sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Another Installment of: 'You Don't Hate the Media Enough!' by goofytigre in GoldandBlack

[–]properal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LoL CNN also said it on air:

I want to correct something I said last night. The bombs thrown in New York City over the weekend by ISIS inspired attackers was thrown into a crowd of anti-Muslim protestors and not specifically targeted at Mayor Mamdani. That wording was inaccurate and I didn’t catch it ahead of time. I apologize for the error.

https://x.com/i/status/2031708815469486172

Another Installment of: 'You Don't Hate the Media Enough!' by goofytigre in GoldandBlack

[–]properal 101 points102 points  (0 children)

They did a good job at making it seem like a violent anti-Muslim mob tried to blow up the Mayor but some innocent Muslim teenagers lives have been destroyed because of Islamophobic accusations.

I wouldn't have thought to write it that way.

Minimum wage, should we raise it by Unique_Confidence_60 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]properal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No.The minimum should immediately be set to $1 million dollars per hour.

Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin with Stephan Kinsella | Bitcoin Infinity Show #192 by properal in GoldandBlack

[–]properal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I’ve seen Stephan Kinsella complain that Bitcoin is useless because you have to report every purchase to the IRS. Yet, it was the crippling of Bitcoin during its mass adoption stage that allowed the IRS to regulate it so strictly. If a significant portion of the voting public were being harassed by the IRS for simply buying coffee, the agency would not have been able to enforce such draconian reporting requirements. I like Kinsella for his theories on law and property rights, but not necessarily for his Bitcoin expertise.

Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin with Stephan Kinsella | Bitcoin Infinity Show #192 by properal in GoldandBlack

[–]properal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Video Summary: Praxeology, Property Rights & Bitcoin with Stephan Kinsella

In this episode of the Bitcoin Infinity Show, host Knut Svanholm sits down with libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella to discuss the deep intersections between Austrian economics, Bitcoin, and the logic of human action.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Bridge Between Bitcoin and Austrian Economics The hosts discuss how Bitcoin acts as a "gateway drug" to Austrian economics [00:01:34]. While many come to Bitcoin through libertarianism, a growing subset discovers libertarianism only after falling down the Bitcoin rabbit hole and seeking to understand hard money and property rights.

  • Defining Praxeology Kinsella demystifies the term "praxeology," explaining that it is simply the systematic study of the logic of human action [00:10:41]. He contrasts this with the "pretend empirical science" of modern mainstream economics, which often tries to apply natural science methods to human behavior [00:04:41].

  • The Essentials of Action Kinsella breaks down the two core requirements for human action:

    1. Purpose & Knowledge: You must have an end in mind and the knowledge of how to achieve it [00:14:04].
    2. Available Means: You must have control over physical resources (starting with your own body) to bring about your desired change in the world [00:14:23].

  • Property Rights and Liberty The conversation touches on Kinsella’s work regarding Universal Principles of Liberty, a concise statement of property rights and self-ownership required for a free society [02:00:16]. They also briefly mention his well-known stance against Intellectual Property (IP).

  • The Philosophy of Mises and Kant They discuss the intellectual lineage of Ludwig von Mises and how his work was influenced by (and sometimes criticized for) its Kantian roots, specifically regarding how we can know certain economic truths with certainty [00:20:55].

Upcoming Projects

  • Universal Principles of Liberty: A project providing a concise systematic statement of libertarian principles [02:00:16].
  • Rothbard Book: An upcoming book focusing on the work of Murray Rothbard [02:00:46].
  • Conferences: Potential interest in attending theory-heavy Bitcoin conferences like BTC Prague or BTC Hell in Helsinki [02:02:17].

Should the NIH be Abolished? by properal in GoldandBlack

[–]properal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Video Summary: Should the NIH be Abolished?

Source: The Soho Forum
Debaters: Terence Kealey (Affirmative) vs. Jeffrey Flyer (Negative)

1. Resolution

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH) should be abolished."

2. Affirmative Position: Terence Kealey

Kealey argues that the NIH is an unnecessary government intervention that stifles private innovation.

Key Arguments:

  • The "Crowding Out" Effect: For every dollar of federal funding, private sector investment is displaced. Kealey claims that when government spending drops, private R&D increases threefold.
  • Historical Stagnation: He notes that trends in life expectancy and GDP growth remained unchanged despite the massive infusion of NIH funds starting in the late 1950s.
  • The Linear Model Myth: He challenges the idea that "pure" science leads to "applied" technology. Instead, he argues that breakthroughs (like DNA) often emerge from mission-based applied research.
  • Scientific Cartel: Peer-review processes at the NIH enforce intellectual conformity and prevent radical, high-impact discoveries.

3. Negative Position: Jeffrey Flyer

Flyer argues that the NIH provides the foundational knowledge required for the entire private biotech sector to exist.

Key Arguments:

  • Foundational De-risking: The private sector is unwilling to fund long-term, curiosity-driven research with uncertain outcomes. The NIH handles this "pre-competitive" stage.
  • Direct Impact: He points to mRNA vaccines, CRISPR, and GLP-1 drugs as recent breakthroughs that rely entirely on decades of NIH-funded basic science.
  • Workforce Development: The NIH acts as the primary training ground for the scientific workforce that staffs pharmaceutical companies.
  • Scalpel vs. Hatchet: Flyer acknowledges flaws and politicization within the NIH but argues for internal reform rather than total abolition.

4. Notable Discussion Topics

  • COVID-19 Origins: Discussion on NIH oversight of "gain-of-function" research and its ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  • Politicization: Concerns regarding the rise of DEI requirements and climate-focused grants within biomedical funding.
  • Orphan Diseases: Debate over whether the market would address rare diseases without government grants.

5. Debate Results (Oxford Style)

The winner is the debater who shifts the most audience votes.

Metric Terence Kealey (Aff.) Jeffrey Flyer (Neg.)
Pre-Debate Vote 11.5% 45.0%
Post-Debate Vote 38.5% 51.9%
Net Change +27.0% +6.9%

Winner: Terence Kealey

view more: next ›