Step one, have high IQ parents.
I don’t consider black markets “criminal,” though criminals (i.e., sociopathic individuals) are more likely to be in it.
Criminals are rarely wealthy. Legalize drugs and the businessmen move in and the criminals have to leave the field. That’s what happened when Prohibition was repealed. About the only way for criminals to get wealthy is to team up with government, as with labor unions and municipalities.
Thank you. Now I see what you’re saying wasn’t created in a vacuum. I agree. Other factors involved of course, including those high IQ parents having high IQ parents as well. I would include a decent neighborhood with other higher IQ parents. And when I say parent, I mean somebody that is there for you, but also they encourage a way out (a role-model or somethin’) I say all this if violence is to be reduced. I’ve tried to reason with some of these violent youth and no can do. They don’t reason very well. Ended up being a physical restraint or something. And don’t separate the one from the crowd in front of the crowd unless you have other people to help you. They gotta look real big in front of their friends so it tends to escalate even more if you do that. And their friends get emboldened by the lone person standing up against 5 people. It says to the group if one person is standing up to 5 people, imagine what will happen if we all join in and help that one person. They begin to think they can take you all down. That lone person standing up to the 5 people makes the threat by those 5 people seem tiny. Can get ugly after that.
It’s fascinating how you throw around a word that can’t be measured.
Also about open borders. The problem is that you are looking at “it” backwards.
I don’t consider black markets “criminal,” though criminals (i.e., sociopathic individuals) are more likely to be in it.
It has nothing to do with what you consider criminal - the point is that many people are commiting violence in the black market because it pays well. Especially if you’re smart enough to do organization, smuggling, distribution coordination. The people who do this are often quite violent, intelligent people may be less violent typically because they have more options and a longer-term outlook. But smart people also tend to be attracted to high returns, and think they can minimize their own risk. The masses of criminals are stupid, but so are the masses of Proles.
I used to share the same view, until somewhat recently. Latley however, the anti market sentiment seems to be growing somewhat rapidly, particularly in the pseudo-intellectual hipster yuppie type groups. While that may seem funny and a big “so what”, these people tend to be very influential on mainstream thought or at the very least control propaganda better than most.
Nefarious ? Odd word. According to my dictionary it means “very wicked - evil”. But what I was getting at, is that marx was, intellectually considered, a second rate clown.
Now, from a moral point of view he was indeed nefarious. He was a power freak/demagogue.
As to your claiming that marx and friends are part of the liberal tradition, you are, of course, mistaken. It’s true that they are related to it, but as fraudsters that misrepresent classical liberalism for their own purposes, by means of twisting the meaning of words like “freedom” , “rights” etc.
If you realize (or admit) that modern american liberals are actually social democrats it then follows that your claim about libertarians not knowing where they stand is nonsense.
I agree IQ isn’t the end all on somebody’s rational. I’m not an expert, but I know threat is a serious factor in how people handle a situation whether they are supposedly higher or lower in IQ. Throw a bunch of threats down ones path and that person will handle those threats as best they can. I feel for the soldiers that are in war zones for prolonged periods of time. I was talking with a lady the other day and she discussed with me a little about her son who finished a tour in Iraq in the army, so 15 months straight, and is now in Germany. He’s going back to Iraq soon. He came back home while stationed in Germany to visit. She mentioned how while they were eating dinner she bumped the chair and her son jumped and looked around with “warrior eyes” so to speak. Luckily he quickly realized he wasn’t getting a grenade thrown at him or shot at and he was back home eating dinner at the table. I don’t think he has a low IQ.
That helps, but IQ isn’t a strictly biological measurement.
It’s true that they are related to it, but as fraudsters that misrepresent classical liberalism for their own purposes, by means of twisting the meaning of words like “freedom” , “rights” etc.
Again, essentialist nonsense (there is no ONE TRUE LIBERALIZM); and a demonstrated ignorance of liberal theory - both classical and modern. You don’t have some a priori claim on the word ‘freedom’, and ‘rights’ are just bad translation of legal terminology into moralism, it’s nonsense.
It’s not like I’m taking favourites - I think all liberalism is basically vacuous due to the contradictory and cotton-ball fuzz of slogans like ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, ‘citizenship’, ‘the law’, ‘freedom’, etc. And libertarianism by no means escapes this fate, since it’s really Propertarianism and has nothing to do with ‘liberty’ except as it is considered a desired consequence.
If that were really the case, then once Prohibition was repealed the Mafia would have segued right in to the now-legal market. They didn’t because their skills at being ruthless bad-asses didn’t count for shit in the business world, where you have to establish market dominance thru sound financial management and sales rather than just beating people up.
Positive liberty is just an appalling concept, really.
(a) It cannot be maximised
(b) It leads to ridiculous conclusions
Oh really ? And you got it right considering you are an amoral expert on moral philosophy ?
Sorry Vichy, what is nonsense is your philosophical position. You are unable to find meaning but that is a limitation of yours. It is you that fails at understanding because of your own blinders. You could claim 2+2=4 is nonsense because you don’t understand maths.
Isn’t it funny how so many arguments online devolve to, “You don’t know what you are talking about!”
I think it is funny.
I think it is mildly annoying. The fact is, some people don’t know what they are talking about.
If we’re starting to argue if there are different ways to achieve freedom, then sure there are. All those people that voted for Obama cried for joy watching “democracy” at work in the land of the free and the brave.
And more particularly, some people think that gradualistic ways to rid the government are better than “pushing the button now” and just end it.
So different methods of freedom… sure why not? Do they all lead to freedom? Of course not.
You don’t know what you are talking about. [;)]
I know you are but what am I… I know you are but what am I…lol been there, done that, and I’ll probably will do it again.. who knows…lol
Libertarianism is the defense of “negative” liberty, eg. of non-intervention, laissez-faire, etc. I believe this to be the classical liberal position as well (although of course this is always open to interpretation: some people classify Rousseau as a liberal, for example).
That just means they have a preference. How does that equal idiotacy? If anything it relates to sadism.