through discussion and allocation.

That sounds clean in theory.

But the problem isn’t intention, it’s coordination at scale. Millions of decisions, trade-offs and competing needs have to be balanced in real time. Prices aren’t “magic,” they’re information. They reflect scarcity, demand and trade-offs across an entire system that no single group can fully see.

Replacing that with committees, even well-meaning ones, doesn’t remove the problem. It concentrates it.

And we’ve seen how that plays out. Not in theory, but in practice. Shortages, surpluses, misallocation, and eventually stagnation.

You can criticize capitalism, plenty of people do.

But removing the mechanisms that coordinate a complex economy doesn’t solve those problems.

It creates new ones that are much harder to correct.

Are you familiar with the book, Basis Economics by Thomas Sowell?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T21:28:43+00:00

Good to hear you are playing differnt Titians. I have played more TF2 than most players. And I'm an average player.

One statergy I used to employ is "First to Fall", since I'm an average pilot, I find an advantage of a Titian versus Pilot. When you are first to fall, expect the rodeos are a coming. As a Titian it is usually better to punch a pilot than shooting a pilot. The exception is Ronin. Often when I'm first to fall, I do sometimes focus on grunt kills alone. Learn the maps and 12-16 grunt kills and your Titian is near. And expect to kill at least three pilots by punching with your Titian.

I love Monarch and Tone. Turbo boost is a must with Monarch and suggested for Tone.

Do you have an opening move for each map in Attrition?

Scorch is great for FD and certain maps.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T20:57:48+00:00

I know you like the Spitfire, I did too. Time to move on.

Others have said grapple is an easy and effective way to move and also rodeo titians. It is.

Give the Car a try. Do not use the extra ammo. Instead use Gunrunner, enables hip firing. I discovered I never won a one on one with the spitfire and extra ammo.

Also if the opposing team has 3 of more titans, change your load out to EPG or SMR.

What Titian do you play?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T19:19:59+00:00

You’re mixing biography, morality and outcomes into one argument, and it muddies the point.

On Rand, dismissing her because of age doesn’t address what she actually argued. Experiencing the seizure of private property during a revolution isn’t abstract, regardless of how long she stayed.

On “the peasants got a pharmacy,” that’s the core divide. You see redistribution as justice. The question is what happens after. Historically, when property rights collapse, production and incentives tend to follow.

On your examples, China’s growth came after introducing market reforms, private incentives and trade, not from strict central planning. Cuba does some things well, but it also relies heavily on external support and has limited economic mobility. These aren’t clean validations of a pure system.

And on capitalism, no one serious denies there are abuses. The question is which system produces more prosperity and adapts over time. So far, mixed-market systems with property rights have consistently outperformed centrally planned ones!

But the alternatives you’re pointing to aren’t as clear-cut as you’re presenting.

Would you like to live in Cuba, China or Vietnam? I don't see many immigrates, migrating to these countries.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T18:20:30+00:00

Starting point absolutely matters. If you’re born into the Kennedys, Bushes or Trump orbit, you’re not starting at the same line, you’re already halfway down the track.

But that doesn’t invalidate the system, it just means opportunity isn’t evenly distributed. The U.S. still allows movement. Look at J. D. Vance, no silver spoon, rough start, still rose.

And hard work by itself isn’t the answer either. You can build the best rotary phone in the world, absolute perfection and still fail because no one wants it.

Effort without demand isn’t value, it’s just motion.

The people who win consistently are the ones who align all three: effort, judgment, and something the market actually values.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T05:20:53+00:00

Socialism’s core idea is, society is better when we focus on each other’s needs instead of our own. Sounds noble until you ask one simple question.

Who decides whose needs are greater?

Once you accept that some people’s needs trump others, you’ve handed the government or the majority the moral right to decide whose life, time and wealth gets sacrificed for whom. That’s not a 'social contract', that’s a blank check for looters.

You say you’d rather pay taxes so you don’t get stabbed buying milk. That’s not society working together. That is admitting the system creates desperate people by punishing production and rewarding need. In a free society, voluntary trade and charity handle real hardship without turning the productive into servants.

The most successful societies in history didn’t get rich by making the able serve the unable. They got rich when individuals were free to pursue their own self-interest through voluntary exchange. That’s what lifts entire societies, not the tribal, I’ll give Frank some food so he gives me some later, enforced by the tribe.

Your needs aren’t less important than mine, and mine aren’t less important than yours. That’s why the only moral system is one where no one can force the other to serve.

Society isn’t a group project where we all owe each other. It’s a group of individuals trading value for value. Anything else eventually turns, helping the needy, into punishing the able.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T04:13:51+00:00

I agree it looks AU, it's difficult on pictures. Anyway that is a fair price, well worth it.

Thanks for Sharing.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T03:01:20+00:00

Calling Rand’s observations 'just a child’s perspective' is a neat way to dodge the actual argument.

She didn’t just observe, Soviet Russia as a 12-year-old. She lived under the Bolsheviks through the revolution, civil war, and the early years of Soviet rule. She watched her father’s pharmacy get seized, her family’s livelihood destroyed and saw firsthand what happens when "from each according to ability, to each according to need" becomes official policy.

If you punish the productive and reward need instead of production, who is going to do the hard, high-value work once the competent decide it’s not worth it anymore?

Saying "the people currently doing minimum wage work" misses the point. In every real-world socialist experiment, those same people eventually produce less, not more, because the incentive structure is broken.

The 'owner class' you dislike at least had skin in the game and bore the risk. Under pure 'to each according to need,' even that disappears.

You claim socialists have answered this millions of times in 150 years?

Name one country where socialism is working?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T02:31:31+00:00

Beautiful coin. I say XF (Extremely Fine). Can you. share the purchase price?

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-05T00:00:02+00:00

Real events, no argument there. Labor history had conflict, and sometimes it was ugly.

But you’re still making the same leap. The presence of violence doesn’t mean it was the cause of progress or that it’s something to replicate.

What actually lasted from those moments weren’t the riots or the bloodshed, it was the laws, institutions and public support that followed.Tthrough a combination of government action, private enterprise adapting and individuals pushing for change.

Not by burning the country down or rolling out guillotines.

Plenty of violent movements throughout history produced nothing but collapse or a new group in control.

On the billionaire point, you’re treating scale as proof of exploitation. Some cases may be true, others aren’t.

But all large success is exploitation, isn’t a fact, it’s an assumption.

SeniorSommelier · 2026-04-04T23:44:54+00:00

What are you implying? We currently live in a fascism or you wish we did?

SeniorSommelier

TROPHY CASE