2many jonesy imposters.. on a side note, nobody gives a fuck.

That's cool with me brah!

Fuck me! Fuck David! Fuck it all!!!!

I'm no imposter...

I'd suggest you actually listen, then respond. I'd be happy to hear a good argument even though I myself have not given one.

Secondly, I have taken part of and read David's arguments. In my personal opinion, he never lost. In my opinion he's an incredible theorist.

(David is about as awesome as you get in North America IMO) :)

The problem is that its Americunt giving lectures to us the civilised, when its your country in the first place that pollutes this planet beside chinks.First start at your own backyard than come and talk to us.But I will take time to listen to this dud altho Im already fedup of Al Gore imposters,brah.

heh... thanks for the "brah!" comment brah! (I've been abusing it lately)

So I'm curious... if you listened, what did you think?

...the *smaller* problem is that I had about a thousand word reply and now it is gone.

All I ask is that you - if you're curious - listen. DF is basically about as baller as arguments get in the US. Seriously.

Link: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

That's David's blog.

Wow.

Are his politics similar to his cock father?

MF is a cock? lol You high brah!

I'd easily wager, with empirical observation, that not only was MF more honest than any politician I know today anywhere, he was more right as well.

DF is more radical, and I'd argue a shad bit brighter and ingenious.

As a litmus test, physics + economics = jeah!

Suppose Mr. Everamzah meant "Wow." in a dismissive sense. Then he really should tell me why he is dismissing the arguments.

Suppose Mr. Everamzah meant "Wow." in a positive sense. Then...

JEAH!

Edit: I have a "throw shit at people and whatever sticks sticks" mentality, and so, I have a double standard of not saying why his argument is right on the one hand and expecting others to tell me why he's wrong on the other.

Jeah! ;)

Jeah

Had to plus you for that brah!

why do i get the feeling this thread is more aboujt a celebrity crush than someones political ideas

Because you don't know the meaning of celebrity?

Milton sucks brah!

Except when this happens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Ds_LRROLI

Iceland academia vs MF.

Iceland is pretty awesome. Beautiful country. Their representatives are much less awesome these days. JEAH!

LOL MERICA

jeah brah

He doesn't account that every new person must use capital in order to make end products. Particularly in capital intensive countries added person will result in diminishing results of the scale if investments don't raise. You cannot put 10 engineers to a single machine and expect 10 times the output.

government needs to internvention when people impose much higher risks to the whole than to themselves. If I put up a nuclear plant that'l fuck up in hundred years, doesn't matter to me, but it might have devastating risks to next generation. Japan took huge risks with fukushima piece of junk and paid for it.

The biggest fail in thinking about limited natural resources and fossil fuels is to think only about climate change. The whole issue should be looked more holisticly and intergenerationally. Discounting will tell us that usage of oil more calmly will yield better results.

I used to be big into milton friedman, but I tend to be conflicting with some of his views at later age, namely monetarism and anti-welfarestatism.

I don't know if your comment is directed at David or Milton?

My trend has been quite the opposite of yours. I've appreciated both Milton and David more as I got older, not less.

On reflecting on this for a few more moments I'll tell you why.

1. I know a lot more now than I did then
2. The "left singularity"

"Leftism leads to more leftism until everything goes to hell."

I look at schools today and I see a lot of smart people learning and believing absolutely stupid things.

The left singularity is a force that will not be stopped. Ever. NA will crumble sooner rather than later. Perhaps in the next 100 years. Our families are getting worse and our economy is getting worse year-by-year but the GDP tells a different story, which obviously is not true. You can't both tax and spend more at the same time.

In short: political correctness is a disease and freedom is of utmost importance.

These things are complicated but I've spent far too much time debating the details elsewhere. Now, I just offer a link or two now and then. I quite like that this is an international site. Those that want the truth will find it.

Have you read any Lysander Spooner at all? Fantastic theorist.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

Similarly books like "Sex and Culture" authored by J.D. Unwin are incredible, but nobody would dare speak of it. Why? Because it is totally and completely politically incorrect.

Copies can be found online. It's an incredible read even if its conclusion "sounds ghey".

Doh!

For Lysander Spooner "No Treason" is excellent, but when I read this (a short work on natural law):

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59

....I kind of did an about-face, which started a long journey. This was a long time ago BRAH!

David (except the last paragraph). David presupposes capital to be somewhat abundant regardless of human population which is unrealistic. Land is limited, so are natural resources. I don't think he understands how much more fossil fuels we need to burn, how much extra energy we need, to guarantee somewhat human living conditions for extra inhabitants when even now when half of the planet lives with under 2,5 dollars a day, unimaginable poverty from our stand point.

I don't share David's willingness to gamble on the future of mankind. Oil and shit will be there, safely stored, it doesn't go anywhere. What is the rush to use all the limited natural resources now? The later we use them, the more valuable they are. The funny thing is, the extra income we get from manufacturing more crap won't even make us as happy as sparetime would.

If you don't mind, and for the sake of clarity...

...if you're talking about the talk, do you have a time stamp? I'd like to listen again with your critiques in mind.

argh I'll hopefully try to find em later with better time

No hurry man.

I feel ya. That's why I link-spam.

Thanks for the comments. I'll watch it again instead.

17:21 He obscures the desirability to keep our warming in 2 celsius range and population growth controllable. That's all his argument seems to be to me. But why? His conclusion, that if we don't fully understand the size of the risk, then the risk is worth taking, seems to me just irresponsibe. You find possibly poisonous mushrooms in the forest and don't know what they are. Now why would you eat them, if you already have a basket of goods with you? I just don't understand why riskloving is preferable in a situation where we already have working climate and we have little to gain from the few per cent of output as opposed to more sparetime. We are facing very redundant risk of hysteresis, where the nature doesn't clear to a balance it was before.

17:56-18:57 I'm still trying to figure out exactly what his argument is about population growth. It's not exactly how I laid out in my response. Why I'm a little baffled about it is because he dishes out a very fundamental economics formula as bad economics. As I see it, His argument says, that parents know and have already occupied all the capital for their offspring, when deciding to have children? So when you have kids you already have house, land, capital for your children? And all the parents know exactly the amount of natural capital left in the world?

If that is his argument, it would be more realistic to form different motives to have children. For very rich people his argument might be very valid - ceos might have mansions for their children and so on, but the poorer we go, the less sense it makes. The fully rational motive to have children just doesn't fit well into the reality, it seems to be completely other way around. For example, education of women will decrease birth rate and poorness and less education will increase it.

Dude I had to rewrite what I already typed. This shit logs me out :(

Sorry for the bad memory.

17:21:

On a net benefit scale, more carbon or more children are unknowns. Thus regulations are "chasing future red herrings".

17:56:

"On net" he's right.

On "insert condition x here" you may be too.

I'll respond freely here:

1. He obscures the desirability to keep our warming in 2 celsius range and population growth controllable.

Wrong. That is a reactionary filter response.
David: If the scientists are right, then do nothing, for now.

"That's all his argument seems to be to me."

See my Nick Szabo link.
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59

Motives to have children presupposes a logical response to having sex in which there is no logical response. Merely a natural one.

Education of Women presupposes ACTUAL education of Women and not putting Women on a pedestal and telling them they are equal to men in every category.

Further, I have a lot of stats here, but I dare not post them. The "education of women" initiative, is actually a confirmation of reality but a sad reality, of which "education" has no role. If a Woman goes preggo, then they are probably less smart than those that don't "outside of marriage".

For example, if you actually have to educate someone NOT to have kids in a lek environment (go to a club or a jungle the birds and humans do the same thing to attract mates), the game is already over.

Thus decline, and thus American decline.

...but I do have a few rejections. You have used the term "Gambling" in an entirely unrealistic fashion.

David has written another book: Future Imperfect. Where he describes in detail x amount of other threats that can wipe out the entire human species faster than Global Warming. Similarly these threats are more realistic and dangerous. Why aren't we worried about those?

Because those are not a political subject. Yet.

Nick Szabo has written about chasing the future in his blog, and I find this a relevant link from a really gifted thinker:

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-...asing.html

I agree that it would be desirable to have all the hazards discussed as throughoutly as climate change. What should be added is that most kind of discussion of climate change isn't scietific in nature. Mostly it's coocoo fruitcakes outside the scientific community and their nutjob conspiracy theories, eg. lord monckton, alex jones, fox news.

But science itself is in question since peer review requires politics and reproduction.

But I agree, there are a lot of retards, but here are two examples of non-retards in the climate area:

Google:
Science of Doom

;and
Climate Audit

I love both, but someone else will suggest one or the other are nuts. That's politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1nEeloRqjk

Saying Rothbard is uncomparable to David Friedman and posting a lecture where Friedman speaks on the very topic Rothbard sort of revived is quite funny ;)

Explain?

Erm, I like Rothbard a lot, but Friedman is accurate on these posts:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/search?q=Rothbard

I don't really know what to explain here. I'm not saying Rothbard is infallible and that he nailed every aspect of economics, history of economic thought and libertarian philosophy.

Still, his contributions to those topics (and economic history as well) set him above David Friedman in my view, or at least totally undermine a statement that he doesn't stand two shits vs the latter.

And as much as I imagine Milton Friedman to be the most likeable guy I could talk about economics to, he's got a lot of issues completely wrong (mainly economic methodology and monetary economics).

Your second paragraph is lacking a coherent point. I honestly don't know how to respond to such carefully though-out jibberish. heh

Now your third paragraph interests me a lot.

"He's got a lot of issues completely wrong"

I'm no nutrider, but I already know he has been wrong many times, but his methodology? Interesting. Hook me up brah! I'd love to read that; even a further explanation of your statements would be baller.

Look, I want truth and suspect most everybody to have the best of intentions.

This is a good start - http://mises.org/daily/5722/Nonpraxeological-...ought#ref3 There are also some youtubes if you type in "praxeology".

oh nice.

I'll watch.

Edit:

Dude I've read that at least a few times. I'll read it again, because like a good book or speech, one must keep going back to it, in order not to forget.

I don't remember a criticism nor have I read a criticism of Milton's methodology.

I'm still reading... but...

fuck all this, PM incoming... you seem sincere.

It's a critique of using empirical data to formulate economic propositions. It applies to Friedman.

... the mirror says otherwise brah.

Yes, he's good, watched only about five minutes and those already reserved him a spot in the Gulag.

Your comment is spectacular is how ass BACKWARDS it is.

Brah! You need solace. Perhaps Father Rapha can help you.