Favorite team:Mississippi St. 
Location:Virginia
Biography:
Interests:Economics
Occupation:
Number of Posts:4268
Registered on:11/1/2014
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
When you say weakness, do you just mean there’s an imbalance and your left side isn’t quite as strong, or do you notice an actual deficit on your left side? If the latter, it might be prudent to check with a neurologist to see if there’s some neurological factor involved.

Any numbness or tingling?
Pretty obvious State will finish in the top 3.
quote:

Eliminating 30% of the increase isn't going to do much, especially with the stratification of the impact over the types of properties involved...at least for your typical demos on this site.
May be the nicest thing you’ve said to people on here
quote:

If you wanted to study petroleum engineering you cannot do much better than LSU.
yes you can
quote:

OK drivers VA WV MD
No one who has to deal with MD drivers with any frequency thinks they’re ok

re: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 29

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/29/26 at 2:41 pm to
quote:

Tomorrow, they probably catch a throat-punch via the ending of birthright citizenship
I don’t think you all should expect birthright citizenship to be ended. I think you’re setting yourselves up for disappointment. I think it’ll be 9-0 or 7-2 upholding BRC.
quote:

So you want the USA to amend the First Amendment, removing the Establishment of Religion Clause, and then you want the FedGov to pass laws that actively promote your Reformed Covenanter Church religion to the exclusion of all other denominations and religions? That's exactly what John Calvin did in Switzerland! He established a Governmental Theocracy. I don't see how that could work out.
That’s what Adrian Vermeule wants to do, but with Catholic integralism.

But also I don’t think removing the establishment clause makes you a theocracy. Otherwise the UK would be a theocracy with its established Church of England. Even England of the 1500s I wouldn’t describe as a theocracy—but maybe you disagree

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/24/26 at 2:19 pm to
If you haven’t read it already, I think you would benefit from Harold Demsetz’s article, “Toward a Theory of Property Rights”.

It’s really good. JSTOR link below.

Demsetz

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/24/26 at 1:47 pm to
quote:

Humans are selfish, irrational and vindictive. Potential logical heirs are often intentionally immitted from wills, resulting in intense conflict and litigation.
Let’s say someone is cut out of the will. We can still dispose of the property as set forth in the will. The person cut out is no worse off than they would be if the property was destroyed.

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/24/26 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

If the stated goal is conflict avoidance, destruction of property seems to be the best way forward.
I can’t agree with that. Inheritance rules are a solution to conflict by clearly outlining who gets what, thus reducing extraneous claims to the property, all while preserving the property.

Your destruction rule makes everyone poorer while solving no obvious problem.

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/24/26 at 1:07 pm to
quote:

Maybe just destroying the property is the best way to avoid/alleviate societal conflict?
Why would the destruction of wealth be the best way forward? We have a path of disposition that preserves the value of the property while also being relatively low cost to implement (wills and intestacy laws)
Probably Mississippi State this year, if I had to guess.

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/23/26 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

So you are NOT a proponent of natural rights?
I think they exist narrowly to the extent people owe duties to another. For example, if someone’s duty is to provide for their family, then I think they have a right to work and obtain property so they can fulfill that duty.

But no, I do not hold to the natural rights concepts that you see in liberal enlightenment philosophy.

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/23/26 at 1:56 pm to
quote:

Granted — but doesn't the prohibition on using others as mere means ultimately rest on the fact that they have a claim to their own body and the products of their labor that you cannot override?
Agreed
quote:

Whether you ground that claim in self-ownership or in the idea that each person belongs to God and therefore cannot belong to you, the practical conclusion is identical: no one has the right to direct another person's existence toward their own ends.
Can’t immediately think of a scenario where I disagree, so agreed.
quote:

From a political philosophy standpoint the two views converge almost entirely. The meaningful divergence is narrow — suicide, and perhaps a few other cases where a person's choices affect only themselves. That's a real disagreement, but it doesn't touch the core of what we've been discussing. On property rights, plunder, and the wrongness of slavery, we're describing the same structure from different foundations.
Mostly agreed, except the reason I engaged on this topic is because I disagreed with how natural rights were being portrayed/ justified.

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/23/26 at 1:44 pm to
Yes, but philosophically speaking, wills are pretty much universally known, and the intestacy laws are public and available. So can we not just deem that people that die without their own will knowingly accept the default?

re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 6/23/26 at 1:39 pm to
Everyone has a will. The question is whether they made it themselves or if they’re using the default set forth by legislators in the intestacy code.
quote:

He backed you into a corner, and you just "put the walls up"
Why do I have to accept the idea of self ownership?

ETA1: How is presupposing self-ownership different than presupposing God?

ETA2: Him: “slavery is wrong because X”

Me: “I think slavery is wrong because Y”

You: “aha! You’re putting up walls! You’re not allowed to use Y!”