Namutree

You don't. Only corporeal things can have legitimate value. That's a ridiculous and untrue statement, even if applied in purely a monetary sense, which is seemingly the way you mean it. That is how I meant it. Yeah, and those attempts are stupid. I pity you. k

You don't. Only corporeal things can have legitimate value. That's a ridiculous and untrue statement, even if applied in purely a monetary sense, which is seemingly the way you mean it. That is how I meant it. Yeah, and those attempts are stupid.

You don't. Only corporeal things can have legitimate value.

The medical expenses should not count as damages since the offending party is not responsible for the owner's reaction to the dog's injury. If the owner wants to spend $1,000's to try to save the dog that is exclusively the owner's responsibility. The only thing that the offending party is responsible for is a dog. The offender owes you a dog of equal monetary value. (Your time too if you have to get the new one yourself). I'm not sure if putting the dog down is legally mandatory; if it is, then he owes you for that too since he put you in a situation where you were *FORCED* to pay for at least that medical procedure. If you have a choice to tell the vet you don't want to save the dog, then he owes you squat for what you decide to spend your money on. By your logic; if I stepped on some guy's tin can, and he spent $1,000,000,000 trying to fix it I'd have to pay for it all. It's not my fault this guy really loves THIS tin can. I owe him a tin can; not whatever money he wastes trying to fix it. Maybe there is no other tin can he's so attached to, maybe losing this can will leave a hole in his heart for life; I dunno. His feelings are his responsibility as are the money he spends because of it.

A) Some animal owners are in fact no more attached to their pet than some other standard object. B) Some people have very close attachments to random object. Don't project your standards onto everyone else. To some one out there, a chewed up piece of gum is worth dying for. There are people who see trash as important as family. C) An animal can qualify as an item. It seems to me that it's the relationship you'd want to be compensated for rather than the dog itself. Sorry, but property obligations are for the corporeal only. Anytime anyone forms a bond with something, whether it be a dog, or a chair, or a tv, or whatever; they expose themselves to be vulnerable. Whether you "care" about something cannot be controlled by the offending party and thus they are not responsible for it. If you love something; that's all on you. It's not the offender's fault you care. Your position is made even worse for you once the fact that "love" cannot be quantified. This is why you guys were just haphazardly throwing numbers around; guessing the monetary value of the bond between owner and pet. It's absurd.

Doubt it. Of the many different kinds of slavery that existed and the many different kinds of justifications of said slavery systems I've yet to find one that connects with my philosophy of classical liberalism in any meaningful way. The arguments you mention are based on the idea that people can be property; as such they are treated as property. I do not believe that humans can qualify as property to begin with, and thus cannot be treated as a possession. That is where any argument for or against slavery starts. So no, you'll find that my arguments do not reflect pro-slavery arguments as I've already rejected the very foundation of slavery; that humans can legitimately be owned. My argument is that property should be treated as property. The only logically sound alternative to my logic is either that property itself is invalid, or that animals are not legitimate property. Ah, but they are possessions regardless of whether they are anything more. So long as they are possessions my argument stands. Well, yeah, that's fair enough.

It won't happen.

Bull crap to all the "more than replacement costs" people. A pet is a possession. Anyone who damages a possession should only need to pay the cost to replace it with another of similar quality. If I break your $200 TV and you spent even one penny trying to fix it, that's your fault. Same goes for a pet. People shouldn't be given extra punishment for other people's emotional hang-ups regarding one of their possessions. When some one breaks something you own; they owe you the cost of a new one. Nothing more, nothing less. I seriously doubt it. Unless the concept of "person-hood" become a complete joke. That would mean no more meat, animal products (farm animals would be slavery), or even pets (also slavery). Remember, if animals are, "people", then they'd be entitled to all the rights humans are. If you can own them; then they are in terms of status. They're as much a possession as any other.

She seems a good fit for the new version of Tomb Raider. It's a video game movie so I'm really invested though.

Well, it's okay that the financial system is rigged, because it's rigged in his favor. The primary system being rigged is bad because it's rigged against him. Trump made most of his fortune in real estate, not via Wall Street. I was joking.

Well, it's okay that the financial system is rigged, because it's rigged in his favor. The primary system being rigged is bad because it's rigged against him.

I picture Oby as a hot blond scientist.

Yes, I did. No matter what currency you have at some point machines will be able to do any labor more effectively and at a lower cost than any human could ever compete with, regardless of the finance system. You may have a point that the current system is speeding up the development of such machines, but such machines would be in development regardless. Machine labor potential > Human labor potential This is the be all end all of whether or not human labor will at some point be phased out. If you could have a machine do the labor of a human at 1/1,000 the cost of a human and 1,000 times faster than a human ever could why would anyone consider using human labor? Why wouldn't such a machine be created? There is nothing wrong with that so long as the fundamentals for it are real. Nobody wept for the jobs lost because mules could carry greater burdens. Nobody weeps for the near total absence of travel agents today. If money keeps equilibrium, then any transition to a robotic workforce must pass a total or proportionate amount of gains in efficiency onto the customer. You cannot sell to someone who has no money. True enough. I never said it was a problem; only that it will happen so long as technology keeps advancing.

Genghis Khan was a rapist and encouraged his men to rape. He'll get no respect from me.

Yes, I did. No matter what currency you have at some point machines will be able to do any labor more effectively and at a lower cost than any human could ever compete with, regardless of the finance system. You may have a point that the current system is speeding up the development of such machines, but such machines would be in development regardless. Machine labor potential > Human labor potential This is the be all end all of whether or not human labor will at some point be phased out. If you could have a machine do the labor of a human at 1/1,000 the cost of a human and 1,000 times faster than a human ever could why would anyone consider using human labor? Why wouldn't such a machine be created?

Has Val ever expressed any support for the wall?

Kasich would have no chance in the general election. Trump is the GOP's only chance at a win. According to general election polls, he is their best change to lose. You also need to pay attention to energy. Nobody really wants Kasich. He'll get poor turnout. It'll be 2012 all over again if Kasich is the nominee. Besides, just wait till the anti-Trump media campaign shifts focus to Kasich. One should keep in mind that while Trump's been attacked nonstop by the MSM, Kasich has been largely left alone. That will change if Kasich becomes the nominee.

Kasich would have no chance in the general election. Trump is the GOP's only chance at a win.

I have.

It won't amount to anything. Everyone knows how corrupt the democratic party is and it's never stopped leftists from voting for them before.

Police misconduct is quite common and rarely punished. If I understand BLM correctly they're not just upset about the worst excesses of police/courts; they just use those to galvanize their supporters.

Unfortunately I believe too many of them only think that because they are told it is, not because their experiences show them it is. I don't know, if people were easy to influence, wouldn't you expect to see more libertarians around? (Not a dig against libertarians. More like... one would expect people to naturally gravitate towards what works best for them. You assume that being a libertarian is what results in the best quality of life for most people, therefore convincing people that being a libertarian is good for them should be easier than convincing them of being something else. Thus, if people were easy to convince, you'd expect them to convert to libertarianism in greater numbers and libertarians to retain more adherents than other philosophies.) The reason why libertarians (the US version) are not more successful has a lot of reasons. A) People don't find the idea of not screwing with other people's lives appealing. It's a sad fact that while most people do want to be left alone; they're not very keen on leaving other people alone. Example: Mike the pot-smoker wants people to just leave him be, but he can't approve of gambling and will reject libertarians because they allow gambling. Bob the gambler wants people to leave him be, but he doesn't approve of drugs (except the ones he abuses like alcohol) and will reject libertarians because they'd allow drugs. People just seem to like making each other miserable. B) Libertarians tend to take up causes that aren't popular. Example: In the 1970's they were advocating for gay rights and that costed them politically. There were no Hillary Clinton types permitted. Libertarians take their beliefs seriously and won't throw decent people under the bus to appease a malevolent mob that desire to screw people over just because they're different. C) Tinfoil hat weirdos are too common. Not much more to elaborate here. D) They're just bad at politics. They're not good at choosing their words carefully, and delivering their message in a way people will relate to. They'd be a lot more successful if they'd talk less about bad government regulation, and more about bad corporate subsidies.

It wasn't really a rant. It was an attempt at explaining a problem fundamental to what the video is getting at, yet doesn't mention because the makers of it don't see/understand it. In fact, most people don't (even though it's not even remotely rocket science), which is the #1 reason why it's even a problem to begin with. What the video is getting at is that machine labor is getting more efficient than human labor. This has nothing to do with fiat currency. This is about technology. His post does NOT address the issues of the video in any way. Are you suggesting that if we didn't have fiat currency technological development would grind to a halt and human labor wouldn't be getting replaced my machines?

That's a nice rant and all, but technological advancement would have occurred regardless of our currency. Machines replacing human labor is the primary concern of this video.

Well in this case he did have something of substance to say. That is to assert that restricting foreign interaction to trade and travel isn't isolationist.