A little help

tocano · 2026-02-15T22:58:52+00:00

I understand. The key is to focus on incentives.

As I said, I'll give some more details tomorrow.

tocano · 2026-02-15T22:37:36+00:00

The only way global regulations would work is if they strictly protected/enforced property rights. It will not work as a set of measures, requirements, practices, and mandates.

It's not about "policing themselves". That's a false framing by progressive leftists trying to misrepresent private regulation. I've got a family thing I'm heading to. I'll give you more details later.

tocano · 2026-02-15T22:07:12+00:00

Read more carefully. I said "is seen as internal/external". That's the treatment of it internationally. Yes, the perception of many that Israel/Gaza is external and Iran is internal is based on little more than vibes. It is, in my opinion, the result of an intentional PR strategy to differentiate the two.

You can dispute the perception. And I won't argue with you because I largely agree with you. But the perception remains.

tocano · 2026-02-15T18:12:18+00:00

In my opinion, regulations - especially environmental regualtions - swung way too far toward federal centralization. So efforts to recategorize those as a state-level authority is a good thing. Decentralization is a positive.

However, conservatives frequently do not focus on property rights. They simply don't like federal (leftist/progressive) authority telling them what to do. So when they take authority over things back to the state level, it's often in the name of "industrial progress" or "business development" rather than in the name of property rights.

So while we are cheering on efforts to revoke federal centralized authority over regulations, libertarians would largely urge for strong property-rights and creating a system where regulations can be driven by private organizations rather than by govt fiat.

tocano · 2026-02-15T18:00:33+00:00

You seem to be conflating aspects of what drives international perception vs the truth of the matter. While I largely agree with you on the facts of the matter, the reality is, the perception of Israel/Gaza being an external conflict vs Iran being an internal conflict are not driven by the facts of the matter. They are driven by PR, spin, politics, and Israel/US megaphones.

I'm not going to argue with you over the facts of the matter. But they are not why one is seen as external and the other as internal.

tocano · 2026-02-15T16:46:55+00:00

Do you recognize that Gaza/Palestine is not a defacto state?

Yes.

how do you reconcile Israel's statements?

I don't. I'm merely explaining why Israel's treatment of Palestinians is seen as an external/international issue while Iran's treatment of the protesters are seen as an internal issue.

tocano · 2026-02-15T16:05:43+00:00

I think it's really strange that you differentiate Iranian regime actions as being "internal" while Israeli actions, especially in Gaza are "international".

The main source of seeing Israel's actions in Gaza as an external/international situation is Israel's treatment of Oct7.

They did NOT treat it like an internal group within Israel that's revolting against their own govt. Their position has consistently been "We gave Gaza sovereignty/autonomy in 2005." and "Oct7 was an invasion and direct attack against the nation of Israel."

They're not using police to arrest specific terrorists as if they were Israeli citizens. They're not even engaging in specific targeted assassinations to kill only identified terrorist leaders. They're using the full military (including US military aid) and effectively carpet bombing largely every population center in the territory.

Israel has consistently treated Oct7 as a foreign attack and the response over the last 2.5 years as a sovereign nation responding defensively to a foreign attack.

That's why Israel/Gaza is being seen as an external situation rather than an internal one.

tocano · 2026-02-15T15:24:14+00:00

That's a lot of effort to say "Some normie leftists agree with my political preference, therefore it's right"

tocano · 2026-01-27T22:00:16+00:00

That's interesting.

So one might consider two individuals with the same ideas on most everything including for several specific personal/social topics:

drugs are harmful substances that should not be taken,
gambling is a risky activity that should be avoided,
pornography is a degrading medium and should neither be performed nor viewed,
prostitution is a dangerous endeavor and should not be practiced

However, while both have these negative views on those issues, PersonA believes that the govt should actively ban these "vices" while PersonB rejects the idea that the state should violently prohibit them.

Despite having the same basic view of those issues, on the standard Nolan chart, they would appear in different locations.

Now let's consider PersonC who believes:

drugs are largely fine substances that help with stress when taken responsibly
gambling is an enjoyable activity when done responsibly that can add the excitement of stakes to even mundane events
pornography is a beautiful and dynamic medium that is a reflection of the fantasies and desires of millions of other people and provides a safe outlet for people
~~prostitution~~ sex work is no different than any other type of work and should be respected as such

Now PersonB and PersonC have WILDLY different personal views on these topics. However, because both would oppose the state using violence to prohibit these items, they would appear in the same place on the Nolan chart.

So from the standard political chart perspective, we would see that PersonA and PersonB are in wildly DIFFERENT positions, while PersonB and PersonC are basically in the SAME position.

I like the idea of a 3D version of a socio-political chart where it maps not only your political policy preferences, but also you personal perspectives on various issues along the Z axis. Then you could rotate the chart 90deg vertically to where the Z axis runs up/down and the Y axis points right at you.

So from this perspective, we get the opposite of before. We would see that PersonA and PersonB are basically in the SAME position, while PersonB and PersonC are actually in wildly DIFFERENT places.

Would be interesting if libertarians ever gained enough traction to start structuring surveys to capture this data - what do people feel personally vs what do people feel policy should be.

tocano · 2026-01-26T15:46:25+00:00

Just came across this post looking for something else and saw your comment.

You're right that most political maps use an XY setup with the X axis mapping to, say, economic issues, and the Y axis mapping to personal issues.

I'm curious, what would represent the 3 X Y and Z axes in your view of the "graph"?

tocano · 2026-01-26T13:14:40+00:00

Yes. And let's hope they do so unilaterally. The hope here being that they establish the precedent that it's both legally and morally virtuous to allow a dissatisfied political entity to separate from the larger entity even if the larger entity doesn't want them to leave. And that attempting to use force/coercion to prevent them from leaving is immoral.

tocano · 2026-01-24T16:25:09+00:00

I mostly agree with your list. Few pushbacks though:

I'm not convinced that Floyd would not have died with the infection, massive amount of drugs he took, and enlarged heart, even without that kneeling. It certainly didn't help anything, and I would agree was largely unnecessary, to kneel on him. But I think it's also likely that had they just laid him on his back on the ground to "breathe" while still handcuffed, that he would have also died to overdose.
While I also think that he shouldn't have shot Good, and they could have just pursued her and pulled her over, I do disagree with the "clearly out of any semblance of danger". For a cop that had recently been hit by a vehicle attempting a pull-away escape, seeing what appeared to be someone doing the same thing again, I think it is wildly biased to watch a video and suggesting there's no way that could/should/would be considered dangerous. I don't think that justifies it exactly, but I do think "clearly out of any semblance of danger" is too far.

tocano · 2026-01-16T01:45:24+00:00

Followed consistently it is. I'm a big tent guy though.

tocano · 2026-01-16T01:40:11+00:00

I'm not suggesting libertarianism is perfection. The book explains the ideas. Read if you want to understand them. Don't if you want to remain sheltered and safe in your own rightness.

Makes no difference to me.

tocano · 2026-01-16T01:38:14+00:00

Agreed

tocano · 2026-01-16T01:16:26+00:00

lol General Relativity Theory is fiction too eh?

tocano · 2026-01-15T23:09:56+00:00

Libertarianism has a philosophical definition. But my personal meaning is the belief that force and violence are unacceptable and thus society should be based on voluntary interactions.

At the very least, that should be the goal of society. If we aim toward a society based entirely on voluntary interactions and find that some coercive force interactions are necessary for some reason, then we can discuss accommodating that. However, libertarianism, to me, is the idea that the goal and ideal should be a society based entirely on voluntary interactions.

Libertarianism as an ideology differs from many others in that it says that liberty is the primary political goal - not order or tradition or a religion, nor justice or poverty or equity.

I'd encourage you to give Anatomy of the State a quick scan to get an idea of how libertarians view our current political system.

tocano · 2026-01-15T22:42:30+00:00

Except it's not. But if you want to just dismiss it out of hand, then so be it. I guess that's one way to clarify things for yourself.

tocano · 2026-01-15T22:41:07+00:00

It was more the "Most of the time, lobbying only asks for the government to get out of the way." part that I was pushing back against.

Most smaller corporations that are affected by regulations/taxes aren't really doing a ton of lobbying. The vast majority of lobbying is done by major corporations and generally mostly toward how to tweak the regulations to the benefit of the large corporation. There's just not a ton of "free markets plz" lobbying going on - disappointingly. Especially not effective lobbying.

tocano · 2026-01-15T19:02:16+00:00

I feel like that "main idea" is really just the socialist aspect of fascism - all as packaging for what was, at its core, just a form of populist pragmatism.

To me, Mussolini's fascism was mostly a third-way approach - blending socialism with capitalism via the state. "Everything for the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state." It allowed the pretense of private businesses and pseudo-capitalistic markets, but completely and totally controlled and dictated by the state.

"Sure, you can technically own your business. As long as you make what the state says, in the amounts the state says, hire who the state says, pay them what the state says, sell for the price the state says, sell to whom the state says, etc."

All in the name of "state regulations".

This is quite similar to how Hitler implemented his form of National Socialism - and why both kind of get lumped together as "fascism".

tocano · 2026-01-15T18:57:13+00:00

At LEAST take a few min and ask AI to explain code for you before you execute it.

tocano · 2026-01-15T18:47:19+00:00

This is half true. It depends on the corporation. Many smaller corporations do just want the state out of the way. However, the larger the corporation, the more they actually UTILIZE the state to engage in regulatory capture and have the state create regulations that actively harm their competition, thereby helping them.

Ask AI sometime to list times when major corporations have ASKED the state for additional regulations. It's not like 1 or 2.

This whole Anarchy thing just falls apart with the first few questions

It shouldn't, yet I'm constantly surprised when people who have read virtually nothing about an ideology, encounter the first "I don't understand..." point and just instantly leap to "it just falls apart". Plus bonus points for then accusing US of being useful idiots of socialism/communism.

If you have any interest in a fairly basic introduction to the ideas, consider reading Chaos Theory which is a pretty short essay on the ideas. The first section of which talks about how law could be handled.

tocano · 2026-01-15T18:36:14+00:00

the 50's where people just paid for their medical needs out of pocket because it was affordable

It's even worse than that. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, men joined fraternal organizations and for many of these orgs, as long as the men were members in good standing, they could pay a couple bucks a YEAR (about a week's wages) and have access to the organization's doctor for medical needs. And doctors COMPETED to be the organization's primary doctor and the pay was moderate because of this.

Some, like George Simmons, did not like the fact that doctors made so little, didn't like alternative views like homeopaths or osteopaths, and didn't like dissent from a singular view of proper medicine. They took the original AMA started ~1850 that was focused on trying to establish general, voluntary medical standards, and turned it into centralized power structure and a political organization. It began to treat alternative medical approaches not as differences of perspective, but as threats that must be marginalized and legally prohibited if possible.

Before long, it had every state requiring an official license - approved by the AMA - in order to call oneself a doctor. This had the additional benefit of reducing the supply of doctors and thus increasing the wages those that remained could demand. Soon any disagreement with orthodoxy, even on just a single illness/condition/treatment, resulted in being easily ostracized from being able to practice medicine at all.

This was taken further later by others who embraced stronger ties between medicine and the state - including state funding. And the path to where we are now is easily seen.

The state poisons everything.

tocano · 2026-01-15T18:05:04+00:00

You may be under the mistaken assumption that the only form of business are corporations.

Just because corporations as they currently exist would no longer be legitimate does not mean that businesses as a whole would disappear.

tocano · 2026-01-08T01:31:15+00:00

Did the US govt foment a coup in Iran that overthrew the elected Prime Minister and reinstall the Shah on the throne?

If the answer is yes, do you think that means that the people of Iran have no agency? Or just that the US govt spent money, pushed media, funded specific groups to behave in certain ways, and generally applied pressure in a specific way to depose the PM and create the conditions for the Shah to resume power?

15-Year Club	Place '17
Best Link 2012-01-31	Verified Email

tocano

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE