The Price of Gas

[J’raxis 270145]

Anyway, as for my attitude, and Kola's enmity, it is because I am often and regularly shocked and dismayed at the ridiculously high level of adherence to pseudoscience and superstitious bullshit (including 9/11 "Truthism") I see among libertarians. It is as if when you cast off the prevailing wisdom about the state, you have to abandon reason and the scientific method along with it. Like, if the government approves it or recommends it or in any way supports it, it must be evil and wrong or a lie. ...

Libertarians are contrarians by nature. Sometimes such people go too far though and start rejecting things that there's no rational basis to reject. And, whereas the scientific method itself is rational and legitimate, a lot of the science out there nowadays is just bullcrap pushed by "scientists" doing the State's bidding.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I would love to see gas stations go back to posting the pricing the way they did years ago, where it listed the price of the gallon of gas, then the state tax, then the federal tax, and the final price at the bottom. Might wake a few people up as to what their gas actually costs.

I've seen pie charts, posted by the owner of regional chains here, doing just that. Despite "taxes" being a huge chunk, I've not heard people argue for eliminating taxes. So in short, I'm not sure how much that matters.

Realistically speaking, my upset with the gas price is that it's artificial. Right now it's high enough to bitch about, but not high enough to spur innovation to break the oil paradigm. If it were cost effective, I'd happily trade my oil based vehicle for a renewable based one, it's just not worth it. Rather than making economic incentive to do that, they push a socialist "go green" paradigm and attack fuel use one the ONE aspect that I don't give a damn about.

Anyway, as for my attitude, and Kola's enmity, it is because I am often and regularly shocked and dismayed at the ridiculously high level of adherence to pseudoscience and superstitious bullshit (including 9/11 "Truthism") I see among libertarians.

I can't agree more. I politely refrain from commenting most of the time, but the ads ALONE on Free Talk Live are enough to make me cringe. If I had heard FTL with the ads I hear on the cam feed, I'd probably have turned it off and not given anything said on the show much credit.

That said, I've found that it also tends to be a "conservative" thing. A lot of the mainstream Republican talk have ads only marginally better.

I am a voluntaryist because I evaluate my world and use the fruits of those evaluations to again reevaluate. It does bother me that I'm often lumped into that category because of the persistance at which the "libertarian" and "kook" parallel is drawn.

And, whereas the scientific method itself is rational and legitimate, a lot of the science out there nowadays is just bullcrap pushed by "scientists" doing the State's bidding.

I understand that the government indoctrinates children through the so-called "public" schools, but I've been wondering and examining on exactly how this is done, and the single thing I can think of is that they break down the ability to determine "cause" from "effect". It's something I'm seeing more and more in "the world" at large and I have to wonder if that's not infact the mechanism. Your comment into the scientific method and bad science reminded me of that, because I asked "What is the scientific method". Wikipedia's answer is good, but I recall in school being told that part of "Evaluation of the hypothesis" is gathering evidence to confirm the hypothesis and in the absense of such, declare the hypothesis invalid.

The problem is, human brains are hardwired to find patterns and we too often do. Seeking to confirm a hypothesis too often brings up information to confirm it, even though the amount of information that disproves it strongly outnumbers it.

This article was pretty good, I think.

[J’raxis 270145]

I understand that the government indoctrinates children through the so-called "public" schools, but I've been wondering and examining on exactly how this is done, and the single thing I can think of is that they break down the ability to determine "cause" from "effect". It's something I'm seeing more and more in "the world" at large and I have to wonder if that's not infact the mechanism. Your comment into the scientific method and bad science reminded me of that, because I asked "What is the scientific method". Wikipedia's answer is good, but I recall in school being told that part of "Evaluation of the hypothesis" is gathering evidence to confirm the hypothesis and in the absense of such, declare the hypothesis invalid.

The problem is, human brains are hardwired to find patterns and we too often do. Seeking to confirm a hypothesis too often brings up information to confirm it, even though the amount of information that disproves it strongly outnumbers it.

Yeah—confirmation bias, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and so on.

I've always thought the scientific method involved trying to falsify the hypothesis, not validate it. One tries to think up an experiment that would invalidate the hypothesis, and then tests that.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I've always thought the scientific method involved trying to falsify the hypothesis, not validate it. One tries to think up an experiment that would invalidate the hypothesis, and then tests that.

I think a "neutral" standpoint is acceptable, that weighning all gathered evidence is fair and then re-evaluating the hypothesis with this information. Attempting to prove OR disprove, I think, would create an unfair bias. Wikipedia's definition refers to it as a process of continual evaluation against the hypothesis rather than a singlular and definitive "ruling".

Though what you say has a functional basis. I was simply trying to illustrate that far too many people think that the scientific method is another way to say "have proof" rather than "evaluate the premise".

[Riddler]

heating olio @ $4.93 ish- last week
people are going to be burning their furniture, books, old playboys (egads!) to stay warm dis winta.
or move to da sout

[John Edward Mercier]

It will depend on how quickly refiners increase distillates in storage... not to mention what the early season weather appears to bring.

[coffeeseven]

My wife went to Schnucks yesterday to buy lunch meat. Every single lunch meat at the counter was $8.99 per pound or higher. She bought a scrawny chicken instead.

[NJLiberty]

The price of gas here seems to have stabilized, ranging from $3.93 - $4.03 per gallon depending on what station you go to. Exxon is the only local station to have crossed the $4.00 mark. The others seem very hesitant to go there.

Cold cuts here have pretty much stayed the same, about $6-8 per pound. What has changed is that you don't see the loss leaders as often anymore on cold cuts, or the discounted family "packages." I haven't bought meats from the deli in a long time now. I find it is much more economical to just buy a little bigger roast, ham, turkey breast, etc. and run the "leftovers" through the slicer after dinner. Obviously that doesn't work if you are looking for salami or bologna or such. Short of getting my own cow or goat I haven't found a way around the cheese issue.

George

[Romak]

Find people who have their own goats or cows and make a deal with them. Thats what we did and we get quite a bang for the buck. For heating we picked up 10 cords of wood for free by having a friend log off some crappy hardwood on our land. We usually get paid $100 a truckload for wood that he takes off of our land but told him to pay us $80 and drop us off 10 cords. I believe when its all said and done he will have around 100 cords which he will be selling at $100 a cord if anyone needs any.

[John Edward Mercier]

He paid you $80 and is selling it for $100? Even round in a landing that is an aweful lot of work for $20.

[Romak]

Hes getting paid $200 for a truckload and is pulling out and additional 90 cords for friends and personal use.