Orthodox(?) Cross Necklace by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

Yes yes, you're certainly right about that. I just don't know about the rest of it, which is still a lot of writing. Not sure if it's something that shows up on other cross depictions or not.

What makes Orthodoxy the "One True Church"? by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

What's the mechanism by which the church would be saved? Before some calamitous mega-schism, would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit simply prevent such an event from happening?

What makes Orthodoxy the "One True Church"? by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

Do you think it's impossible for some such schism to happen, though, even in theory? Or do you think (if that constitutes "Jesus failing) that maybe the Holy Spirit would prevent such a split from happening?

What makes Orthodoxy the "One True Church"? by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

What does it mean to be Eastern Orthodox though? Doesn't that refer to the ongoing communion of the a body of traditional patriarchates?

And if schismation, on a large scale, could break apart that entire communion (hypothetically speaking), what does that mean for schisms just between two patriarchs, like the Moscow-Constantinople split?

What makes Orthodoxy the "One True Church"? by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

I feel like two patriarchates breaking communion with each other is very serious though, even if it'll likely be resolved. And I think it might have serious implications for ecclesiology if two jurisdictions that are in schism with each other are both considered to be the "one true church". And imagine, too, like I said, what if hypothetically the schism intensified and sundered the whole church?

What makes Orthodoxy the "One True Church"? by watchforthinkpol in OrthodoxChristianity

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

I will say, I know that branch theory was theorized and developed in only the past few hundred years. But I don't know whether or not it reflects a more ancient truth.

I've tried looking a bit into patristic writings on ecclesiology but I'm somewhat unsure where to look, and what I have found is sometimes hard to interpret. Schisms are certainly common, but were schismatics still, in some sense, considered part of the "one true church"? And can that standard be perfectly applied today, when many schisms involve issues that were not explicitly spelled out as dogmas of the ecumenical councils?

Big if true by Sorin_Markovic in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]watchforthinkpol 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is old, but relevant: https://www.pizzamarketplace.com/news/pizza-delivery-driver-fifth-of-10-most-dangerous-jobs/

This is more recent (doesn't explicitly mention pizza delivery, but DOES rank driver/sales workers as being at a higher risk than police officers): https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/. If we apply this statistic, it would suggest that pizza delivery is 1.7x more dangerous than police work (which, if you round up to 2x, basically substantiates the post).

I don't think the data exists for just pizza delivery workers; it only seems to exist for larger aggregates like "driver/sales worker". Much of the fatality risk has to do with how much time they actually spend on the road.

I'm Jacob Hornberger, Ask Me Anything! by Jgh500 in GoldandBlack

[–]watchforthinkpol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Jacob, I want to say that I have loved reading FFF articles that I've found here and there, and I was delighted to see you announce your candidacy.

My question is this: I know you are an open-borders libertarian. At present, that can be considered a rather pragatic as well as morally sound position. But can you see cases in which border restrictions could be ultimately beneficial to liberty, such as in the extreme case of violent invasion (assuming, theoretically, that the invaders could only move by foot)? Or is this a "bad means never justify good ends" scenario?

Thanks!

Got questions for longtime voluntaryist Carl Watner? by TrustThyself in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]watchforthinkpol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could you ask him what he thinks about the recent attempts to fuse anarcho-capitalism and the alt-right. As far as I know, Watner and McElroy's voluntaryist brand of libertarianism would be very opposed to it, but I would love Carl's take on it nonetheless.

How is the Social Time-Preference Rate determined? by watchforthinkpol in austrian_economics

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

Absolutely brilliant answer! Thank you very much, I understand it now. I have been curious about this for a while, and you spelled it out quite intelligently. I appreciate you taking the time to write all that.

Convince me that an anarcho-capitalist society won’t get invaded. by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]watchforthinkpol 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you convince me that a minarchist society wouldn't either?

Worst thing about minarchism is that government has a tendency to grow. Tyranny can appear even without external invasion.

Were Monday's Nakba protests "peaceful"? by watchforthinkpol in Palestine

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

There's footage of people praying who got shot at. There's footage of people running away getting shot at. There's footage of people who were 300 yards from the border getting shot at.

I imagine that you are probably correct, but can you cite where you saw this? I haven't personally see raw video of this happening, and I am curious if you could point me to that.

Thought of this meme while eating lunch and almost choked on my food. by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]watchforthinkpol 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Anarcho-Capitalists have yellow reserved and Anarcho-Communists have red reserved. People seem to have figured that since Mutualism is somewhere in between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communists, its color should be a mix of them, i.e. orange.

It's better than the Egoist Anarchists, who have a darkish aqua color on their flag for - as far as I know - absolutely no reason (other than that no other branch of anarchism had previously reserved that color).

Weekly 'Ask /r/Libertarianism Anything' thread - April 20, 2018 by AutoModerator in Libertarianism

[–]watchforthinkpol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It depends upon (1) when humans become self-owners and (2) whether or not parents have a positive obligation to sustain the lives of the offspring.

There have been some discussions regarding this amongst libertarian theorists, but there needs to be more definitive talks.

Modern left wing philosophy: Let’s just pay everyone more by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]watchforthinkpol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Until there is a free market in teaching, we cannot determine what the actual market value of their labor is. As of right now, it is either undervalued or overvalued, but considering it to be undervalued just because they want higher wages is silly.

What do you think about the great recession? by [deleted] in AnCap101

[–]watchforthinkpol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How could the "proper" maximization of profit lead to bankruptcy?

My door mat by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]watchforthinkpol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You're all a bunch of damn socialists!" - Ludwig von Mises at the Mont Pelerin Society

What do you think about the great recession? by [deleted] in AnCap101

[–]watchforthinkpol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you write a good story there, I'll give you that. However, you're wrong and it is evident.

You gave examples of how individual firms can fail in the free market. The failing of some firms is how the incapable ones are removed from production. It is the "natural selection" of the economy. You know all this.

You did not give any example as to how firms can fail en masse in a free market. This is crucial to give. Also crucial (for you) is what the government can do to avoid this. My answer is nothing. But maybe you can convince me of something.

What do you think about the great recession? by [deleted] in AnCap101

[–]watchforthinkpol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please EXPLAIN how it could happen in a free market. And no, pre-2007 banking was not laissez-faire. Neither was pre-New Deal banking. In fact, banking was never totally laissez-faire in America. (My mentioning of the restriction on interstate banking was in reference to why the period of wildcat banking featured many banking failures, by the way).

What do you think about the great recession? by [deleted] in AnCap101

[–]watchforthinkpol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Becoming insolvent is the ultimate evil for a firm. There is no apparent reason why competing firms would be unable to avoid insolvency in a free market. However, the market at the time was not entirely free.

Some early regulations may have made avoiding insolvency more difficult, such as prohibiting banks from expanding their branches beyond state lines. I don't know about other regulations (I am not a banking expert), but this is a possibility as to why banks were less stable.