“Clearly it would be lower” ⇒⇐ “will tend to be (will likely be)”
Those statements are equivalent, your pedantic interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
Because it’s existence doesn’t seem to jive with your claims
How so?
You’re seriously arguing that “clearly would” = “will likely”?
Now I’m wondering if you’re just a troll.
I would like to know how the existence of books which are sold for $0 disproves the notion that if you eliminate state monopoly on the provision of a specific good (say, Human Action, for example) the price of this good will decrease. What possible circumstances could result in the elimination of a harmful monopoly increasing the cost of the good sold? I mean sure, arsons could burn every book publisher to the ground but the one in question or something equally silly like that, but there’s really no justification for the ‘eliminating a monopoly will increase prices’ argument.
-
It doesn’t have to. The only person who alleged it “clearly would” happen later admitted in reality it would only be “likely”.
-
I would like to know how a ban on drunk driving (something you admit you are in favor of) is philosophically any different than a ban on copying/ distributing/ deriving-from an existing work.
how a ban on drunk driving (something you admit you are in favor of) is philosophically any different than a ban on copying/ distributing/ deriving-from an existing work.
AFAIK no e-pirate has ever crashed their e-book into a family of 4 and killed them all.
AFAIK, that’s irrelevent. The two were likened with regard to principle. We’re talking about forced restrictions on the use of property when no aggression has taken place. Again, please provide the philosophical difference.
I’ve been reading these forum since my junior year in high school; that was about three years ago. I read the daily articles posted and pretty much everything you guys discuss.
I’m a full ancap, as I suspect that many people who lurk here are, and I want to participate, but everytime I go into a thread with the intention of contributing I’m blown away by the logic and intensely critical thinking you guys are able to pull out on any seemingly random topic. Like Clayton on DMT; I completely disagree with his interpretation, but I can’t present my ideas as well as he can. Your thinking is so much more ordered and self-aware than my own and I know I’m just not ready to compete or debate with you guys yet.
I keep meaning to ask you guys for books you reccomend on any topic, from economics to logic to history, but I never get around to it. So I guess I’m doing it now and I would appreciate any other thread on the topic you can link me to; I know there have been some on books in the past.
So, to answer your question Texas Trigger, we’re out here and we’re learning and sharpending our mental abilities and then going out and spreading these ideas into the world. I think that there are 40K daily visitors is highly encouraging. These forums work, and you’re all helping liberty by posting and responding seriously to most questions that come up. I can’t thank you guys enough for how much you’ve increased my intellectual capabilities and how you continue to do so every day.
Welcome
You must have pulled back on the lurking a bit in recent days, as I’m kind surprised you haven’t come across these…
Feel free to jump in any time. If you’re worried about “competing”, just ask questions. As I was saying here, the nature of the conversation is largely driven by the nature of the posts that make it up. Check out the threads by -Joe-, danbeaulieu, and shackleford to see how great a newbie thread can go. FlyingAxe is a shining example of what an inquisitive newbie could be.
No, we are talking about someone deciding whether or not someone else can contract to use their property and whether or not someone can have a monopoly on a good and forbid others from using their own property in a non harmful and non invasive manner.
ROFL - I doubt anyone agrees with me when I’m on DMT… 
Clayton -
Huh? Where did a contract come in? What are you talking about?
I’m talking about road owners banning drunk drivers from using their roads. Duh.
You never said anything about restricting access to roads. You said the drunk driving should be banned. Do you not understand the difference?
So banning someone from using something isn’t the same as restricting their access to it?
You said “Drunk driving should be banned.” That’s what you said. It’s right here. You never said anything about individual property owners simply restricting access to their roads (i.e. drivers who are drunk being banned from accessing specific areas). You said the act of driving drunk (aka “drunk driving”) should be banned. As in, if you are drunk, you cannot drive. Anywhere. On any road. Period.
Now what you’re saying is that as long as I own the road, I can drive on it no matter how drunk I am.
-
These are two different things. You have changed your position.
-
Do you even agree with your new position? As long I own the road, I can drive drunk on it?
So now I am responsible for every silly assumption you make?
I stand by my statement - drunk driving should be banned. Do you think it should be allowed? As a matter of fact, drunk driving on your own road that is open to the public would be a form of fraud, since there is the reasonable assumption that your road will ban drunk drivers, unless you specifically inform them otherwise. Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing.
drunk driving should be banned.
Assumption? You said it. I didn’t have to assume anything. You’re incredulous. (Or perhaps just dishonest).
Aww, no more dancing?
So now a road owner is responsible for every silly assumption you make?
Fraud? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time.
You’re the one who seemed to be suggesting roads would be privately owned.
By whom? Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk? What’s going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught? (And again, by whom?) And under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
A private property owner does not need to justify the rules he lays down on his private property.
What does that have to do with anything that was said?
- According to you: “Driving on your own road while drunk = fraud” because people assume you’re not drunk.
-a road owner is responsible for every silly assumption you make?
- You seemed to be suggesting that roads would be privately owned, and that’s how drunk drivers would be kept off of them…the private owners would ban them access to their roads. Now you tell me “Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing.”
-So which is it? Are we talking about a situation in which roads are privately owned or not?
- According to you: “drunk driving should be banned.”
-By whom? Who declares this ban? Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk? What’s going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught? (And again, by whom?) And under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?