What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Libertarianism is a philosophy based on principles that we try to apply situationally.
We believe in Self Ownership, that no one has right to lay claim to your life. With the caveat that you do not adversely affect the lives of others.
We also believe that good ideas do not require force.
You have to grasp the principles in order to apply them to a direct situation.
Environmental regulations: we feel that decentralizing how we keep industry in check is far more effective than what we have. What if localities chose to engage a privately owned Environmental Engineering firm to set and maintain standards for whatever wants to move in and operate in that area. There are a myriad of ways to employ the funding for that agency. That agency in turn certifies that yhe operation works in standards compliance. Inspections could be daily, something a state-run agency could never dream of. People are held directly liable and accountable. Contracts can be written between the community and the agency that reduces the ability to deflect malfeasance through endless legalism.
What this sort of system would do is place the cost of safety on the industry, not the taxpayer. Think of the jobs generated by the compliance agency. Think about capital being used efficiently instead of the well-accepted knowledge of massive waste with a state system.
I am writing this on a phone, so I have to leave it at here, this is tiring.

http://isil.org/pol/

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_VW…

Brian Miller, with some knowledge:

"The freakout on Wall Street over declining trading revenue is talking about when "things get back to normal." But this is the new normal. With transparent and accessible trading through apps like Motif, GoldBean and Stash Invest, consumers don't need discount brokers (with high commissions) anymore. And they also don't need "professional advice" at a premium price, since they can get state-of-the-art information and access to real-time news integrated into the app. A better experience for a tiny price.

And the big corporate transactions involving debt and equity floats are giving way to crowdsourced funding models as well. Just need the SEC to repeal all those stone-age regulations they operate from within, and investors can buy, trade and sell easily -- whether it's a share of a real estate trust, shares in a new business idea, or shares in blue-chip companies.

In short, Moore's Law has destroyed Wall Street far more effectively than Elizabeth Warren and Occupy Wall Street."

Mike Lane wrote:Brian Miller, with some knowledge: "The freakout on Wall Street over declining trading revenue is talking about when "things get back to normal." But this is the new normal. With transparent and accessible trading through apps like Motif, GoldBean and Stash Invest, consumers don't need discount brokers (with high commissions) anymore. And they also don't need "professional advice" at a premium price, since they can get state-of-the-art information and access to real-time news integrated into the app. A better experience for a tiny price. And the big corporate transactions involving debt and equity floats are giving way to crowdsourced funding models as well. Just need the SEC to repeal all those stone-age regulations they operate from within, and investors can buy, trade and sell easily -- whether it's a share of a real estate trust, shares in a new business idea, or shares in blue-chip companies. In short, Moore's Law has destroyed Wall Street far more effectively than Elizabeth Warren and Occupy Wall Street."

Ironic, given that Moore's law is almost certainly dead, and it was more an observation that got converted into a business model.

I am tired of people using the stock market exclusively as a machine to print money.
I am way more in favor of actual demand and actual supply controlling the cost of things, not the artificial instability created when your shareholders only care about profit growth.

But that's not a governance thing, and no amount of regulation (or deregulation) will change the way people look at the stock market. I just know that as a worker, it's infuriating to hear that sales are up, costs are down, but bonuses are canceled because the stock price dropped anyway (maybe over fears of the CEO's cancer diagnosis or something). I feel that speculation has been a driving factor in the decoupling of cost and value.

Mike Lane wrote:Libertarianism is a philosophy based on principles that we try to apply situationally. We believe in Self Ownership, that no one has right to lay claim to your life. With the caveat that you do not adversely affect the lives of others. We also believe that good ideas do not require force. You have to grasp the principles in order to apply them to a direct situation.

Emphasis mine.

Right, but you have not answered my question directly. Do you believe it is actually possible to do this? Your choices sometimes affect others even if that is not your intention and this, to me, seems unavoidable.

“Modern industrial civilisation has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilisation has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation.

Now, it's long been understood very well that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited: that the World is an infinite resource, and that the World is an infinite garbage-can. At this stage of History, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community-interests, guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others; or, alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control.

As long as some specialised class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole and, by now, that means the Global Community. The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. The question, in brief, is whether Democracy and Freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly-terminal phase of human existence, Democracy and Freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival.”
― Noam Chomsky

I obviously do. As far as willingly/knowingly aggression against other individuals, no I do not. I subscribe to the NAP. Of course we live in a society where aggression is initiated on our behalf all the time. Iraq, Eric Garner, Ross Ulbrecht, support for Isreal, ad infinitum. But then that is the point. To stop all of that.
Persuasion over coercion at every opportunity.

Mike Lane wrote:I obviously do. As far as willingly/knowingly aggression against other individuals, no I do not. I subscribe to the NAP. Of course we live in a society where aggression is initiated on our behalf all the time. Iraq, Eric Garner, Ross Ulbrecht, support for Isreal, ad infinitum. But then that is the point. To stop all of that. Persuasion over coercion at every opportunity.

Do you believe that it is possible for you to live your own life, without any of your choices being forced upon others? And if so, do you believe that you personally have lived your adult life in this manner?

Needless to say voting violates the Non Aggression Principle. But then voting so that it has a chance is kinda different. A staple of anarchist philosophy is to abstain from voting. Why don't you get to your point?

To repeat myself: I don't knowingly or willingly aggress upon the rights of others. I do live under a state that does it all the time.

30 pages of BS in three weeks... I blame this degradation on REI's purchase

cragmantoo wrote: Socialism sounds good when you are young and idealistic. Take care of those less fortunate than yourself. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. However, if you are old and still think it would work in this country, you are a bit foolish. There are too many passive and unambitious people who are happy to be taken care of by the government. Unfortunately, this makes it rough for those folks that are down and out and really just need some temporary assistance becoming self sufficient (and maybe regaining their pride)

We already live in a Socialist country. We used to have Democratic Socialism (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The New Deal, etc) and most of those systems are still in place. In Democratic Socialism, you use tax money to benefit the public welfare. However, we have shifted more towards Capitalistic Socialism which is basically the opposite. We now use tax money to benefit large corporate interests and the military industrial complex. So Bernie is advocating for our old version of FDR style Democratic Socialism. Using our tax revenue to benefit ALL of society not just the rich and powerful. Stop worrying about the word "socialist" and try to understand what Democratic Socialism actually means.

Long Duk Dong wrote:“Modern industrial civilisation has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilisation has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. Now, it's long been understood very well that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited: that the World is an infinite resource, and that the World is an infinite garbage-can. At this stage of History, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community-interests, guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others; or, alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialised class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole and, by now, that means the Global Community. The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. The question, in brief, is whether Democracy and Freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly-terminal phase of human existence, Democracy and Freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival.” ― Noam Chomsky

beautiful.

Mike Lane wrote:Needless to say voting violates the Non Aggression Principle. But then voting so that it has a chance is kinda different. A staple of anarchist philosophy is to abstain from voting. Why don't you get to your point?

Mike Lane wrote:To repeat myself: I don't knowingly or willingly aggress upon the rights of others. I do live under a state that does it all the time.

I'm not concerned about what you consider the state to be doing. I am concerned with your personal beliefs. You say you don't knowingly or willingly impose your choices onto others. So, do you believe that it is possible to live your life without doing so at all? Because if not, your belief system makes no sense. Sure, I'd love to live in a world where nothing I do has consequences for anyone but myself, but I don't see how that is possible.

Consider the following hypothetical: If I choose to cut down a tree, I have imposed this choice upon everyone. Because I chose to cut down this tree, you can no longer choose whether or not to cut this tree down. I have cut the tree down and made this choice for you. I have decided that you cannot have this tree. The same is true for basically anything you do.

The way I see it, any choice you make has a consequence for someone else. I don't see how you believe that you can live your life without imposing your will onto others in some way.

Mike Lane wrote:To repeat myself: I don't knowingly or willingly aggress upon the rights of others. I do live under a state that does it all the time.

Consider the following hypothetical: If I choose to cut down a tree, I have imposed this choice upon everyone. Because I chose to cut down this tree, you can no longer choose whether or not to cut this tree down. I have cut the tree down and made this choice for you. I have decided that you cannot have this tree.

The same is true for basically anything you do. The way I see it, any choice you make has a consequence for someone else. I don't see how you believe that you can live your life without imposing your will onto others in some way.

Who's tree is it? If it's not your tree, you probably shouldn't be cutting it down. If you own the tree, you cannot be violating anyone else's rights to the tree because it's not their tree.

You're correct that no one can go through life without effecting the lives of others. But a person can do their best to not violate other people's rights. Such as deciding what they do with their own bodies or the product of their labor, etc.

Mathias wrote: Who's tree is it? If it's not your tree, you probably shouldn't be cutting it down. If you own the tree, you cannot be violating anyone else's rights to the tree because it's not their tree. You're correct that no one can go through life without effecting the lives of others. But a person can do their best to not violate other people's rights. Such as deciding what they do with their own bodies or the product of their labor, etc.

Forget the tree then, I guess lol. Perhaps a better analogy is the last product on the shelf of a store. If I buy it, you no longer have the choice to buy it. Same principle.

Also, is it a right to retain the products of your labor? I'm not sure that's the case 100% of the time. I think that's debatable.

Quinn Baker wrote: Forget the tree then, I guess lol. Perhaps a better analogy is the last product on the shelf of a store. If I buy it, you no longer have the choice to buy it. Same principle. Also, is it a right to retain the products of your labor? I'm not sure that's the case 100% of the time. I think that's debatable.

Last can scenario- buying the last can is not an act of aggression. Racing the other guy to it still isn't. Knocking him down is. Lying to him that your daughter is deathly ill and needs it is.
What is voluntary and what is coercion?

This is a good place to interject a difference most of you folks aren't aware of. A Ayn Rand devotee would use this scenario to describe how bad altruism is and that the self interest of the individual is what moves society further than anything. Randians do not subscribe to the NAP. They are known as Objectivists.

I favor Rothbard, who did use the NAP to define his philosophy of Liberty. But he too has some bad ideas, children are property for one. He also went full retard towards the end and thought recruiting Neo Nazis was a good idea (he was Jewish). But I digress.

As for your premise as to are you entitled to 100% of your labor. Yes, you are. Because to agree to let the state take a portion of the product of your labor by threat of violence, you then allow the state at least partial ownership of you.

No one disputes that roads and bridges and fire engines are good things and necessary to acquiring wealth.

The question then becomes how do accommodate for those things. We say that to do so voluntarily through free association as a principle will lead to synergetically better results. But it will also take a lot of work, and the obstacles are enormous. Especially if you consider the greater the amount of wealth in a society the less the need for the state. Which then implies that there is no motivation for the state to increase wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

Quinn Baker wrote: I think protecting less populous states is a great goal, but at the end of the day laws affect the people not areas of land. People need representation, land does not.

Correct, that's why it is done by population, not by acreage.

Long Duk Dong wrote:I actually worked at that V.A. clinic in Aurora and it is not being built by the government. It is being built by a bunch of private businesses that are being paid by the government. Blame the hack construction firms and engineers, they are the ones wasting your money.

Who awarded that contract for that price?

Long Duk Dong wrote:Government redistribution of private wealth. Take our taxes and give it to some bullshit private construction company to do shitty work on some project that isn't needed. Highway 36 anyone?

Yeah... so again, who is in control of that?