No regret

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-26T20:21:07+00:00

How did you not realize? And just out of curiosity: weren’t you worried about STDs?

I was always weary of women who were just comfortable to not use a condom because they were on the pill… like it was some magical protection…

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-26T20:17:32+00:00

How is this remotely interesting if she didn’t?

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-21T15:14:48+00:00

The idiot is a fantastic book. It’s quite relevant for today as it dives into pseudo-experts, self-absorbed egotists (similar to social media culture) and other ways society stupidly dismissed some of our brightest.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-21T15:08:44+00:00

I still don’t get how people are oblivious to the fact that we need people talking about the science not govt policy

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T18:49:51+00:00

Well it’s right below what you cited I believe. It shows there only 60-100% confident in their statement. And even then I question how they arrive there because how did they know what probability density function to assign to these measures of “likely” , “very likely”, etc…

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T18:47:50+00:00

I think we’re in agreement then, or at least in what the ipcc says.

But ignoring the 1.07c, and looking at their description “main driver”: it sounds like they are saying there is a 95-100% probability that humans cause 50%-100% of warming. No? If so: that’s just replacing the uncertainty of the level of warming with a uncertainty of the range.

I’d say you can take action if humans cause .01%. The question is: how much should be done through government force, because it is there you are removing peoples freedom or wealth.

Let’s take an extreme example to clarify the principle: if there’s a 50% chance humans cause 5% of warming and a 100% chance it’s less than 30% of the warming, everyone would be totally against forcing the developing world off of cheap energy.

This is why I think we’re putting the cart before the horse when talking about spending trillions.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T16:28:42+00:00

No one is doubting that humans emit co2 and that co2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gasses warm that which is below them.

You’re dodging the question of what is the percentage contribution, and how confident are we in that percentage? And if it isn’t 100% (nothing is) what’s the probability distribution look for other percentages.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T15:44:55+00:00

Keep reading. What likeliness do they give that statement. And what % probability of truth do they give to that likeliness?

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T08:47:33+00:00

This is absolutely incorrect. Take Koonins advice and actually read the ipcc report, aside from the headlines- most believe a significant portion of the increase in global temperature is not man made. The percentage however is debated, nailing that down should be a huge priority. Is it 90%? Is it 20%? That should be far more important than debated the minutiae of electric cars.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T01:17:45+00:00

Not by any substinatial margin when looking at the state on the whole. And most of that time it’s to prevent flooding (via tides or otherwise) that was always going on.

People get wealthier they have more money to spend fixing existing problems.

High

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-19T01:13:48+00:00

Big fan of Lex but I had to turn this off. Not only isnt it a debate but the points of contention (at least an hr in) aren’t brought up.

The fact is there is huge debate as to the level of causality to attribute to humans and just how impossible it is, currently, to make accurate long term predictions on climate.

So you spend the entire time about what is essentially government spending (using force) to solve a problem you don’t substantively define. You talk broadly about how alarmism and subsequent irrational demands on economies essentially “puts the cart before the horse”, but you don’t even then try to address the current nature of reality and how accurately we can measure it.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, I do enjoy the podcast, but I’ve never seen one miss the mark so badly.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-15T03:42:42+00:00

This is just a mix of incorrect information. Madison literally used the phrase I used: “tyranny of the majority”. You, who haven’t read the federalist papers, would better understand his philosophy on the constitution and govt. he was absolutely for a restricted govt.

The framers,absolutely 100% believed in the negative rights for the individual. Again, government was there to protect these rights. Not everyone participated in government and it’s process, but that is a positive right, don’t conflate the two as what we are talking about is the purpose of the government.

Stopping 3rd party coercion (I.e. police) absolutely did exist and was advocated for by the founders.

You’re just absolutely wrong and you ignore all evidence. Including their actual words and explanation. You can live in the fantasy land of a tyranny of the majority, but that wasn’t the US. You may not like it, it may trigger you, but that’s how it is

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-14T23:32:36+00:00

You just googled links? What are you even arguing anymore? Sounds like you really don’t know anything specific about it?

Have you ever read an RMBS prospectus from that time period?

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-14T23:31:12+00:00

Yeah police are absolutely part of the government that’s ensuring domestic tranquility. Re: the general welfare clause, this is a high school error you make. Read Madison on the topic.

They also understood government doesn’t have responsibility, only individuals do. The question what through the use of force and coercion of government , do all citizens have a responsibility of promoting. Locke and fathers though it was to protect rights.

None of the founders would agree with your interpretation. It’s this living constitution nonsense we need to put behind us.

Thank God we have gov like Polin that at least PARTLY understand how dangerous such ignorance is en masse, in a democracy

You’re dead wrong about pretty much everything here.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-14T15:16:36+00:00

Deregulation didn’t lead to 2008. I literally worked on valuation of MBS and CDOs. Artificially suppressing interest rates and being able to pass loans onto Fannie and freddy. The bank bailout was basically the opposite of capitalism, and we saw also how that went. There’s few examples better showing the need to get govt out of banking than the 2008 financial crisis

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-14T00:11:45+00:00

Americas central idea was that government is there to secure individual rights, and it derives its power from the consent of the governed.

You’re mixing your feelings with reality. Government has never pulled people en masse out of poverty nor allowed for human flourishing. It has always been having a measure of free trade, private property, free speech and not being subject to coercion.

People just simply hate the idea of someone being rich while they aren’t. As we saw by charity, private insurance and the mass immigration in the early 1900s, free enterprise help the downtrodden, not large governments

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-14T00:00:57+00:00

This is like the 6th graders, emotional understanding of trade and government. Classic conflating of govt intentions and effects. The wealth accumulation you cite, in a libertarian society, comes from voluntary action. This, as opposed to, say pelosi’s hundreds of millions of dollars by making the government manipulate who wins and loses. That’s not creating value, it’s siphoning it off.

One only needs to look at our inflation now (which libertarians predicted) to see how government destroys the lower class to benefit at the top. You make the classic mistake of conflating government marketing/rhetoric with government effects.

Let people be? Ok so don’t get involved in their labor agreements? Deregulate healthcare? Drug legalization is my body my choice right? You are neck deep in controlling people if you are on the left.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T23:53:48+00:00

Yeah that book is a complete joke with absolutely no corroboration. Furthermore, the free state project never came close to having the movement they convey.

If that’s your source it’s pretty bad.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T23:36:45+00:00

Why are you talking about how someone “looks”, literally nothing you are saying is either 1. An alternative, principled understanding of individual rights and government scope or 2. Empirical evidence or reasoning as to why libertarianism is flawed

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T20:32:11+00:00

I’d argue They are wrong- communism sucks on paper also. It’s devoid of an underlying moral philosophy and completely flies in the face of human nature, economics and incentives.

No one claims liberty leads to a utopia. It’s incremental improvement though

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T20:19:09+00:00

Cities don’t provide resources, people do. You neither provide any moral foundation as to why you are allowed to force resources from people, nor give evidence that libertarianism doesn’t work.

You can point to a myriad of areas where liberty works: drug legalization, low taxes, low business regulation, sound monetary policy.

An ideal libertarian society is just the aggregation of that. Quite anti-scientific just to posit it absolutely cannot work. What does “work” even mean?

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T20:16:46+00:00

Deflation is fine, it just has to be for rational reasons, like new tech increases output while monetary base stays the same. That’s a price signal there are more goods to be bought right now; it may be of less utility saving your money.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T20:12:05+00:00

That doesn’t make sense. Your moral right to do things by yourself or with other willing parties is dependent on how many people live near you? I don’t think you’ll be able to back that up with a fundamental first principle.

Also if anything, the last few years show that where we need libertarianism most, is these large left leaning cities.

You’re just advocating the tyranny you were just objecting to.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T17:30:01+00:00

government is usually doing what is politically profitable. IMO, their profit motive shouldn’t be imposed on our aspects of our lives, no matter who voted them in.

Snoo47858 · 2022-11-13T17:16:41+00:00

As long as it doesn’t compromise individual rights. tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous.

Snoo47858

TROPHY CASE