Gyroscopic Investing

[quote=Reub]I think that those who see radical Islam as a minimal threat because only one poor woman has been decapitated so far and only one military base in Texas has been attacked and only two very large buildings here have been brought down so far and only one Pentagon has been attacked so far are being very myopic.[/quote]

Gee, when you put it that way I guess it really isn't so bad. 

[quote=moda0306]You know HB is rolling over in his grave right now, right!?[/quote]

Ha ha ha ha ha!  I think Harry is doing more graveyard backflips over the Patriot Act and TSA. 

WildAboutHarry wrote: ...
On a lighter note:

My favorite OT pet name:  Dorothy Parker apparently named her pet canary Onan.  Because the canary spilled its seed on the ground.

Hilarious!

dualstow wrote:Hilarious!

I thought so! 

There is a pretty good biography: Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This?  She was quite an interesting character.

Dorothy Parker wrote book reviews for the New Yorker under the pseudonym "Constant Reader".  Her book review of The House at Pooh Corner described in the biography:

Constant Reader's best-known review was of A.A. Milne's The House at Pooh Corner.  Milne's whimsy had always nauseated her.  When she came to the word hummy, her stomach revolted.  "And it is that word 'hummy,' my darlings," she wrote, "that marks the first place in The House at Pooh Corner at which Tonstant Weader F'wowed up."

Pretty good stuff, although this has drifted off of beheadings...

WildAboutHarry wrote:

moda0306 wrote:Well if we are going to talk cops vs radical Islam, overall, cops are a much, much higher form of risk to my life than a Muslim is.

Quite simply, not so.  The net benefit of cops - horrible incidents notwithstanding - is positive.  The presence of a police force inhibits crime.  Can you imagine the interstate without police patrol?  Can you imagine rates of theft, mayhem, etc. in the absence of an organized police force?

And speaking of risk, we have radical Islam to thank for the Patriot Act, the TSA, and other infringements of personal liberty, in addition to the massive cost of dealing with this threat.  This is a greater threat to your life  and your freedom than any cop, assuming you do not engage in criminal behavior, etc.

And thanks for that point, Reub.  You beat me to it.

I'm pretty sure that there would be far less crime, and (more important) far less infringement on our freedom of all kinds, private and government, if there were no government police.
And actually we can thank the US Government, not radical Islam, for all those horrible infringements on our liberty.
Hope that helps.

[quote=Libertarian666]And actually we can thank the US Government, not radical Islam, for all those horrible infringements on our liberty.[/quote]

So you think the Patriot Act and the TSA are just normal "growth of government" things?

And I guess without government police we can simply rely on vigilantism?  That has worked out well in the past.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:And actually we can thank the US Government, not radical Islam, for all those horrible infringements on our liberty.

So you think the Patriot Act and the TSA are just normal "growth of government" things?

Most bad "growth of government" things have a causative, triggering event. IMHO that doesn't absolve the government of ultimate responsibility. Or the people themselves, for that matter, if they/we approve of it.

WildAboutHarry wrote: And I guess without government police we can simply rely on vigilantism?  That has worked out well in the past.

Given how protection is something that is universally valued, I imagine a variety of private security firms would rapidly spring up, and, unlike the conventional government police forces, they would have to actually provide the promised protection because their customers would be easily free to ditch them for superior firms in the event that they behaved like modern government police officers commonly do. It would introduce market forces that we know work (us being largely Harry-Browne-following libertarians, after all ) into an industry that is currently set up as a series of municipal monopolies that are largely immune to prosecution. It shouldn't take an anarchist to apply the "monopolies are bad" principle and see that the status quo is non-optimal and systemically incapable of improvement.

If you want to try out a lawless society may I suggest that you spend some time in Yemen or Somalia? It might be the perfect hideaway for you.

It should be obvious that civil society--government or not--cannot be instituted among barbarians or the destitute.

I think we're witnessing that in certain quarters of the USA already...

Reub wrote: If you want to try out a lawless society may I suggest that you spend some time in Yemen or Somalia? It might be the perfect hideaway for you.

Since you are so fond of government, I suggest that you try North Korea.

Pointedstick wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:And actually we can thank the US Government, not radical Islam, for all those horrible infringements on our liberty.

So you think the Patriot Act and the TSA are just normal "growth of government" things?

Most bad "growth of government" things have a causative, triggering event. IMHO that doesn't absolve the government of ultimate responsibility. Or the people themselves, for that matter, if they/we approve of it.

WildAboutHarry wrote: And I guess without government police we can simply rely on vigilantism?  That has worked out well in the past.

Given how protection is something that is universally valued, I imagine a variety of private security firms would rapidly spring up, and, unlike the conventional government police forces, they would have to actually provide the promised protection because their customers would be easily free to ditch them for superior firms in the event that they behaved like modern government police officers commonly do. It would introduce market forces that we know work (us being largely Harry-Browne-following libertarians, after all ) into an industry that is currently set up as a series of municipal monopolies that are largely immune to prosecution. It shouldn't take an anarchist to apply the "monopolies are bad" principle and see that the status quo is non-optimal and systemically incapable of improvement.

I love it!  This thread contains several steps along a journey of a root cause analysis (>= 5 sequential whys).  Seems like most of those commenting are correct ... just answering a different "why?" along the way to the fundamental (root) cause.  Some are objective, some are snarky, some are tongue-in-cheek, some are entertaining, some are rude, some are just examples of (fill in the blank to suit your worldview).  If we could harness this intellect in a common path forward, woe to those who would dare to get in the way. 

Example:
Why do we have "horrible" infringements on our liberty?
Why do we have the TSA and Patriot Act?
Why do we have growth of government?
What are options to our current form of government and why do we not have them?
Why do the people approve of (elect?) our government?

And some side issues:
Why don't people move to Yemen or Somalia or North Korea?
Why don't we have municipal monopolies that are immune to prosceution?
Why don't we buy a mercenary defense force?

Etc.

... Mountaineer

Libertarian666 wrote:

Reub wrote: If you want to try out a lawless society may I suggest that you spend some time in Yemen or Somalia? It might be the perfect hideaway for you.

Since you are so fond of government, I suggest that you try North Korea.

Ok, so we have established the bookends - North Korea and Yemen.  Is the happy medium Canada, then?  Mountaineer, is my comment objective, snarky, tongue-in-cheek, entertaining, or rude 

WildAboutHarry wrote: Ok, so we have established the bookends - North Korea and Yemen.  Is the happy medium Canada, then?  Mountaineer, is my comment objective, snarky, tongue-in-cheek, entertaining, or rude 

Maybe Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, New Zealand, or the Czech Republic. Those would be my votes, at least. Canada is pretty nice too.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Reub wrote: If you want to try out a lawless society may I suggest that you spend some time in Yemen or Somalia? It might be the perfect hideaway for you.

Since you are so fond of government, I suggest that you try North Korea.

Ok, so we have established the bookends - North Korea and Yemen.  Is the happy medium Canada, then?  Mountaineer, is my comment objective, snarky, tongue-in-cheek, entertaining, or rude 

It is most homogenous, even blended - very oster.  Think about it. 

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote: Ok, so we have established the bookends - North Korea and Yemen.  Is the happy medium Canada, then?  Mountaineer, is my comment objective, snarky, tongue-in-cheek, entertaining, or rude 

Maybe Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, New Zealand, or the Czech Republic. Those would be my votes, at least. Canada is pretty nice too.

Switzerland for me, if I could afford it. Maybe if my new product is a big hit...

Libertarian666 wrote: Switzerland for me, if I could afford it. Maybe if my new product is a big hit...

Austria is supposed to be as nice, but more affordable.