The News Thread

Road to Serfdom is a classic (which I haven't even read unfortunately, just excerpts). I've read much more libertarian stuff than conservatism when it comes to books. I guess at the moment I'm sort of "Conservatarian", and swinging back from right anarchic views has much more to do with my own assessment of the things I learn re: psychology and technology than some sort of paradigmatic shifting tome. But that conservatism is only connected to the GOP in that it isn't connected to Democrats at all, as far as trying to align it with some sort of contemporary US political circle.
 
Road to Serfdom is a classic (which I haven't even read unfortunately, just excerpts). I've read much more libertarian stuff than conservatism when it comes to books. I guess at the moment I'm sort of "Conservatarian", and swinging back from right anarchic views has much more to do with my own assessment of the things I learn re: psychology and technology than some sort of paradigmatic shifting tome.

Oh well that's just as interesting. I consider myself a libertarian, never really thought about libertarian literature before though. Anything?
 
Oh well that's just as interesting. I consider myself a libertarian, never really thought about libertarian literature before though. Anything?

Outside of the "Austrian" circle (which includes Hayek), there isn't a tremendous amount. You could go to Mises.org and they at least used to have a torrent with like 8gbs of ebooks etc iirc. Robert Nozick is the most well known outside of that: "Anarchy, the State, and Utopia".

I don't really absorb a book as is when I read them. Whatever is being read is being checked and synthesized with my existing knowledge, consciously or subconsciously. So I cannot later say "oh man THIS book", unless it sits far outside of anything I had read or known up to the time. Everything I read gets blended in with everything else I read. Especially since I consume more reading on the web (whether blogs, journal articles, etc.), there's no clear-cut division on ideas or sources unless I were to back away and start trying to file them.

The biggest problem as it appears to me, is that political theories depend on an assumption of significant universalism for success, and anarchy or libertarianism - despite protests to the contrary, provide no exception. People have very general things in common, but it is possible that there is a replicability crisis in social sciences specifically because we have set the bar too high (even once poor methodology has been accounted for). Culture matters, and if we accept even to some degree the idea of "emergence" and the fact of genetic heredity, you cannot devise any system that is going to make everyone happy under the same umbrella, no matter how strict or lax or prosperous or poor the umbrella may be.
 
Outside of the "Austrian" circle (which includes Hayek), there isn't a tremendous amount. You could go to Mises.org and they at least used to have a torrent with like 8gbs of ebooks etc iirc. Robert Nozick is the most well known outside of that: "Anarchy, the State, and Utopia".

I don't really absorb a book as is when I read them. Whatever is being read is being checked and synthesized with my existing knowledge, consciously or subconsciously. So I cannot later say "oh man THIS book", unless it sits far outside of anything I had read or known up to the time. Everything I read gets blended in with everything else I read. Especially since I consume more reading on the web (whether blogs, journal articles, etc.), there's no clear-cut division on ideas or sources unless I were to back away and start trying to file them.

The biggest problem as it appears to me, is that political theories depend on an assumption of significant universalism for success, and anarchy or libertarianism - despite protests to the contrary, provide no exception. People have very general things in common, but it is possible that there is a replicability crisis in social sciences specifically because we have set the bar too high (even once poor methodology has been accounted for). Culture matters, and if we accept even to some degree the idea of "emergence" and the fact of genetic heredity, you cannot devise any system that is going to make everyone happy under the same umbrella, no matter how strict or lax or prosperous or poor the umbrella may be.

Robert Nozick, check. Austrian circle, check. Hayek, check.

Thanks a lot.
 
Speaking of $$$$$

And people wonder why healthcare costs keep skyrocketing:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-13/americas-most-obese-states

Since 2008, the obesity rate for the Midwest has increased by 3.2 percentage points, more than any other region. The South followed closely behind, with a 2.9-point increase. The Northeast and West have seen smaller, but still statistically significant, increases of 2.0 and 1.8 points, respectively.

As the adult obesity rate continues to rise both nationally and within many states, preventable healthcare costs will also rise. If states can lower their obesity rates, even modestly, they can achieve significant cost savings and improve their residents' well-being.

Given that obesity is associated with illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, stroke, osteoarthritis and some forms of cancer, the medical costs for an obese person amounted to $1,429 more per year than for a person of a normal weight, according to research conducted in 2008 by RTI International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. After adjusting for inflation, the annual medical costs for 2015 are $1,573 more for a person who is obese than for a person of a normal weight.

Gallup calculated the incremental cost of healthcare per year for each state by multiplying the estimated number of obese people in the state's population by the annual incremental $1,573 cost of obesity per person.

I'm actually overweight as per BMI but that's muscle, bitch, and my resting HR is below 60 (highly trained athlete range). You Flabby McFlabbersons with 50% blocked arteries have no room to complain about healthcare costs.
 
Everyone said years ago when obesity was considered a disease it was all for insurance companies

But I hope you realize how douchey you sound but your 60 BPM heart rate :lol:
 
Everyone said years ago when obesity was considered a disease it was all for insurance companies

But I hope you realize how douchey you sound but your 60 BPM heart rate :lol:

I worked my ass off for that on my own time/dime. Wolves do not care about the opinions of sheep, nor should they. Nor should they pay for them. If you don't care about your lifespan neither should anyone else, and no one I've encountered has a legitimate argument as to otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arg
poor fucks / fat fucks / diseased fucks who can't afford healthcare can fuck off and die; im not paying for you
 
Worst college degrees to earn:

http://www.thesimpledollar.com/10-worst-college-degrees-to-earn-in-2015/
#2. Psychology
Simply put, graduating with a BS in psychology might actually cause you to struggle with your own mental health.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-worst-majors-for-finding-a-good-job-211340394.html
#7 Psychology
One of the top jobs held by recent psych majors is barista, earning about $19,000 per year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/25-college-majors-with-the-highest-unemployment-rates/
College majors with the highest unemployment
1. Clinical psychology 19.5%
Five of the college majors with the worst job prospects on this list are related to psychology. Ironically, psychology is the fifth most popular college degree.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/19/pf/college/underemployed/
Beleaguered psychology majors are nearly twice as likely to end up working as a barista at a coffee shop than college grads with other majors, PayScale found.

Wolves pick interesting majors
 
Last edited:
Getting only a BA/BS in Psych is/would be incredibly dumb. It's a useless degree on its own. This isn't new info.

BTW there's a few good comebacks for that wolf/sheep line, but "wolves suck" isn't in that list :p.
 
Last edited: