My thoughts on this are a little unpopular, but as I look back on my failed marriage and my ex-wife's lecherous lifestyle, I find my point of view justified.

I enjoy conventional beauty as much as the next person, I mean, that's what makes it aesthetically pleasing, right? Beauty is nice to look at, but I think as a society we're probably unhealthily obsessed with how we appear to others.

Here's what I've personally figured out - for me, for no one else - through 15 years or so of hanging out at raves, then clubs, then bars: the ones who spend an exorbitant amount of time on their appearance every day have insecurity issues and are often narcissistic. That might be fantastic for one night (and it often is) but it's not long-term relationship material. It seems to me that girls (and guys) like this are sometimes lacking in personality, intelligence or some other department, which is why they're trying to make up for it by emphasizing natural good looks- like they want to skate by on what they're equipped with- which is completely OK. We can't all be 9s and 10s, right? Beauty is a bell-shaped curve, and we can't all spend our lives at the apex. Loads of studies have shown that Western civilization has a natural tendency to favor beautiful people. I think "ugly" (whatever that means) people have to work a little harder to succeed and that builds character and personality by virtue of that adversity.

Now that I'm 32, when I look for a woman, I can say I honestly don't care about looks. I'm repelled from overdone faces, plastic smiles, cleavage and push-up bras. I look at how she treats kids and animals, her ability to hold a conversation, her hunger for knowledge, her lust for travel and novel experiences and whether she asks about other people or just talks about herself. Sex is the last thing on my mind. When you find someone you really click with on an emotional level, that person becomes beautiful to you, no matter what she looks like. And the great thing about breasts is every woman has them, so they're not a commodity that only beautiful enjoy a monopoly on. Any woman you love will have boobs and those boobs will be the boobs you want, no matter what they look like because they belong to the woman you love. So you have a "great rack:" an expensive bra, a low-cut shirt, bolted-on plastic surgery- everyone has boobs, as will the girl with the nice personality and great mind, so I might as well hold out for those, because those are the ones I'm really going to enjoy.

I understand some people might think I have kind of a wingnut reality borne of my "damaged goods" mentality, but I felt you deserved an answer that would help you see that not all men are vacuous tools. Don't be afraid to peek behind the curtain and question motives. Some of us understand that there's more to a woman that what she looks like on the outside.

Director Kevin Smith said "I didn't want to tell stories about the pretty people. Other people could do that. Pretty's great to look at, but pretty ultimately loses to interesting."

I know I'm not the only one.

Hi, /u/DeceptiveSpell --

So happy to hear you're invested in learning about where your food comes from and it's far reaching impacts. Really awesome that you're open and aware to a different way of living :)

A few thoughts from me. (I've been Vegan for 1+ year, after being Vegetarian for 3+ years.)

• I don't know if everyone will agree with this analogy, but when making changes to my diet I've always found that it's kinda like someone trying to quit smoking. Yes, you can tapper off the cigarettes, or start taking Nicorette, but in order for it to truly stick, you really have to WANT to quit. Because it's a real lifestyle change. You have to really make that decision within yourself and...commit. Just.. quit. Just don't do it anymore. Not saying it will be easy or you won't have cravings for a while (which will pass over time, I assure you). But gradually tapering off may not actually be the "easier" way to go about committing to this.
  
  
• After 3+ years of being Veggie, the thing that changed my heart, my intention, and my commitment to this way of eating was research. Educating myself. I love learning, and reading more about these subjects forever changed my mindset. It was almost like The Matrix - once I knew the truth in my heart, I could never go back to the time before I knew that truth. Highly recommend the books [Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows] (https://www.amazon.com/Love-Dogs-Pigs-Wear-Cows/dp/1573245054) and The Humane Economy as starters.
  
  
• See if there are Vegan variations on the foods and recipes you enjoy eating. I for one love jackfruit and eat it often as a shredded meat alternative in things like burritos, nachos, pulled pork, etc. Also I adore Beyond Meat which you can get a Whole Foods for ground beef alternatives. Just made an awesome spaghetti bolognese with it! Lots of Indian and Asian can be easily made with no meat. And falafel sandwiches are another favorite. I promise as your body detoxes, you will crave meat less and less. With the exception of lox and bagel, which I still crave and am trying to find Vegan alternative, I honestly have no cravings for meat, cheese, etc. anymore. Just that damn lox...
  
  
• Be warned, the first couple months of transitioning to this kind of diet is not particularly easy on the gut. The struggle with gas is real, but your body normalizes after a few months. Haven't had any issues with it for a while.
  
  
• Finally, even though I stand by my first point, transitioning is not 100% easy 100% of the time. Don't be too hard on yourself if you take a misstep and say, eat a sandwich without realizing it had a mayo aioli on it. We all make mistakes, and our mistakes are valuable because they teach us, so that next time you remember to read the label more carefully, or ask the waitress a few follow up questions.
  
  Good luck! Happy to help if you have follow up questions - just PM me :)

Having done opponent research and fundraising for state democrats in Chicago, I can tell you that without a doubt, the smaller the election, the better it is for the majority party. In non presidential elections or any local elections, people that do vote will vote the party line or according to the name they recognize. Chicago is a very segregated city. If the district/ward is primarily Polish or German, having a Polish or German name is very necessary to be elected as a judge or alderman. In the Irish wards, Flanagan, O'Malley, etc. are just as powerful. Because people often only go to vote for one position, they will often go with whatever feels comfortable or good for the others they don't recognize.

As to your contention that abstention is a good thing, it really is not unless there is a consequence for abstention such as no candidates being elected. During a modern campaign, the goal is to get the people who have voted before to show up at the polls and then try to swing the undecideds to your side. The other goal is to lower the turnout for your opponent. While most people think it is about motivating people to vote in general, such a strategy is almost guaranteed to lose unless you have unlimited funds. A good book to read is The Race to 270. It covers the 2000 and 2004 campaigns and demonstrates the change from macro campaigns to micro or targeted campaigns. (I spent my whole undergrad studying campaigns). By pinpointing specific areas with higher concentrations of voter turnout, a campaign can spend their money effectively. Imagine sabermetrics in baseball, but for political campaigns. It's why Bush could win 2000 elections by choosing very specific Florida counties that were Red in past elections to recount (Gore failed to realize the strategy until it was too late) and winning the 2004 election without carrying the national vote. I have already gone on too much, but essentially Karl Rove figured out that certain issues and targeting certain groups was much more effective than trying to rally people to vote.

What this all means is that there are always going to be a certain number of people who vote for each side and then a certain number of voters that are undecideds. It is much cheaper to focus on your base and those voting undecided than to galvanize new people to take time to vote and vote for you. Therefore the incentive is not to come up with good ideas, but to pander to the known voters. Its why the Tea Party had such a strong presence in 2010 despite being so small. They were loud and they voted.

So abstaining without consequence is a bad thing because it only reinforces the campaign strategies that are the most successful and cost effective.

If you are interested in campaign and voting politics check out these books:

Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. They do a great breakdown of cost/benefits of specific campaign strategies like mailers, meet and greets, TV spots, etc.

The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. They do a good job of defining and tracking wedge issues (e.g. abortion, guns, etc.) and how modern campaigns use them to split the opponents base or unify their base. One of the key arguments is that it is often in one or both sides' best interest to not solve a wedge issue. It's fascinating in light of Obamacare and the way that has become a wedge issue.

tl;dr It is cheaper and more effective to target areas with large concentrations of voters than to try to persuade non-voters to vote in the first place. I also recommend PS 411 for any current or future Illini undergrads.

Disclaimer: As a representative of the nascent Carcini Institute I am not speaking for any Neoreactionary Individual or Ideology and I am using the commons present at the subreddit as I would any commons.


Is it self-evident that every stable government turns into a bureaucracy? It certainly does not appear to be that the equilibrium state of governance is exemplified in bureaucracy. Unlike what kalvinski seems to be saying you can certainly have bureaucracies in a corporation.

I am not sure exactly what sort of question you are trying to ask or territory you are trying to explore but it appears to be something around the lines of 'examining the form of bureaucracy and seeing if there are better alternatives - esp from a decentralized angle.' This is actually a topic I've been interested in research once my work on Fourth Generation Warfare and Political Theology have been cleared up. The answer in this comments thread appears to be signalling NRx/DE ideology instead of substantively dealing with the problem and given the style of your question I dont really blame them that much. So where do we start if nothing is stable to stand upon?

Caveat: I do not think its productive to speak about political structures from this level of resolution. Especially if you are attempting to make ideological recommendations. It causes confusion around what is and what should be. I will continue to talk about the general nature of the post but there will be no implementable instructions provided or condoned during the course of this comment.

You have to start with the right questions:

• What is a bureaucracy?
  
• is it a "Specialized administrative staff set up to do something"
  
• Is it "The Administrative attempt to enforce legal pronouncements"?
  
• How is it formed?
  
• What role is it supposed to fill?
  
• Are all types of administration for an organization bureaucratic?
  
• Are there alternatives to bureaucratic organization?
  
• What are the usual consequences (both good and bad) of implementing a bureaucracy?
  
• What is "Weber's ideal of bureaucracy?"
  
• Are there complaints about bureaucracy that are not based in fact?
  
• How is a bureaucracy funded and how is it supposed to use those funds?
  
• Do all bureaucracies rely on the same moral standards?
  
• How is failure discovered, judged, and fixed in a bureaucracy?
  
• What are the personal incentives involved with taking responsibility in a bureaucracy?
  
• Does a bureaucracy do useful work or useless work?
  
• What is bureaucracies relationship with "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion."?
  
• Do bureaucracies attempt to establish stability to the degree that generates stagnation?
  
• Does the "Personnel > Protocol > Prescription" dynamic prove to be more true than the bureaucratic one?
  
• Is the dynamic of the bureaucrat to be a rent seeker?
  
• Do bureaucracies produce individuals who serve the public or who seek for the public to serve them?
  
• Can a bureaucracy ever function in a society where "Skin in the Game" is a necessary component of public life?
  
• How do modern states use (or are used by) bureaucracies?
  
• Can Bureaucracy be equivocated with a Centrally Planned Economic scheme?
  
• Are bureaucracies inherently "scientific?"
  
• Who collects taxes and administers government edicts then?
  
• Does applying corporate metaphors to the structure of governance alleviate the supposed problems of bureaucracy?
  
• How do Men organize?
  
• What role is hierarchy supposed to play in an organization?
  
• What does it mean to decentralize an organization?
  
• What is decentralization supposed to solve in regards to problems generated by hierarchic and/or bureaucracy?
  
• What are the organizational incentives to function during a long term time frame?
  
• Is the Sytgian Starfish bureaucratic in its instantiation?
  
• Do democratic forms of Government Legitimization rely upon bureaucracies?
  
• Are orwellian descriptions of bureaucracy (esp in govt) accurate?
  
• Is decentralized governance inherently open to leftist control?
  
• Are individuals of with great potential fostered or expelled in bureaucratic organizations.
  
• What does bureaucracy do to leaders?
  
  I am sure we could go on with these questions for quite a while. Given how vague your question was I would use these questions to determine what territories you should explore. It appears that the 2 major paths to explore are:
  
  1 Determining what exactly a bureaucracy is.
  2 Examining alternative schemes that do not have the same problems associated with bureaucracy.
  
  I am certain that merely defining bureaucracy as 'the administrative section of a sufficiently large institution' is a waste of time. Bureaucracies all have very similar forms and consequences and do not appear to be the only way to control an organization as it is the archetype of Protocol Governance.
  
  Here is something from the Freisian School that really goes into detail on the topic:
  
  http://www.friesian.com/bureau.htm
  
  If you end up developing a relatively concrete & abstract definition that can take into account most of whats considered bureaucratic in a non-trivial manner you have already done a great service but its all preamble to your post. Presuming that every stable gov is a bureaucracy makes it impossible to consider stable alternatives so once you clear up this mess in your presumptions you can consider what alternatives lie beyond.
  
  Since most of the alternatives that exist appear to be just variants of Anarchy and Chaos it may be better of on understanding organizations. There are 2 fields that exist today that deal with the micro-level and macro-level of organizational incentives and forms respectivley with an over-arching series of comparitive frameworks:
  
  
• Game Theory
  
• Operations Research
  
• Organizational theory
  
  >Game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."
  
  >Operations research is a discipline that deals with the application of advanced analytical methods to help make better decisions.Further, the term 'operational analysis' is used in the British (and some British Commonwealth) military, as an intrinsic part of capability development, management and assurance.
  
  >Organizational theory is a loosely knit family of many approaches to organizational analysis. Its themes, questions, methods, and explanatory modes are extremely diverse.
  
  as you may notice the above definitions make assumptions about the rational capacity of the actors in question as well as relying upon over abstract non-specific systems of judgement. At this level of question framing and attempting to orient yourself in your new territory this sort of over-simplification is necessary. It is important to review the operating assumptions of whatever tools you use to devise these supposed alternatives to bureaurcacy when you seek to actually instatiate your work.
  
  I agree with your observation that Neoreaction as a whole has not noted the problems that by having such a limited conception of organization and when they have noted it they have implemented a rather simplistic understanding of left and right in order to justify their views and demonize opposition.
  
  I do not see this as exactly that surprising as your domains demand fairly extreme analytic competence as well as open-mindedness in terms of comparisons for hierarchical organizations. It is additionally quite predictable that using capitalism like an ideological cudgel as well as general pointing to moldbug were going to be the answers to your question. Do not fear though. These lads are quite capable of dealing with your domain as long as you can get your questions specific enough. They are just stuck in a clouded mirror so it takes a bit more effort to get them to see things directly.
  
  Like I said I'm interested in this domain but I'm not going to pretend its going to even be on my plate for another 6 months. I would recommend keeping up with http://www.ribbonfarm.com if you want to see people directly dealing with this problem as well as reading this book here: https://www.amazon.com/Images-Organization-Gareth-Morgan/dp/1412939798?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

> A group of Christian libertarian economists.

Name names. That description can range anywhere from James Gwartney to Peter Boetke to many full-on kooks. "Libertarian economics" isn't exactly a well-defined term, let alone "Christian Libertarian economics."

I am rather sympathetic to some libertarian ideas myself, but the extremes of "all taxation is theft" is simply a non-starter from a Christian perspective. "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's " puts the kibosh on that.

>Does anyone have good resources supporting or opposing Christian-based libertarian economics?

My recommendation would be to simply learn good economics and evaluated from a Christian perspective. Don't worry so much about if it is "Christian-based libertarian economics." Here is my standard recommended reading list for a Christian understanding of economics:

• Economic Shalom: A Reformed Primer on Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing by John Bolt. Bolt's perspective is as a theologian, not an Economist, but the book is quite good.
  
  
• [Economics in Christian Perspective: Theory, Policy and Life Choices](
  https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Christian-Perspective-Theory-Choices/dp/0830825975) by Victor V. Claar and Robin J. Klay. Claar and Klay are both Economists so this book is a really good complement to Economic Shalom.
  
  
• Bob Goudzwaard's Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society is a classic work. It's a bit dated, and I actually disagree with most of what he has to say, but its well worth reading and wrestling with (do read Claar and Klay first though).
  
  
• Another one in the "I don't agree with it much" is Stories Economists Tell: Studies in Christianity and Economics by John Tiemstra. Read the rest of this list first.
  
  
• I'd also recommend "Are Economists Basically Immoral?": and Other Essays on Economics, Ethics, and Religion by Paul Heyne. Heyne wasn't Reformed (he was an ordained Lutheran minister who spent his life teaching economics) but he's one of the clearest expositors of economic principles in the last 50 years and a trained theologian to boot. Free and legal pdf available here.
  
  Of the list I'd classify Heyne as the most libertarian leaning, followed by Claar and Klay. Goudzwaard is definitely the least, followed by Tiemstra. Another resource you might benefit from is this talk on 'Economics with a Christian Vision' by PJ Hill. PJ would be the first person that comes to my mind when I think of a Christian libertarian economist.
  
  

But that's precisely the point: you have to do meta-economics, and philosophy of economics, not merely economics-as-such. You can dive into the weeds and quote this-theorem-or-that, but the theologians like John Milbank and Graham Ward (and your own much-appreciated James K. A. Smith) are critiquing the reigning economic paradigm on a significantly deeper and more substantive level: metaphysics.

It's like a scientist versus someone doing philosophy of science. Sure, you can talk about the theorems and mathematical models for when solutions reach a boiling point or something, but those are completely different fields and questions—you must go to a way higher level.

Actually the text I was going to recommend is Tomas Sedlacek, Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street.

>Tomas Sedlacek has shaken the study of economics as few ever have. Named one of the "Young Guns" and one of the "five hot minds in economics" by the Yale Economic Review, he serves on the National Economic Council in Prague, where his provocative writing has achieved bestseller status. How has he done it? By arguing a simple, almost heretical proposition: economics is ultimately about good and evil.
>
>In The Economics of Good and Evil, Sedlacek radically rethinks his field, challenging our assumptions about the world. Economics is touted as a science, a value-free mathematical inquiry, he writes, but it's actually a cultural phenomenon, a product of our civilization. It began within philosophy--Adam Smith himself not only wrote The Wealth of Nations, but also The Theory of Moral Sentiments--and economics, as Sedlacek shows, is woven out of history, myth, religion, and ethics. "Even the most sophisticated mathematical model," Sedlacek writes, "is, de facto, a story, a parable, our effort to (rationally) grasp the world around us." Economics not only describes the world, but establishes normative standards, identifying ideal conditions. Science, he claims, is a system of beliefs to which we are committed. To grasp the beliefs underlying economics, he breaks out of the field's confines with a tour de force exploration of economic thinking, broadly defined, over the millennia. He ranges from the epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament to the emergence of Christianity, from Descartes and Adam Smith to the consumerism in Fight Club. Throughout, he asks searching meta-economic questions: What is the meaning and the point of economics? Can we do ethically all that we can do technically? Does it pay to be good?
>
>Placing the wisdom of philosophers and poets over strict mathematical models of human behavior, Sedlacek's groundbreaking work promises to change the way we calculate economic value.

Also: Theology & Social Theory, by Milbank. Theology is not merely one discipline among many, but rather is the queen of the sciences. Drawing on postfoundationalist epistemology, theology intertwines with anything and everything—including "social theory," economics, etc. Your own Reformational sensibilities have particularly attuned you to appreciate this sentiment: There's not one inch over creation whereby Christ doesn't declare "Mine!"

Finally: Philosopher Charles Taylor, and his books Sources of the Self, A Secular Age, and Essays in Political Philosophy. He completely deconstructs liberalism, shows how inadequate and insufficient it is, etc.

You have to blow up the conversation with a waaaay larger macro-lens and get into the way more substantive questions of value, choice, ethics, anthropology, metaphysics, etc.

(Also: I've been on this sub about a year now, lol.)

I'm guessing/assuming that your class will be more of "clinical ethics," that is, the ethics of very specific situations, often on a case by case basis. You should look on your school's database (and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Amazon.com, and the internet in general) for "Health Care Ethics," "Clinical Ethics," "Bioethics," and "Applied Healthcare Ethics."

You should start with Beauchamp and Childress' "Principles of Biomedical Ethics." In some ways you could call it the bible of bioethics. (Which, if you're doing Health Care Ethics, you'll find bioethics unavoidable.) It may seem like a lot of theory at first, but it'll introduce you to a lot of ethical issues in clinical ethics and bioethics.

For something that is a little bit easier to read, but not as well known I would HIGHLY recommend Terrance McConnell's "Moral Issues in Health Care." It's another great overview, but suited more for an entry-level undergraduate course. It does not assume the reader is as familiar with both health care ethics or philosophy as much as B&C.

Lastly, if you have access to an academic database or two, search for articles by John C. Moskop. A very articulate man who captures the essence of any moral issue he addresses. If memory serves he's written a lot concerning Ethics in the ER and consent.

Principles of Biomedical Ethics - http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Biomedical-Ethics-Beauchamp/dp/0195335708

Moral Issues in Health Care - http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Issues-Health-Terrance-McConnell/dp/053424744X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342028073&sr=1-3&keywords=terrance+mcconnell

Hope that helps!

It's of course exaggerated here, but the central idea in this pic, that many things are viewed as unappealing when the person is unattractive but are viewed as appealing when they are attractive, is correct. Attractiveness dramatically changes how you are treated and viewed, and changes how things that you do are treated and viewed.

Your attractiveness can even drastically affect your employment and earnings potential. There's a good book on that topic titled "Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful." It's amazing how our physical appearance can so radically shape our lives.

Anyways, the important thing to note is that treating and viewing others differently based on their attractiveness goes both ways. Men to women, and women to men.

A man could easily see a fat and ugly woman who likes a lot of nerdy stuff and think "man, what a socially awkward weirdo" but then see an attractive woman who likes a lot of nerdy stuff and think "that's so cool that she likes those sorts of things, I love nerdy gamer girls!"

I have been following this project for quite a while. I've seen these concerns before. Investing involves risk. As it goes though, this is one of the most solid projects I have ever seen come out of the crypto space. A solid board of directors with decades of experience, licensing, insurance, audited gold futures for backing, and a great 15 year plan to pay for it.

Very little in the crypto space is a 'sure thing' I've done a lot of research, and I like what I have seen out of these guys. They are methodically building a base of solid information about their company for potential investors to find once their actual marketing begins . They are just positioning for launch right now... and they seem to be wooing big time institutional investors as well as individuals with this.

You are an early to the party with this token.

Serious marketing hasn't even started. Whitepaper & website are coming next, other tokens launching soon, and 14 new exchanges coming . . .

They are involved with top players, and do not strike me as the pump n dump types at all.

Questions:

• Members of the community volunteered to visit the Atlanta site. Ronnie told that it is not possible due to different reasons. Why?
  
• Data centers are highly secure. No their not going to let just anyone in. At some point Ronnie Moas will likely tour it.
  
• Why can't the team reveal themselves?]
  
• They have. As per Arbitrade communications & press releases this is the board of directors :
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  

  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
  

  
  

  Mr. Leonard Schutzman - CEO Arbitrade
  

  
  Chairman and Chief Executive of Arbitrade, a leading coin/cryptocurrency exchange, has announced the appointment of three new independent directors to Arbitrade's board together with two key executive appointments.
  
  

• https://www.amazon.com/Fast-Track-Corporate-Ladder-Turbocharge-ebook/dp/B01IZSG0PC
  
  

  Mr. William Transier - Director
  

  
  Chief Executive Officer of Transier Advisors, LLC, an independent advisory firm providing services to companies facing stressed operational situations, turnaround, restructuring or in need of interim executive leadership. He was co-founder of Endeavour International Corporation, and international oil and gas exploration and production company. He also served as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Endeavour from September 2006 until December 2014 and then as non-executive Chairman until his retirement in November 2015. He was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ocean Energy, Inc., from March 1999 until April 2003 and served in various roles including KPMG, LLP, including that of partner in the audit department and head of its Global Energy practice, from June 1986 to April 1996. Mr. Transier is Chairman of the Board of Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. He has been a member of its board since September 2000 and currently serves as lead Director on the Board of Directors of two non-public companies were he is the lead independent director.
  
  

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNsdeNHzoYs
  
  

  Mr. Larry Meyer - Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Arbitrade.
  

  
  He brings a wealth of financial management experience to the company, having served in numerous positions during a decade with PepsiCo including Regional Finance Director for Pepsi Cola International where he expanded the company and restructured operations. During the decade of the 1990’s, while both companies were public, he was Chief Financial Officer at Toys R Us International where he expanded the business and he was CFO of Gymboree where he turned around the company. From 2001 to 2012, he was Executive Vice President and CFO of Forever 21 during which time the business few from a regional chain to a global brand. He was most recently Chief Executive Officer of Unniqlo's U.S. business. Mr. Schutzman said, “Larry’s brilliance as a strategic thinker, combined with his deal making ability and formidable international experience, makes him a perfect addition to Arbitrade’s executive leadership team.”
  
  

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPOFVNp2X0Q&
  
  

  Mr. Bob DeRodes - Director
  

  
  Mr. Bob DeRodes has over 45 years of experience in information technology, focused primarily in four industry sectors – banking, airlines, payments and retail. He has spent 15 years automating regional banks and was President of Sabre Development Services and CEO of Delta Technologies. He was also CTO, Citibank Global Cards and Executive Vice President of First Data Global Operations & Technology. He served as Executive Vice President and CIO of Target Brands, Inc. Mr. DeRodes has significant experience in cyber security and has been an adviser to the CIO of Homeland Security.
  
  

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIsf2IA0bSM
  
  

  Mr. Brent M. Longnecker - Chairman of the Compensation Committee.
  

  
  Mr. Longnecker has more than 30 years experience in consulting for public and private organizations and has built one of the country’s leading, privately held executive management consultancies, serving both domestic and international markets. Mr. Longnecker serves on the board of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD).
  
  

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay405UORoWk&
  
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sB9My1Q4Es
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  
• Why hasn't anything been done to the websites?
  
• Arbitrade is in negotiations with governments of 'crypto-friendly' countries to secure proper licensing to operate etc. They cannot release information before the deal is struck and their negotiating partners agree. This includes information for an up dated website, white paper etc.
  
• Why is this secrecy all around the project?
  
• See above answer
  
  Expectations:
  
  
• I feel that this bonus token is a trap. The price has been resurrected and - probably - continues to rise until the airdrop.
  
• It's an option not a necessity. Do it, or don;t no worries...
  
• On or around May 31st we will get our shiny new tokens.
  
• Yep..
  
• Around that day another deadline is due. By that time the team will have dumped the DIG and the new tokens.
  
• Dumped it on who? If they are encouraging everyone to withdraw tokens?
  
• Ronnie Moas keeps telling us not to hold more than '3-5\%' of our crypto money in this project and 'I told you it is was risky' and goes on watching the football world cup in Russia. He might have dumped his own DIG and tokens as well. Just like he did with EOS some days ago - while maintaining his endorsement.
  
• Welcome to venture capital. Your Mama isn't going to hold your hand. Deal with it.
  
• Livecoin can easily close the gates again (they did today for several hours). As the token is tradeable only on their exchange (and the majoritiy of DIG will be sitting outside the exchange waiting for the airdrop) when the new deadline is missed and people start to panic they won't be able to deposit and sell.
  
• Crypto exchanges can do whatever they want! So can investors. The rest is up to the marketplace.

Very interesting. I'm surprised the portion is as high as 90%.

I think it's true that libertarians take intuitive moral principles and apply them more consistently than non-libertarians. One interpretation would see this as evidence for libertarianism. Another would see it as a reason to be cautious of extrapolating from simple intuitions.

Libertarian writers naturally adopt the former interpretation, often stressing how consistent the philosophy of liberty is with people's basic ethical intuitions. Examples are everywhere, but here are a couple:

• Landsburg's book Fair Play is about extending the ethics people learn as children to political and economic issues.
  
  
• Caplan has suggested that libertarianism is analogous to overlearning.
  
  
• Ethical intuitionism is sometimes taken, as by Michael Huemer, to support libertarianism.
  
  Not surprisingly, non-libertarians are more likely to favor the second interpretation.
  
  
• The libertarian says, "People are intuitive libertarians until it gets indoctrinated out of them." The statist rephrases this as, "Libertarianism sounds good until you think about it/learn more about how the world works."
  
  
• Less charitably, a progressive friend of mine described libertarianism as "political autism."
  
  A quibble with Ruwart's intro as written at the podcast link: it says she is a "former presidential nominee on the Libertarian Party ticket." But according to Wikipedia, she ran in 1984 and 2008, when the nominations went to Bergland and Barr, respectively.

If they want to run our country like a business, they need this so much.

>Completely revised and updated, the third edition of the Posts' The Etiquette Advantage in Business is the ultimate guide professionals need to navigate everyday and unusual situations in the office—the key to professional and personal success.

>Today, more than ever, good manners mean good business. The Etiquette Advantage in Business offers proven, essential advice, from resolving conflicts with ease and grace to building productive relationships with colleagues at all levels; from successfully networking to winning clients and closing deals. It also offers up-to-date guidance on pressing issues, including ethics, harassment in the workplace, privacy, e-mail and social media dos and don'ts, and knowing how and when to take responsibility for mistakes.

>Written for professionals from diverse backgrounds and fields, The Etiquette Advantage in Business remains the definitive resource for timeless advice on business entertaining, written communication, appropriate attire for any business occasion, conventions and trade shows, job searches and interviews, gift-giving, overseas travel, and more.

>In today's hyper-competitive workplace, knowing how to behave can make the difference between getting ahead and getting left behind. The Etiquette Advantage in Business, Third Edition, provides critical tools for building solid, productive relationships and helps you meet the challenges of the work world with confidence and poise.

ref

As an aside to others' suggestions, a book that helped to get me thinking about the various ethical issues you may face as a veterinarian was "Veterinary Ethics: Animal Welfare, Client Relations, Competition and Collegiality".

It's a slightly older book, but many of the cases it details are still relevant today and will be for you too. That being said, I do remember that the conclusions drawn from two or three of the 100 or so cases were being outdated or unfairly colored by the author. However, they were easy to spot and to avoid.

Disclaimer aside, the book helped me conceptualize ethical dilemmas I hadn't considered in pre-vet, (even with experience in clinics), and was very helpful for my interviews. If you interview at a school that poses ethical questions to you, this could be an asset. The ethical scenarios the book provides are accessible, short, and also entertaining at times!

Hello all. I've been a magician for a couple of years now, and I've been working at the 'family fun-days' and events in my area. I've been amazed by the number of Multi Level Marketing stalls I'm seeing, and I have had a number of conversations with stall holders who do not see the risks of what I thought was a well known scam. I've decided to make a little booklet that I can hand out to people in the hope of saving them the misery that can come with these get rich schemes.

​

In order to get it off the ground, I'd like to give anyone who sees this a free download. Here's a link to my dropbox for a PDF. If you like it, i would really, really appreciate it if you could leave a positive review on Amazon. Struggling to get this seen, so any way you share the Amazon links would be appreciated. PDF direct from my dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qvbsk0eu0cst2y/The_Little_Book_of_MLM.PDF?dl=0

Amazon Links to share: UK Kindle - free on unlimited. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07RPQ5XK8

UK Paper copy https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1098598679/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_R6-2Cb7KVQ4SZ

USA Kindle https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RPQ5XK8

USA Paperback https://www.amazon.com/dp/1098598679/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_-V-2CbHCJJ9SA

holy shit

P U R E

>The big economic story of our times is not the Great Recession. It is how China and India began to embrace neoliberal ideas of economics and attributed a sense of dignity and liberty to the bourgeoisie they had denied for so long



but wait there's more
>For a century and a half, the artists and intellectuals of Europe have scorned the bourgeoisie. And for a millennium and a half, the philosophers and theologians of Europe have scorned the marketplace. The bourgeois life, capitalism, Mencken’s “booboisie” and David Brooks’s “bobos”—all have been, and still are, framed as being responsible for everything from financial to moral poverty, world wars, and spiritual desuetude. Countering these centuries of assumptions and unexamined thinking is Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Virtues, a magnum opus that offers a radical view: capitalism is good for us.

>McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.

i think im going to die from an overdose of ideology

> In a free market workers earn as close as possible to a fair wage for what they contribute, and capital earns a wage for what it contributes.

They earn in proportion to the amount of leverage they have and the ability to negotiate. That's it. The idea that "it's fair if you accept it" is fallacious if the alternative is to starve and earn nothing at all. By the same logic, taxation is equally applicable to them in the opposite direction.

> And the free market ensures we get the systems that provide the most value most efficiently.

Except that's untrue. The amount of waste from food production is tremendous, that owes to the fact people can't pay for it. The same goes with housing. The same goes with anything. Value here is expressed in terms of profit. What's unprofitable, doesn't get produced. That doesn't make what is profitable, efficient.

> Socialism coerces people to form contracts in a certain way that is inherently limiting>makes businesses less competitive>less efficient>worse products at higher costs>harms consumers and therefore harms workers, because all workers are consumers. Worse outcomes for everyone.

This is absolutely untrue. In fact, popular research indicates the exact opposite (here and here).

Here is a PARTIAL list of economics books I've read cover to cover, and why I appreciated Bitcoin earlier than most:
Adam Smith

• An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
  
• The Theory of Moral Sentiments
  
  Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
  
• The Theory of Money and Credit
  
• Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
  
• The Anti-capitalistic Mentality
  
• Planned Chaos
  
• Liberalism
  
• Bureaucracy
  
• Economic Freedom and Interventionism
  
• Liberty and Property
  
• Omnipotent Government; The Rise of the Total State and Total War
  
• Interventionism: An Economic Analysis
  
• Profit and Loss
  
• Nation, State, and Economy
  
• Planning for Freedom
  
  Murray N. Rothbard
  
  
• Man, Economy, and State
  
• History of Money and Banking in the United States
  
• The Anatomy of the State
  
• For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
  
• What Has Government Done to Our Money?
  
• Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature
  
• The Ethics of Liberty
  
• America's Great Depression
  
• Making Economic Sense
  
• Conceived in Liberty
  
• The Case Against the Fed
  
• Power and Market
  
• What Has Government Done to Our Money?
  
• The Irrepressible Rothbard : The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard
  
• Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure
  
• Education: Free and Compulsory
  
• Economic Controversies
  
  And many many more: https://forum.bitcoin.com/economics/blockstream-supporters-mock-those-who-study-economics-t49159.html

Practicing morality; actively engaging with compassion and kindness in your work, whatever it may be :) is 'good enough'. One does not need to do something epic and heroic; if you are helping people that is great :), but concentrating on cultivating day to day morality is enough of a worthy and difficult cause in and of itself; so do not worry too much.

Also check out this book :)!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Work-Thich-Nhat-Hanh/dp/1937006204/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t

Deirdre McCloskey professor Economics UI Chicago (not the University of Chicago although she proudly describes herself as a Chicago economist, and she means the Friedmans, not the city) has published a trilogy, a magnum opus, which although obviously repetitive is magnificent and also magnificently readable.

The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce 2007

Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World 2011

Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World 2016

If you want to use that word in 2017 you maybe might want to at least read a couple of Ms. McCloskey's blog posts. When the 3rd one was published I posted a link in r/economics but nobody over there liked it so it definitely ain't for everybody. The three together come in at over 2000 pages and they are not light.

...i guess? i feel like the ppl most actively defending capitalism do it cos they know what it is & that it benefits them. for example this gem of a book by the ceo of whole foods

By my friend. I am a believer!

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitalism-New-Preface-Authors/dp/1625271751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416173741&sr=8-1&keywords=Conscious+capitalism

Yes. Thich Nhat Hanh talk and writes extensively on how to do this, and it is a practice in retreats in his tradition. He has a whole book just on meditation in work at whatever level.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226556646

The capitalist in your applauds people losing their money? Ever heard of conscious capitalism? The mentality that scamming people of their money is good for capitalism is the reason why capitalism has a bad name and crony capitalism exists. I suggest checking this out: https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitalism-New-Preface-Authors/dp/1625271751

> McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen (2009): Slavery and Imperialism Did Not Enrich Europe. Unpublished.

> Makes sense, considering the content. I don't know where one would even begin to try publishing a "paper" that discards over a dozen different theories in just 34 pages.

It's a chapter from a book she's working on, part of a series. The first volume, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce, was published by University of Chicago press, so this book will probably be published by them, too.

Since your post is just empty sarcasm, I'm not sure which points of hers you object to.