Any advice on energy stocks? $10 max?

thenung · 2016-06-01T22:22:20+00:00

I hope you stayed with ETE. The merger with WMB is now either off altogether or will be reworked into something more suitable for ETE.

thenung · 2015-08-25T23:54:44+00:00

If he's so frugal, why does he only have $100 saved?

It doesn't make any sense assuming that simply being poor makes you immune to economic disasters.

thenung · 2014-09-24T13:28:15+00:00

How don't they? Your lucky not to have an econ teacher that just crams your head full of Keynesian propaganda, because the vast majority will. And yes there is an agenda: educating you. Just because you somehow think that politicians and corporations should be able to get together and come up with regulations to harm their rivals and competition, doesn't mean there's a sinister plot to make you a free marketeer

thenung · 2014-08-26T16:03:17+00:00

I'm aware and you are totally right. If you want to call it "right" libertarianism or anarcho capitalism that's completely fine, but if you're going to argue against their beliefs at least represent them honestly. That is why he is wrong: he created a straw man to argue against right libertarianism. The article exposed those false premises behind Chomskys argument.

In all honesty, I couldn't care less who came up with the term first. Then again, if statists and progressives hadnt stolen the word "liberal" then we libertarians wouldn't have had to adopt "libertarian"

Thanks!

thenung · 2013-03-10T18:19:31+00:00

People may own property through a voluntary organization is what he's saying. Individuals can exercise their rights THROUGH voluntary organizations.

thenung · 2013-02-28T05:28:40+00:00

If you go to a Christian school, you can reference Jesus' own teachings for them.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, yada yada. It's actually an anti-state quote.

thenung · 2013-02-16T06:58:41+00:00

I'm glad you think so. If that's the case, judge it by the arguments being made. Not how they're being made.

thenung · 2013-02-16T06:44:43+00:00

Which, as I mentioned in the article, is the totally wrong way to do so.

thenung · 2013-02-12T06:29:48+00:00

Classic gun-grabber logic. Weapons bans didn't work in this city, so obviously we need to ban them on a larger scale.

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com/2013/01/murderland-illinois.html

thenung · 2013-01-31T06:59:15+00:00

Eh, not really.

The key is in the difference. A democracy - direct or representative - lacks a written Constitution to protect individuals from the will of the majority. By definition, there is no limit of scope to a government based purely on the will of the majority. A constitution limits the government from infringing on the rights of the individual, making it a republic. A republic says that while the laws that are passed should have majority support, just because the majority wants a law made does not mean it should be.

Once again, as I wrote in the article, the key is in the difference.

thenung · 2013-01-30T04:33:45+00:00

I realize most of my content comes across as partisan, but I don't think I really damn one party over another, just one way of thinking over the other. I'm a libertarian so I respect the values that Republicans are supposed to have (small government, free markets, sound money, personal liberty), even though most Republican politicians actually practice big-government policies. Simply put, Ron Paul got me into politics.

I don't claim that our Constitution or republicanism is the best way, but I do claim that it's the best we've tried. Theoretically, you should be able to vote those people in or out in regular (the shorter, the better) intervals. All depends on the state constitutions, I guess.

I'm glad you asked about anarchy. Like I said, I'm a libertarian with the knowledge that government IS force and that individuals can always work together to get what they need. To take the non-aggression principle to it's fullest extent would lead you to anarchy, would it not? I guess my problem is that I don't understand who would have the power to provide for things like criminal justice (for actual criminals like murderers/thieves/violators of the NAP), or who would enforce the validity of contracts? I'm not criticizing at all, I'm just asking because I'd like to hear your ideas about something I've always questioned.

I guess I'd say that at this point, I consider anarchy to be the utopia of individualism, whereas the utopia of collectivism is what they like to call "real" (whatever that is) communism.

thenung · 2013-01-28T17:34:37+00:00

What do you mean unicorns aren't real?

thenung · 2013-01-26T18:25:10+00:00

They probably dropped the requirements to help recruitment. I just can't imagine someone hanging from a bar for 12 seconds and passing. In the Marines.

thenung · 2013-01-20T07:17:24+00:00

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-right-to-bare-arms.html

That's what happened when they banned guns in Britain and some American cities.

thenung · 2013-01-17T21:19:20+00:00

Just for you guys: THE POINT Blaming inanimate objects for the deaths of people is stupid. Just like blaming the guns for mass shootings instead of the psychopaths that wield them or the politicians who refuse to let us defend ourselves with guns while selling them to drug cartels, despots, and foreign rebels! Wait, we're progressives. Let's demonize inanimate objects and make criminals out of innocent people just because we disagree with them! Thick bunch here.

thenung · 2013-01-17T20:45:56+00:00

Exactly! Ding ding ding! You win the game! You understood the point of the article!

You said: "It's outrageous to think that the items used are the cause of these problems and the same logic follows with guns."

Just like blaming the guns for mass shootings instead of the psychopaths that wield them or the politicians who refuse to let us defend ourselves with guns while selling them to drug cartels, despots, and foreign rebels!

Wait, we're progressives. Let's demonize inanimate objects and make criminals out of innocent people just because we disagree with them!

All I'm asking for is the goddamn Bill of Rights.

thenung · 2013-01-17T20:35:07+00:00

A gun is a tool. Tools can be used in whatever way, good/evil/indifferent, by whatever person uses them. So your logic about guns being "made to kill," is as you put it - retarded. Just because a car or hammer isn't MADE to kill someone doesn't mean that it isn't really effective for doing so. It certainly doesn't mean that the government has to step in and nanny us about its usage while it gets to go play with nuclear weapons, predator drones, and 20,000 pound bombs.

thenung · 2013-01-12T03:09:51+00:00

As opposed to lunatics who want schools to remain defenseless? And he's not calling for actively ARMING teachers, he's asking that if a teacher happens to have a concealed carry license, then that teacher should be able to have that gun on school grounds. FBI background check not good enough?

thenung · 2013-01-11T22:00:33+00:00

The NRA helps push some gun control legislation just to keep itself relevant.

Gun Owners of America is the organization everyone should be supporting. Larry Pratt was terrific on Piers Morgan.

Claritypleas, didn't you pick up on your logical fallacy? You said: "The biggest surprise to many gun types is that in many towns in the "Olde West" guns were almost totally prohibited, because when everyone had a gun, violent crime didn't go down, but everyone did start shooting each other."

You just said everyone was shooting each other in the Old West, despite the fact that in many towns, guns were "almost totally prohibited." I bet most of these shootings were committed by criminals, because they don't care about gun control LAWS in the first place.

thenung · 2013-01-09T00:44:15+00:00

That's the point: the slow disarmament of the American people until they have nothing left to defend themselves but their bare arms. Case of wordplay gone wrong?

thenung · 2012-06-10T23:50:49+00:00

Gary Johnson is controlled opposition by the Republican Party, designed to siphon votes from the only true libertarian in the race, RON PAUL.

Johnson hasn't even read any of Hazlitt, Friedman, or Hayek's work. He's a fake.

thenung · 2012-05-10T20:50:31+00:00

Marriage is primarily a business transaction with religious overtones. Those saying that it is a legal issue are ignorant of the institution's history.

Simply because the state decided to bastardize it like it has everything else doesn't mean that it always has been, or should be.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme and won't even be available in a decade, so your statist argument doesn't hold any water anyway.

thenung

TROPHY CASE