There's a similar one about the difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state being a matter of time.

Relatedly when you agree to taxation of a certain percentage you agree 100% with the principle.

Do the principles justifying a welfare state justify totalitarian government, totalitarian government being merely a fuller application fo the principles already at work?

I wouldn't make that generalization about libertarians. In my experience the average libertarian on responda in a reasoned manner more often than the average member of most other political ideologies. I've found that libertarians tend to be able to describe what they believe and why more effectively and consistently on average. I think we should all strive to respond in a calm and reasoned manner like you say and there's certainly examples of people using the label libertarian failing to do that.

Returning to the theme about ways to avoid unecessrily acrimonious arguing:

Slowing down the discussion and pauzing to ponder and consider can also be a good strategy fo fruitful conversation and debate. E.g. when someone makes a point that seems off we could say pauze, and say: "Interesting, that doesn't seem quite right to me but I'm not sure why. Let me think about it. ... Ah I think the reason for my reluctance to go along with that description has to do with ..."

Instead of reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.

I see it often these days that people confuse statements like "That's misinformation", "That's a conspiracy theory", "That's been demonstrated to be incorrect" with actual argument or evidence.

These phrases merely state conclusions or assertions without offering reasons to give them creedence apart from the authority or perceived credibility of the person uttering them.

People often take for granted their own understandings and beliefs about the world and fail to make them explicit in discussion. They throw out conclusions of theirs without showing how they reached them, sometimes perhaps not even know how they reached them.

S&P price appreciation is roughly the inflation rate, isn't it? So he did outperform inflation which isn't the case for many and I'd guess most investors.

About the enjoyment: I think he found plenty of enjoyment thanks to the kind of work he did. He basically considered reading books a part of his job, and he loved reading books, so he very much enjoyed his work which was basically to better understand the world and the economy which is what he wanted to do anyways.

About the "for any winner there is a loser"; I don't see it that way. In many cases there's winners on all sides. We're all different, often want different things and value things differently and that scenario opens up win-win transcactions where we both feel we both win.

Zero sum scenario's, scenario's where one winning necessarily means another loses also exist I think that's true, and I think it's a good idea for humanity to avoid these kinds of situations where we can

Did some calculations and you are correct indeed about the difference in returns being substantial.

Using the numbers from https://www.investorsfriend.com/what-warren-buffett-accomplished-for-share-owners/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/if-you-invested-$100-in-berkshire-hathaway-in-1965-this-is-how-much-you-would-have-today

share price in 1965: 18 dollars share price in 2025: 460 000 dollars

That's roughly a 25 000x compared to gold's 100x over the time period. Impressive indeed.

That's a 250x over 60 years adjusted to inflation as measured by gold, or about 9.7 percent per year annual compound growth rate above inflation rate as measured by gold price changes.

Not taking into account inflation: 1960s to 2020s: 25 000x over 60 years, or 18.4 percent annual compound growth

Taking into account inflation as measured by gold: 1960s to 2020s: 250x over 60 years, or 9.7 percent annual compound growth rate

Pretty big difference

Using the numbers from https://www.investorsfriend.com/what-warren-buffett-accomplished-for-share-owners/ and https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/if-you-invested-$100-in-berkshire-hathaway-in-1965-this-is-how-much-you-would-have-today

share price in 1965: 18 dollars share price in 2025: 460 000 dollars

That's roughly a 25 000x compared to gold's 100x over the time period. Impressive indeed.

That's a 250x over 60 years adjusted to inflation as measured by gold, or about 9.7 percent per year annual compound growth rate above inflation rate as measured by gold price changes.

Not taking into account inflation: 1960s to 2020s: 25 000x over 60 years, or 18.4 percent annual compound growth

Taking into account inflation as measured by gold: 1960s to 2020s: 250x over 60 years, or 9.7 percent annual compound growth rate

Pretty big difference but still great either way

Gold was about 30 dollars per ounce in the 1960s and its over 3000 an ounce now. Gold did a 100x Maybe Warren did better but many people also overestimate how much they gained versus how much they didn't lose to inflation (rise in price of gold being a proxy for inflation) Point is that the sick returns are more a symptom of broken monetary system than investing genius

What if you'd simply bought gold when he started his fund, instead of investing it with him?

There's definitely some people with whom further discussion is likely to be fruitless, or certainly not worth the effort. But the point I'm making is that we should be honest and realistic in the way we speak. That way we not only speak more accurately and more truthfully, but that manner of speaking can also avoid unnecessary argument. However much we believe something to be true, however certain we are, however logically inescapable something seems it is still our opinion and our perception and we should talk in that manner. I've noticed discussion are far more congenial that way. People don't get defensive as much, don't dig their heels in as much. It becomes more about exploring perspectives and possibilities, than about proving who is right and who is wrong.

I've made the mistake of laying on the table things like:

"Out sourcing violence to a mafia called "government" does not make it moral or any less violent."

"A majority voting for theft of a minority doesn't change the fact you're stealing or taking other people's stuff by force."

"Guaranteeing positive rights implies slavery or theft."

It can be frustrating to hear people deny that.

I can't see any way around these and when you say something like that and people say "nah that's bullshit that's totally retarded" without attacking the logic or offering a counter-argument and instead just say "you're wrong" why that can be frustrating

because it seems to me these are simple logical statements that one can't really disagree with. And there's the problem: I should say it that way: "I can't see any way around concluding..."

That way the other side can't say "no I disagree" or "that's wrong" I'm simply sharing that I cannot see a way around those things.

Then you can push them a little bit and ask them to explain how they explain otherwise

Recently came accoss this: https://archive.org/details/edward-griffin-the-chasm-collectivism-vs-individualism Good short piece introducing some of the important distinctions.

On the communication piece: It's often a good idea just to bear witness to how you feel and think about a situation without trying to convince anyone about anything. Simple changes of phrasing towards "I can't help but feel that...", "I can see no way around ...", "It makes me sad to see .... because ......" etc.

Instead of trying to convince just try to bear witness as acccurately as you can to what you actually feel and think.

E.g. Instead of declaring that taxation IS theft, you can try "I cannot see taxation as anything other than theft". That way heated arguments about "no it isnt! yes it is!" are avoided.

Remember that one way to think about money is as fungible favours. When I work for someone he gives me a token which I can then use to get others to work for me. I do someone a favour and instead of that specific guy owing me a fovour I can now ask a favour of anyone who uses that particular kind of token as money. Money printing then is kind of like stealing favours, and successfully pretending like you did people a whole bunch of favours for which other people now owe you favours. It seems like a bad thing to allow people who didn't provide any value for others to go around bossing people around (literally lol) compared to the people who provided the value for others getting to steer the economy.

I guess there's a technocratic argument for why we shouldn't allow the people who did the favour to be the ones allowed to ask favours back and that instead a wise philosopher king should be able to direct the favours But that's awfully convenient Maybe it will be true for one in a million And that person probably will not ever be the one who seeks it So that's a hard pass for me. I say he who gains the money through mutually voluntary interaction gets to spend the money

Wanted to change the phrasing of one of the point a little bit. I'll reprint the whole paragraph here.

The coordination function / information exchange function of money will be enhanced. The direction of development of the economy will be decided by the people earning money in proportion to how much money they earn, not how much money they print. The people who worked for the money will decide to what ends it will be used. I'd expect better results that way. Generally people take more care making decisions when spending their own money, not to mention they're the only ones with a moral right to regardless of who would spend it "better" (better according to whom? But again: stealing isn't right. Not even if use the money to buy things for the victim. Definitely not if you use it for yourself like a regular thief, or use it attack the victim further as often is the case with the biggest thieving mafia thugs AKA governments today) Spending decisions will more closely track true preference hierarchies. People will invest and spend when they truly want to, and not because they have to in order not to be stolen from.

Because of its deflationary qualities the economy will grind to a halt. Only inflationary money, which transfers purchasing power out of your money into newly created money, allows spending and investment to occur to a sufficient degree to keep an economy functioning and producing. You see if banks didn't suck purchasing power out of your money constantly, effectively stealing from you, you would not spend your money. You'd just keep your money knowing it would buy more in the future. So goes the argument.

After all as we all know people don't ever cash out of investments in cases where those will likely be worth more later. That's why nobody has ever sold S&P500 indexes. Because stocks tend to increase in value, and not decrease, nobody ever sells any stocks. That's reality, right? Oh wait.

And that's why nobody has ever sold gold ever in the history of mankind, right? And never ever sold gold in exchange for stock in a company, right? Every economy ever that functioned under a money that appreciated in value over time ground to a halt and no inventive and innovative companies ever came out such gold-backed economies, right? Oh wait the industrial revolutionS did.

It's such a ridiculous argument. Of-mf*k'n-course people would spend the money. The spending patterns would surely change, and yes many would hold on to money longer, save it, if they knew it would hold its value. But it's like thinking that people who have a water bottle that doesn't leak would never drink from it. Just so g damn retarded. Yes the guy with a leaking bottle will drink it faster because the water will be gone if he doesn't. The guy with a working water bottle will drink when he's thirsty. And that's the preferable scenario.

Similary the guy with money that isn't broken will spend it when the trade-off between having the money and having the thing the money can buy seems worth it to him. He'll probably make wiser spending and investment decisions isntead of rushing into things knowing he'll lose what he's got otherwise, like drinking when he's not even thirsty. He'll keep his money and only when the investment looks really good, or the product seems very attractive will he part with his money in exchange for the thing.

The coordination function / information exchange function of money will be enhanced. The direction of development of the economy will be decided by the people earning money in proportion to how much money they earn, not how much money they print. Spending decisions will more closely track true preference hierarchies. People will invest and spend when they truly want to, and not because they have to in order not to be stolen from.

Any other thoughts on this delfationary death spiral argument?

One can also think about how micropayment streaming and orange checks could add another dynamic and new fodder for statistics. In addition to thinking in terms of how many followers someone has we could also think in terms of how many incoming payment streams the person has, the volume etc. Would the latter be more informative for gauging true popularity / real engagement? I am reminded of the distinction from economics between professed/stated/imagined preference and demonstrated preference.

I'd add John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. Dave is a well-spoken intelligent and curious guy with a good bullshit detector. He may not be an expert himself, depending on how you wanna define that, but he has a knack for finding, and then reading extensively, the most accurate most consistent most reasonable experts.

It's kind of like how a mediocre physics or mathematics undergraduate is "smarter" than Archimedes or Da Vinci in that the undergraduate can solve problems these guys couldn't. The undergraduate student will get the right answer to problems, might be able to win in an intellectual competition, because they read other experts like Newton which were more knowledegeable or insightful in some areas and are using their techniques.

Dave is the guy who finds and reads the experts among the experts and that allows him to destroy the more mediocre experts.

If you start the carnivore diet you'll shred through those like a young Shrodinger.

Just kidding of course but I did get some improvement in mental power since I started ditching carbs many years a go and a little more on top of that when trying carnivore.

Shrodinger was on my mind since I started reading the classic by him "What is Life". Great little book so far.

I remember listening to Kevin Kelly on the Tim Ferriss Show it's got to have been around 10 years ago. Interesting dude with lots of interesting toughts.

Went looking and found it: https://tim.blog/2014/08/29/kevin-kelly/ Great stuff.

I'd recommend checking out some long form source material where you hear the people being described (smeared or slandered maybe?) talk about their policy ideas and the viewpoints inspiring them in their own words.

Alice Weidel, the party leader, has been on many a podcast speaking English I believe. There's the conversation with Elon Musk but there's more interviews in english out there in teh podcast world. Also there's some speeches that she gave in the bundestag available on to view on X with subtitles. Perhaps other places as well.

Haven't spent a ton of time looking into it but I did listen to the Elon interview as well as one other appearance on a podcast IIRC. I also listened to one or two complete speechs of hers at the bundestag. I think one of them was about 20 minutes long.

Based on that it seems to me AFD is a center right common sense party. Stop illegal immigration, deal with crime problems, focus on reliable energy, roll back censorship laws, cut back on government spending, try diplomacy with Russia etc.

Really not that extreme at all.

Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". Don't think you can go wrong with that one.

A short piece by Mises, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", helped me better understand the following ideas and how they relate to eachother: free markets, economic calculation and price formation.

I also remember reading "Bureaucracy" by Mises and it helping me understand free markets, how they work, what incentives are present, what kinds of results they tend to produce etc by contrasting it to a very different way of allocating resources namely bureaucracy. That piece is not quite as short as the first I mentioned but still not that long.