Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ofd last won the day on August 12

ofd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

35 Good

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1833 profile views
  1. ofd

    End of the internet?

    Platforms / publishers like twitter, facebook, snapchat, youtube, google and so on use existing infrastructure for their business. Creating the basic code for those companies is not the problem, anybody with a few weeks of php knowledge can set up something that looks like facebook or twitter. In fact, setting up a program that allows you to communicate with other users was part of an assignment in a popular php textbook. What sets those companies apart is that they found enough venture capital to get them running and that some (facebook and google) found a way to monetize the network. Almost all other platforms run at a loss. When it comes to those platforms, you have the Pareto principle and the Matthew effect both at work at once. As time goes on that and the difficulties to finance the network with ads leads to natural monopolies. If the biggest platform for sharing short messages or the most popular video provider don't make money then creating a competitor will be very hard to finance. Guess we'll see how conservatives / Liberatarians will react to this threat. My take is that they will cuck out and be the principled loser (muh free markets).
  2. ofd

    End of the internet?

    The current situation developed within a free market. Declare natural monopolies public utilities and treat them the same way as phone companies or electricity providers.
  3. The real dichotomy is not between Left and Right, they all agree on the fundamental aspects of policy. It is between Nationalism and Globalism. All the topics you mentioned are well worth reporting about, instead we get the third movie about the same topic, after Hillary's America and Obama's America.
  4. Lets assume for the sake of the argument that Dems are the real racists (DR3). Then they have a strange way of showing that by supporting the immigration of the third world, creating sanctuary cities, revoking initiatives in California that barred from getting driver licenses and what not. What are we to expect? That Hillary or Chelsea Clinton when one of them finally becomes President that they put on a Swastika armband start goosestepping and tell that all that immigration stuff was a pretense to hide their true racist intentions? On a funny note, it's interesting that D'Souza blames the Democrats for being racists when they were the ones responsible for him being a US-citizen. After all, the first Naturalization act of 1790 restricted immigration to " free White persons of good character". I guess the evil Andrew Jackson Democrats were able to travel back in time and put that clause in there.
  5. How much money does the government create compared to private banks?
  6. Why would the money creation change if there wasn't a government around? I don't see how that follows.
  7. The problem is a bit more nuanced. On the one hand, every stock market needs a market maker. They are officially recognized inside traders, because they provide liquidity by knowing who wants to sell or buy. In stock markets, a transaction only takes place when the price is met with a demand of the same amount. Lets say you want to buy 100 shares of a company, but nobody is willing to sell you any shares at any price. In that case, the market makers enter the scene and sell you the stocks from their portfolio. The government also doesn't mind inside trading when banks do it, using front running. Since banks are not market makers it should be illegal, but nobody seems to care. Front running means that you know about a client's order before and you place an order a few milliseconds before to skim off some profit, cheating your client. Lets say you want to buy 100 shares of a company again, what banks do is to place an option just before your order is executed, so that the rise in stock price that your order will cause benefits the bank. In fact, governments do all they can to protect the banks from that nefarious practice and they come down on you with all their might if you seem to endanger the banks. The case of Sergey Aleynikov is a good example what happens when you get on the wrong side of a bank. All is set in motion to silence you and to bring you in jail. Aleynikov 'stole' the code that did the front running and he was arrested on some airport. An attorney remarked: Which raises the question to anyone with 2 brain cells that if somebody can use that code to manipulate markets then who says that Goldman Sachs itself doesn't manipulate the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov https://web.archive.org/web/20121104233157/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajIMch.ErnD4
  8. ofd

    The Art of the Argument

    You have touched upon a very interesting topic that is not mentioned in this book, namely the problem of induction. Even if you find a general rule (chocolate tastes great) via induction and you can formulate it, what exactly is the epistemological status of that rule? This very problem of induction has been tackled by many philosophers, including Kant, Karl Popper, the modern Bayesians and CS Peirce (to name a few). The way it is treated in the book is less than optimal and you can learn a lot following its branches. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/
  9. There are two simple reasons why bitcoin won't replace anytime soon, but other cryptocurrencies might. One is the built in deflationary tendency. If all goes well, and bitcoin rises in prices compared to other forms of money (fiat, gold) only idiots will use bitcoin to make transactions. After all, why pay with one bitcoin if that one bitcoin will be worth more in say one month? You'd rather pay with fiat money that will lose value compared to your btc. The other one is the technical aspect. My understanding is that the number of transcations is limited to 5 per seconds. Unless this changed by some vote or a fork, doing transactions is hazardous when a lot of people use it at the same time. There are about 50 million wallets, you can do the maths and see how long it will take if each of them does one transaction under the current limit. Bitcoin is a great store of money, until people realize it can't subsitute money for transaction then it may become some collector's item.
  10. Nope, she is married with three kids. Plus, the previous government would have none of the banking fraud stuff and put some bankers in jail. There are worse governments in Europe for sure.
  11. You already have European style socialists at the top of every institution. In Iceland you can study what happens when they arrive.
  12. ofd

    Instinct as evidence

    When it comes to biology, teleological reasoning has to be used. The goal of those instincts is it not to present you with an accurate description of reality but to make sure that your genes with those instincts are passed on. Hence it is better to err on the side of caution (assuming there is a danger when there is none) than having an accurate picture of your enviroment that might take a bit longer to process.
  13. My understanding is that after some planck time units the elemental forces began to be seperated, while prior to that they were more or less the same or they had the same effects.
  14. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an industry to speak off. They have to import everything. Before the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was on its way to become more liberal. Not my area of expertise, but doesnt the relationship between jarls, karls and thralls resemble feudalism? If you do attempt to read say the American Constitution and the way it came into being, on an economic level, you may find that it was an oligarchic coup right from the beginning. It was all about the elites trying to grab as much power as they can.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.