Fix-US

Where did he state that debt wasn't bad?

I do agree with him that the baby boomers who are now retiring are going to be a huge problem. 

Oh, sure, ok, please explain your road-map to a better system.  I'm all ears.

Get rid of taxation; get of rid of centralized governments; privatize everything. Let policy be subject to the free-market. Does this not suffice? 

People who have basic food, clothing and shelter are less desperate and less likely to become criminals.

This is perhaps the largest abuse of statistics: conflating an observed trend with psychic readings of the future. Those who often cite a statistic do little to avoid the ecological inference problem. For example, Athias has purchased sweets every Saturday since he was twelve. It's likely he'll purchase sweets this Saturday. This is a sound inductive argument. Next, 60 percent of men who are six feet tall and above have purchased sweets every Saturday since they were twelve. It's likely that Athias will purchase sweets this Saturday as well. This argument is unsound. There's no empirical data on Athias in determining the prospect, just the group in which he is categorized. 

All the statistic can tell you is that which it observes at the moment, which is already based on an assumption using "confidence intervals." You can make an inductive argument assuming all conditions remain the same, but that'll never tell "what is likely?" 

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

It's not a mystery. And yes crime will never be solved. Can it be mitigated? Yes if you can make the cost of committing the crime larger than not committing the crime. Can you write a policy measure which operates on an algorithm addressing the subjective values of each individual citizen? Good luck.

Where he mentions that you should learn to use debt as money (borrow fiat to trade real assets, like real estate).

I'm surprised you haven't suggested a "Logan's Run" solution.

Do you really trust corporations to "do the right thing"?

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

What's your hypothesis regarding poverty and crime?  100% coincidence?

I love that you believe every criminal is a unique snowflake.

Of course, I don't simply presume that the absence of a central government would be a fix. But it would be a start. A moral revolution would have to take place as well. 

Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?

Mitigated? Make non-violent illegal stuff legal. Solved? Not in the near future bc as long as Ferrari's exist and only some can have it, some will want it and get that Ferrari anyway they can... falling under legal or illegal. The real question is... Can you cage a human? I'm neutral to stuff, i'm a minimalist... but is the world like me... no. People exist... the more we cage someone from living, the more there will be crime. Location and family matter too... if i didn't come up in a loving family and middle class, i'm the type that would have resorted to crime most likely seeing that even with a cushy life i did criminal behavior in my drug days... why? Bc i wanted cash and cool stuff... and to get high and have sex. Thank Zeus i didn't go to prison bc if i did and had a record i wouldn't have my job most likely...so, i'd either be dead by now or a drug lord. You can't cage humans. I would have lived no matter what... and fortunately for society, my way just happened to go down the legal route. It's a roll of the dice.  

Would you call yourself a "wild-west" "live and let die" libertarian?

What do you think would happen if we tried our best to give each kid an equal shot at life?

Correction: I believe every individual is a "unique snowflake." Though, I don't know how this is relevant.

You seemed to be suggesting that each person is too unique for a general policy to apply to them.

Do you believe we should strive to have a system of laws that are custom tailored to each person individually?

it's that policy won't achieve its intended result if it seeks to "solve" crime. General policy can only achieve some amount of acquiescence by exploiting the fear of death. But even that goes so far. 

A society is a co-operative group of inter-dependent members.  Not a bunch of self-sufficient-individuals.

a dipyramid geometry patter <> with a fat middle class girdle i.e. very few at the top and at the bottom of the social order

I've seen this one before, I believe it's called, "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

You're basically saying, you know for an ever-loving fact that "crime can never be solved", therefore you reason that anyone who even attempts such a feat is full of stuffing.

Have you considered what a "society" of self-sufficient-individuals would look like?

It's not a society, it's a bunch of hermits.

A society is a co-operative group of inter-dependent members.  Not a bunch of self-sufficient-individuals.

A self-sufficient-individual is, by definition, anti-social.

a dypramid geometry patter <> with a fat middle class girdle i.e. very few at the top and at the bottom of the social order

Not at all. Consider David Riccardo's Law of Comparative Advantage in a microeconomic context. Whatever I decide to do with my time will produce an opportunity cost. Now I may not be reliant on anyone to provide my basic needs, but that doesn't mean that it would be in interests to attempt to do some of these tasks somewhat inefficiently unless my goal is isolation, which you unwittingly conflated with individualism.

For example, I know how to cook; but I still go out to eat. Do you I "depend" on chefs to eat? By delegating some tasks to others who have also taken on an opportunity cost to specialize, I can focus on my own specialization(s) and cultivate expertise and efficiency as a result.

So no, I disagree with your description of a society. A society is a circuit of specialized individuals who trade resources (whether it be property, skills, or even company) in order to bring about a condition in which they believe they ought to live. As individuals, the extent of their participation begins and ends with them.

This countermands Statist proproganda because it doesn't mesh with the notion of "dependency," which is just a platitude democracy proponents use to justify coercing minorities and dissenters into participation.

Wittingly.

Ok, sure, but do you have the ability to grow your own food, weave your own clothes, and build your own house?

People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.

Great, so where does "law and order" come from?

Can we rely on mob rule?

How do we defend against vigilantes?

People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.

Ok, sure, but do you have the ability to grow your own food, weave your own clothes, and build your own house?

Yes, yes, and yes. Whether I do this efficiently requires skill, which can be gained through an apprenticeship or through trial and error. 

Great, so where does "law and order" come from?

From the very mechanism I just described. It's simple game theory: each participant engages interaction with a set a preconditioned stipulations to which each party agrees.

Each player participates to the extent he or she is willing. Each player is allowed to exit with no less than they came in.

This forum is a great example: I agree to terms before joining this forum. There are rules and regulations imposed by the sites owner, and overseen by his/her moderators. If at any point I don't agree with terms, I can simply exit the arrangement.

Since the owner of the site as per the descriptions "owns" the site, I don't have any claims, so my exiting the arrangement would amount to no longer participating on the site. 

Can we rely on mob rule?

How is that different from democracy?

How do we defend against vigilantes?

Private security.

People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.

Nothing which can't be learned again; like riding a bicycle.

I'm impressed.

However, I'm pretty sure a good 80 to 90% of internet denizens would die on your "mad max" prairie.

With no contract law and no enforcement mechanism, con-artists and mafiosos win every single time.

Based on what?  General good-will?

Are you advocating a barter system?

Corpus Juris Civilis is an evolution of mob rule.  The difference is like the difference between a wild bull and an ox.

When you say "private security" do you really mean "mafiosos"?  I'm not sure I can tell the difference.

I guess I'll have to trust you to teach me.

I don't know what you mean by dypramid...