301–310 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you extend that same sentiment to the extremes of the libertarian crowd too?
I can answer that if you can explain what you mean by extreme libertarianism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can answer that if you can explain what you mean by extreme libertarianism.
I can go into detail, but for the sake of the argument let’s define it in the Norquist fashion: a government small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. A stricter definition might be anything beyond and to include minarchism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can go into detail, but for the sake of the argument let’s define it in the Norquist fashion: a government small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. A stricter definition might be anything beyond and to include minarchism.
You'll need to be more specific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll need to be more specific.
“beyond and to include minarchism” is pretty specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
A commune, however, can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“beyond and to include minarchism” is pretty specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
Ok, I see that. But you cannot set up such a community within the current US, as it runs afoul of the primacy of Federal law. A commune, however, can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I see that. But you cannot set up such a community within the current US, as it runs afoul of the primacy of Federal law. A commune, however, can be.
I think the argument that minarchists take is that federal law should be modified to only cover military, courts, and police. A coherent libertarian could only interface with those, although it would be difficult and probably start to look very much like the commune types. The Jeffersonian yeoman farmer ideal seems like the clearest example. The larger point is that both extremes seem incompatible with modernity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument that minarchists take is that federal law should be modified to only cover military, courts, and police. A coherent libertarian could only interface with those, although it would be difficult and probably start to look very much like the commune types. The Jeffersonian yeoman farmer ideal seems like the clearest example. The larger point is that both extremes seem incompatible with modernity.
I don't think it would look like a commune at all. More like the early United States, excluding the slave South.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unironically the most simple (note; not easy) way to become a multi-millionaire. Do a trade in your 20s, leverage that into running your own trades business in your 30s, and have a >10m valuation business by your 40s. Really regret not doing that myself.
How is this different than telling people to do a PhD, then run your own research group as a professor, get tenure and get lifetime job security? Or work in start up, get acquired, and chill after ?
The path I outlined in my OP is a _very_ common path that people take in Australia and not at all unrealistic. The barrier to entry is drastically lower, and the access to funding/capital is far easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not environmental regulation that's just regular NIMBYism.
Nope. It's a lot of stuff like insulation regulations that require exterior walls that use 2x6s instead of 2x4s. That's not NIMBYism. Nor are all the taxes and fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I've seen all manner of goofy talking points (both pro and con) around the financials of home ownership. Conversely everyone I've heard say lost their ass on residential real estate either bought too much house in a market overrun with speculation (Hi Florida) or move frequently.
I sold my previous house in 2000. It was sold last year for 4x what I sold it for. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has gone up 6.3x. And I didn't add in any of the expenses I listed earlier if I'd kept it.