u/Airtightspoon

In the United States at least, it seems as though the way we prioritize history goes something like this:

Greece -> Rome -> France and the HRE for the medieval period -> back to Italy for the renaissance -> Britain up until the revolution -> America

Why does Italy tend to get pushed aside from the fall of Rome up until the renaissance? My understanding is that Italy was actually more advanced and wealthier than much of the rest of Europe, despite the fall of their empire, but if you didn't know any better, you'd think they just collapsed.

In 2023 I bought 20 shares of WWE stock for $89. I basically ignored it for the past 3 years, but I just checked today and it's at $186 a share. I know very little about investing, and only bought the stock because I had heard that the WWE was going to be sold to the Saudi Royal family and that they overpay for everything. I'm thinking about selling off my shares and investing in some of the bigger stocks that always looked too pricey to me like Tesla, Google, NVIDIA, and Constellation. Would this be a good idea? Or should I hang on to it? I don't know how to tell when a stock should be sold or not, or how to to determine how successful a stock has been or will continue to be.

I'm 29 years old and am investing for long term purposes, but I'm tempted to switch my investment over to some of these tech companies because I feel like they should be good long term because of things like AI, and I have a decent amount of cash thanks to this WWE stock. Also, I kind of bought the WWE stock for stupid reasons looking back at it, so I feel like I should invest in some "real stocks".

There's roughly three factions in the modern libertarian party: the pragmatists, the Mises Caucus, and the radicals. When the Mises Caucus took control of the party, libertarians were mostly excited to see the pragmatists ousted. The problem I have is that I don't see how the Mises Causus libertarians aren't just pragmatists of a different stripe.

The MIses Caucus from the outset was stated to be a return to "Ron Paul libertarianism." Ron Paul was the person who started my journey into libertarianism, so I am not going to speak bad about the man, but, he was in many ways a pragmatist. Ron Paul did not espouse pure, Rothbardian-style libertarian policy. Likewise, the Mises Caucus often adopts a pragmatic stance on many issues, such as borders. It seems to me as though the MC are just pragmatists who attempt to appeal to conservatives rather than liberals.

I was using Direct Auto and bought a new car and my insurance went way up, so I went shopping around and ended up finding a much better price at Liberty Mutual for the same coverage. I switched the Liberty Mutual and even paid for my first term a few weeks ago, but I set my coverage to start the day before my next payment with Direct Auto, which is today, so my Liberty Mutual coverage began yesterday.

Liberty Mutual said it will contact your former insurer for you to ask for cancelation, but today I got an email from Direct Auto saying my insurance payment is due. Is there anything I have to do? Or is Liberty Mutual handling it and I can just ignore it?

I understand the contributions in terms of ideas and argumentation that Hoppe has made to anarcho-capitalism, but I'm not entirely sure how "Hoppeanism" as a sub-ideology of anarcho-capitalism really differs from the mainline.

I've seen Hoppeans sometimes refer to this idea of "anarcho-capitalism, but without the ideas of Hoppe," usually to state that it's inferior, but the problem I have with this is that I'm not really sure which of Hoppe's ideas wouldn't be permissable under pure Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. The big thing Hoppeans like to harp on is the physical removal concept, but regular anarcho-capitalists believe a property owner has the right to remove someone from their property for whatever reason they wish. I'm just not really sure what makes being a Hoppean something you would distinctly identify yourself as in contrast to identifying as an anarcho-capitalist.