|
paragon1 posted:Yeah the whole argument was trying to persuade us that "NO YOU CAN'T INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH THEY'LL JUST LEAVE AND TAKE ALL THE JOBS THEY PROVIDE US WITH THEM" which is a dumbass meme that I am utterly sick of hearing.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
By reading a lot Ayn Rand/saluting a full length portrait of Cecil Rhodes while masturbating would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
I wish there was a libertarian group that was working to defeat trump and wasn't full of insufferable pricks. Oh well, I guess I'll join the democratic socialists or something until the facist menace is defeated. Lord knows the Democrats won't do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:If she has a significant enough of a monopoly so as to prevent the people she's discriminating against from renting anywhere in the city, then yes. Are people born as convicted rapists?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I wish there was a libertarian group that was working to defeat trump and wasn't full of insufferable pricks. As far as I can tell, no such group exists, or possible can exist, without being full of insufferable pricks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:And, generally speaking, if "the free market will provide" was true, wouldn't the rich taking their whatever-job-creating-business-that's-magical fill a void that would be filled by the ~~~free market~~~ anyhow? Like, say Ford does decide to just up and leave the States, closing all their factories. Shouldn't the invisible hand of the market realize that there are now a bunch of skilled car-building people just sitting around waiting for an infusion of capital, thus leading to another, not identical but similar, car company forming? Like, I see lots of problems with both arguments, but how the hell does someone square those two? Those workers are actually too stupid to build cars without a wealthy silver-spoon baby coming in and telling them what to do. All that capital is held by the natural elite of spoiled rich kids, and taxes make them too sad to invest so they will go to a hidden valley protected by holograms and dig in the dirt for turnips instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:alas we've been burdened with "protector of the world" status One of my hobbies is listening to people's use of passive grammar structures and tallying up when it's done to avoid responsibility. Pretty close to 100% so far, and yours didn't hurt that figure. You guys took on that role yourself once you discovered your massive hateboner for communism and the wealth you could amass by invading other countries and then making them pay for "protection". Gianthogweed posted:The nazis turned their economy so quickly because they stole the wealth from the jews. They targeted a class of people they scapegoated due to their business prowess, seized their wealth, and those they didn't kick out they killed systematically. It was one of the worst examples of transfer of wealth to government in history. And they weren't the only totalitarian governments to combine extreme nationalism with extreme socialism. Stalinist Russia comes to mind. As does Maoist China. As does post-WWII United States. You guys spent most of the war selling stuff to Europe, and then once it was over, went over and looted Germany and made Japan your bitch. Those factories didn't dismantle themselves, nor did those rocket scientists and biological warfare research magically appear within your borders! Oh and 360 yen to the dollar for several decades probably helped just a smidgen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:Oh and 360 yen to the dollar for several decades probably helped just a smidgen. They were exporting and we were importing so unironically yes it very much did. I don't know where you're getting the idea we looted these countries. Like, what'd we steal, the last two bricks left stacked on each other in Tokyo? Like the US has done a lot of bad things to enrich itself but post war policy in Japan and Germany has never been one I've seen listed outside of "insured the existence of a military ally and trade partner" paragon1 fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:They were exporting and we were importing so unironically yes it very much did. I don't know where you're getting the idea we looted these countries. Like, what'd we steal, the last two bricks left stacked on each other in Tokyo? At work, phone posting, can't offer more than this for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_plans_for_German_industry_after_World_War_II#Reparations_and_exploitation
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:As does post-WWII United States. You guys spent most of the war selling stuff to Europe, and then once it was over, went over and looted Germany and made Japan your bitch. Those factories didn't dismantle themselves, nor did those rocket scientists and biological warfare research magically appear within your borders! Oh and 360 yen to the dollar for several decades probably helped just a smidgen. This is a bit silly and ahistorical; it's not like soldiers were marching into Germany and marching out with scientists slung over their shoulders. Case in point, CERN was founded because Europe lacked scientific opportunities immediately after the war and were fleeing to the other superpowers in pursuit of those opportunities, not because those superpowers were kidnapping scientists or whatever imagery you're trying to invoke here. In some very exceptional cases it was definitely "we will pardon your crimes as a Nazi" but the overwhelming majority of German scientists that joined either the USA or the USSR weren't in that situation. This is supported by the fact that scientists were fleeing (or had fled from) all of Europe to go work for the superpowers, not just Germany The acquisition of German materials is a different matter that I don't know much about, I just want to address the brainpower issue that you brought up QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I wish there was a libertarian group that was working to defeat trump and wasn't full of insufferable pricks. Ironically enough I'd look to presumptive justice Gorsuch first at this point. I was 100% expecting a Mike Pence clone to the right of Alito on the Supreme but if Gorsuch ever gets his way on the Chevron principle and the Dems don't completely gently caress up 2018 (lol) he might end up being a bigger block to Trump than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 08:16
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Gianthogweed posted:
Noooooo, don't go. We haven't had an honest to god libertarian in this thread for a good while. DeusExMachinima posted:Ironically enough I'd look to presumptive justice Gorsuch first at this point. I was 100% expecting a Mike Pence clone to the right of Alito on the Supreme but if Gorsuch ever gets his way on the Chevron principle and the Dems don't completely gently caress up 2018 (lol) he might end up being a bigger block to Trump than anyone else. How would changing the Chevron ruling somehow be beneficial for Dems even if they control the House? From what I understand, if that Gorsuch gets his way, then the regulatory agencies have to constantly keep getting permission to do things from the courts, which Republicans control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
60 new posts!! ... ah, a creationist showed up to play pigeon chess
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Yeah, at first I was disappointed that I missed a libertarian presenting their ideas, but it turns out he didn't actually seem to have any? Like, aside from implicitly comparing black people to rapists and gay rights activists to Nazis, and generally assuming that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so out of institutional inertia rather than actual disagreement, there was just nothing there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is a bit silly and ahistorical; it's not like soldiers were marching into Germany and marching out with scientists slung over their shoulders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip#Capture_and_detention
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
I'm still disappointed because I still kind of want to know how a minimal government would break up a monopoly without "regulations" or violating the NAP. e: and I just noticed he managed to get in some whining about the NEA that I skimmed over earlier, amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Also, are there any studies proving that the whole "high taxes might be good in the short term, but are destructive in the long term"? Or is it just one of those things that sounds like it makes sense even if nobody actually studied it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah the whole argument was trying to persuade us that "NO YOU CAN'T INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH THEY'LL JUST LEAVE AND TAKE ALL THE JOBS THEY PROVIDE US WITH THEM" which is a dumbass meme that I am utterly sick of hearing. My favorite counterargument is that there's still tons of rich people in places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and California which have high taxes. If they were really going to leave on the basis of high taxes, wouldn't they have all moved to Texas and Kansas and other places like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
The Kansas "Open for Business" policy is now an infamous failure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:It's a necessary exemption. Forcing jews to bake cakes for gay nazis probably also requires a exemption. I wonder if, perhaps, we might have some sort of... suggestion. To some sort of... large body representing the interests of everyone in the country. That would allow said body to use powers to break up monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Noooooo, don't go. We haven't had an honest to god libertarian in this thread for a good while. Gorsuch believes Chevron screws with separation of powers and lets the executive go beyond what the legislative laid out. So I guess they'd need permission from the courts in the sense that the courts would need to OK a certain executive action as squaring with Congress' original intent if a suit was brought. If the Dems had more influence over the lawmaking aspect they could straightjacket Trump harder under Gorsuch's view than under the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
You're confusing two different things: scientists removed from Germany during provided intel value, not scientific research, and they were free to leave after the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
The very idea that Cold War West Germany lacked highly trained scientists and engineers is pretty hilarious. They sure lacked Jewish and leftist ones, but that's because the Nazis had driven away or killed all of those that they could before and during the war. West Germany was a hotbed of science and development during the Cold War, and East Germany wasn't doing shabby on that count either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:You guys took on that role yourself once you discovered your massive hateboner for communism More like rediscovered, I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Though, now that I think about it, I don't really have anything planned for like months after super bowl sunday besides work so uh I guess My roommate and I were working on a podcast of our own, and have mics and a mixer and we can channel laptop output through the mixer to the audacity recording on the laptop, so there's that. I am also working on a sound board. China will grow larger! Gianthogweed posted:I go mostly by classically liberal principles that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples' freedoms. How the details of that are worked out are complex and ever changing as technology changes society, but I'm of the opinion that the government should get involved only as a last resort. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I do think the NAP is a good guiding principle when you need to make decisions about cutting government budget. What if doing what they want, requires operation of a machine? For example, what if they want to produce something, but do not possess the means thereof? Gianthogweed posted:So does that mean anyone who earns over a certain amount (or has a certain amount of wealth) is not allowed to renounce their citizenship without leaving a significant portion of their wealth behind? Have you ever heard of non-citizens earning income in the United States? There are H1-B visas, for example. A citizen who earns income in the United States and then expatriates and renounces their citizenship, still finds that income in the same legal category Gianthogweed posted:Alright, I'm done. Good try guys. Oh no, I keep being too busy to catch these opportunities for highfalutin rhetorical jousting 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Here's the main problem with our political situation today. Both parties are divided. On the Republican side you have the neoconservatives vs. the nationalists. This election pretty much has determined that the Nationalists are winning. On the Democrat side you have the neoliberals vs. progressives. The neoliberals are still in power but I think everyone sees the writing on the wall. The future of the Democratic Party is the progressives (or socialist democrats). The neocons and neolibs are done for. Neoliberalism may have been a good and pure ideology back in the 30s and 40s when it was trying to reverse the totalitarianism of the time, but they've become corrupt warmongers. It's time for them to go. But are we replacing it with something much worse? What happens when your country becomes dominated by a mix of Nationalism and Socialism? A Totalitarian nightmare. The future true left are the libertarians, the ones fighting for freedom both socially AND economically. Lmao true freedom economically, freedom to be owned Go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Let's say you have a fixed budget and had to make cuts. In what order of priority would you put those government programs? let's say you have a fight with me, which you won't, because your ideology is for cowards, in what order should i punch your misshapen dick, your kidneys, and your nose
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
I don't know where else to ask this question, because it's super loaded and I want an honest answer: Did federal deregulation in the United States literally ever lead to a more just situation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I don't know where else to ask this question, because it's super loaded and I want an honest answer: You could make a case for telephones, but that was accompanied by breaking up a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The Kansas "Open for Business" policy is now an infamous failure. Not infamous enough apparently
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:You could make a case for telephones, but that was accompanied by breaking up a monopoly. That didn't really break up a monopoly, it just created 8 new monopolies. The 7 "Baby Bells" each retained full control and very little meaningful competition in their operating territories, and the remaining AT&T Long Lines division retained their full control on the long distance lines and infrastructure related to it. It would take until the late 90s and the rise of affordable cellular phones and cell service for any of the baby bells to see any real competition. There were some useful aspects that happened at around the same time, like making it way easier to use your own phone equipment, making it easier to choose an alternate long distance provider, and so on. But very few people switched to the many small time local carriers that did spring up, unless forced to by a large company selling off a service area - a process that continues to this day, and which usually results in worse service for "unprofitable" areas. And those various useful things also weren't connected to the breakup occurring itself. These days, you have companies like Frontier and Fairpoint whose entire business model is to buy off low-profit, mostly rural, service areas from the big three landline providers (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink), and then cut service and maintenance to a minimum to squeeze out the profit. Sure, you can switch to another provider that you pay for, but it's going over the same lines so you can't really get higher quality service out of a "competitor", just maybe a slightly lower bill. It's an inherent problem of "competition" in such an infrastructure-heavy area. Possibly the closest thing you could say to a "good" deregulation was stuff like when trucking, freight rail and air travel were each separately "deregulated" - but that primarily involved removing government control of rates that could be set. All three industries are still rather heavily regulated in all sorts of different aspects, particularly safety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
...the Tinder libertarian that prompted the question (I swiped right to argue, trust me) just unironically told me that a bakery would open up to sell gay wedding cakes if the existing bakery didn't. This intellectual curiosity exercise turned dogwhistle racist fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Ah the joys of believing that the market is the best way to do anything, including define your moral compass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
For example with airline "deregulation": Before the Airline Deregulation Act, a government agency was in charge of approving all changes in routes and schedules, approving most changes in fares and fare structures, and governing where any given airline could fly in the country. This was performed through the office of the Civil Aeronautics Board. In general, it would take a while for airlines to be able to get new routes going, change timing around and everything like that. There was also much of the current hub-and-spoke model for flight routes. After the act, the CAB was slowly wound down, but the FAA still kept full authority on ensuring aircraft and airport safety. Very few route or schedule or price changes require government approval now (it's mostly limited to changes in service to certain minor/rural airports, which are often contracted by the federal government to ensure service still remains at those small time places). A major change is that most domestic flights became much cheaper than they had been prior to the changes, and consequently a lot more people took flights to travel than would have before - and because of that, airlines generally make a lot less revenue per passenger per mile traveled than they used to, when you adjust for inflation. These changes resulted in a lot of airlines that used to be in business shutting down entirely or merging with other airlines to stay afloat - though it's important to note that this did not tend to reduce competition as before hand there wasn't much of a way for airlines to compete. Since routes, schedules, and allowable fare ranges were all set before hand. Ultimately the biggest change the average airline passenger saw over all that time? There's somewhat more flights available to more places, somewhat cheaper tickets, and more crowded planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
The air mail scandals and the deregulation of air travel are absolutely excellent examples. This is because the regulatory structure in question was completely captured top-to-bottom. We don't really have anything equivalent today.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:...the Tinder libertarian that prompted the question (I swiped right to argue, trust me) just unironically told me that a bakery would open up to sell gay wedding cakes if the existing bakery didn't. I want to start a gay wedding cake store. That sounds fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I want to start a gay wedding cake store. That sounds fantastic. What's gonna be gay, the weddings, the cakes, the store, or a combination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's gonna be gay, the weddings, the cakes, the store, or a combination? Absolutely everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Absolutely everything. That was the only correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Absolutely everything. Fabulous!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:28
|
|