|
Branis posted:I really wish we could get a solid definition of personal freedom. What freedoms do I have that the average european does not? The freedom to be unable to afford my ultra high deductible health insurance, so despite being insured I still can't afford the the average doctor visit. Is it just guns? is that it? I'd give up all the guns for a more socialist country in a heartbeat. The best part is that there's still plenty of countries that let you own firearms, albiet with more restrictions than the US, that have evil socialist healthcare.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
LP97S posted:The best part is that there's still plenty of countries that let you own firearms, albiet with more restrictions than the US, that have evil socialist healthcare. Guns and evil socialist healthcare cannot coexist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
redmercer posted:You get to say the Holocaust didn't happen Pretty much this. If you're a hateful racist, America is the place for you, because ain't nobody gonna get in the way of your constitutionally guaranteed right to keep being a hateful racist. I should state in fairness, though, that this actually more reasonable to me than the alternatives. The harsh German laws against anti-semitism & Nazi celebration, for example, haven't exactly brought about the end of racism, and I dislike the idea of locking-up dissenters - even if they're dissenting for racist reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
LP97S posted:The best part is that there's still plenty of countries that let you own firearms, albiet with more restrictions than the US, that have evil socialist healthcare. There are even countries that require you to own firearms in your home, if you're male, that have uhc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:There are even countries that require you to own firearms in your home, if you're male, that have uhc. Obviously to defend their socialist dictators from the progressiveness of the Free Market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
ParaPraxis posted:Just the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independance and gave us the majority of the country's landmass. No big deal. Do you have a source for this quote? I looked it up because I wanted to read the whole letter, but all I can find is other letters to Correa without that quote mainly on Jefferson's proposed elementary school system, and websites posting the quote claiming its from the letter, but not the actual letter itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well there are also states in America that still have anti-miscegenation laws on the books, so it's not like if America has it it must be good. I don't think France is some kind of hellhole but the headscarf law (and yeah, it was a headscarf law) isn't really a great example of progress in the personal freedoms department. I'm pretty sure there are no more laws on the books. I think Alabama got rid of the last one in ~2000. It only took them 33 years to muster enough popular support to repeal an unconstitutional law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Toffile posted:I'm pretty sure there are no more laws on the books. I think Alabama got rid of the last one in ~2000. The vote to remove the anti-miscegenation law in their Constitution passed in 2000 by 59-41. Let me repeat that. Just over a decade ago, 40% of voters in Alabama voted for keeping laws against interracial marriage in their State Constitution even though they couldn't be enforced anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Here's a fun piece that's been making the rounds on the Facebook recently, and always gets my rage gland working quite well. Hell, if you want a really simple argument against Joe Arpaio, it's that his office has paid out $43 million dollars in settlements. If you want to  CUT SPENDING then maybe a sheriff that gets constantly sued for killing people isn't the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The vote to remove the anti-miscegenation law in their Constitution passed in 2000 by 59-41. Let me repeat that. Just over a decade ago, 40% of voters in Alabama voted for keeping laws against interracial marriage in their State Constitution even though they couldn't be enforced anyways. 400 Mississippi Republican Primary Voters polled by PPP in March of 2011:   There's some prominent levels of craziness in our mainstream political parties today, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:400 Mississippi Republican Primary Voters polled by PPP in March of 2011: I lazily read this as gay marriage at first, and thought, "Wow, that's gr- oh, gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:27
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The vote to remove the anti-miscegenation law in their Constitution passed in 2000 by 59-41. Let me repeat that. Just over a decade ago, 40% of voters in Alabama voted for keeping laws against interracial marriage in their State Constitution even though they couldn't be enforced anyways. Alabama is a strange place. http://globalgrind.com/news/alabama-votes-keep-racist-language-state-constitution-2012-details
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:400 Mississippi Republican Primary Voters polled by PPP in March of 2011: The 'not sure' on these questions always just slays me. "Well, gosh, both sides have good points..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Androc posted:The 'not sure' on these questions always just slays me. Maybe the answer is in the middle. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Androc posted:The 'not sure' on these questions always just slays me. "It's so tough. On the one hand, they are people and we're supposed to be equal. On the other hand, you know, darkies."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
The not sure's were folks who know via extreme social stigma they aren't supposed to ever publicly declare they are against such a thing, but when they actually imagine someone in their family doing it it makes them sick. So many emotions... I'm not sure!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
To be slightly fair to some Alabama voters, I know a few people who vote "no" on every amendment because they want legislators to write a new, non-lovely constitution, rather than working with a crappy, jury rigged one that's held together with duck tape. On the other hand, I don't think that reflects a majority of the "no" votes. As for the "racist language" thing, the article itself states: quote:Ironically, efforts to keep the racist rhetoric were lead by a teacher's union and a Black lawmakers. They argued that taking out the racially-charged rhetoric would also lead to the removal of language that guarantees state funding for public education. Our constitution is that loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:This is one of the most vile, disgusting things I've ever read -- a minor celebrity in my field attacks the idea of conference diversity. It's like a D&D greatest hits track of white privilege, wrapped up in pseudo-academic rhetoric. Luckily, the vast majority of my field is appalled by poo poo like this. The guy behind that bullshit is back, explaining what capitalism really is with an wonderfully over-designed website called Capitalism Is. Here's a teaser: quote:Familiar with capitalism? This poo poo makes my head hurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Whoa this quiz owns: Should every individual have a right to employment? yes Incorrect. Yikes! If there is a right to have employment, it imposes an obligation for someone else to provide a salaried position. Such tyranny is immoral. According to your answer, your preferred social system is fascism. Edit: Oh hey Rand and von Mises. That explains that then. namesake fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
One of the questions compares regulations and subsidies to giving vegetarians 20 meters advantage in a foot race. The last question asserts that supporting public policy to positively address the common good is communist, which I guess includes the precious United States Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:One of the questions compares regulations and subsidies to giving vegetarians 20 meters advantage in a foot race. The last question asserts that supporting public policy to positively address the common good is communist, which I guess includes the precious United States Constitution. Yeah that they had to resort to "allegories" for half the quiz quesions is a pretty amazing. Reality need not apply at capitalism is dot com.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The guy behind that bullshit is back, explaining what capitalism really is with an wonderfully over-designed website called Capitalism Is. Here's a teaser: quote:Capitalism has nothing to do with business or money. It's a social system based on individual rights and objective morality, and the only just social system ever conceived by mankind. I'm a little far from my uni economics courses but since when does capitalism advocate for, or even just posit, "objective morality?" Oh wait, I forgot we were dealing with Randroid fuckwads who think all economic systems except laissez faire capitalism are inherently immoral. quote:Capitalism is the only social system that advocates and upholds justice and individual liberty. Exactly what economic system does he think existed in the antebellum South? His response would probably just be a "no true capitalism" fallacy, right? Or maybe, "There wouldn't have been any slavery if not for the big bad government?" I wonder what his opinion is of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... quote:Capitalism is the only social system that creates wealth. I'm pretty sure Sweden, Norway, Finland, and pretty much every nation with hefty doses of socialism in their mixed economies would disagree with him there. And don't forget the millions of people doomed into further poverty (as well as some of the most egregious human rights abuses in history) by capitalism as a result of nations and corporations taking advantage of them for their own gain, e.g. Banana Republics throughout South and Central Americas, Pinochet i.e. Hayek's best friend, etc. quote:Capitalism is the only social system that distinguishes genuine rights from tyranny. The gently caress? What does this even mean? Is this more Von Mises, Austrian School, and Rand bullshit about how it's "government tyranny" to have programs to help the poor and disadvantaged and how taxes are "theft?" quote:Capitalism is the only social system that allows men to be rational and virtuous. Again, I'm pretty sure all humans, everywhere, forever would have a bone to pick with this smug gently caress about how they aren't "rational and virtuous" because they aren't objectivist libertarians like him. quote:Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes your right to your own life. Is this just more libertarian bullshit about how taxes are theft or is this that even more vile strain of libertarianism which argues people should be able to sell themselves into slavery (though Rothbard argued against this)? I know one of his previous points is about how capitalism "does not advocate institutionalized slavery," but what about "voluntary slavery?" namesake posted:Whoa this quiz owns: So, people don't have a right to employment, but government is also not allowed to provide people with services (especially since taxation is theft and a form of socialism) like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. to make up for them not having the means to provide these things for themselves because they don't have jobs? What happens to these people if they don't have jobs and there's no government programs to help them? Hmm, let me guess, some combination of "the invisible hand" and "churches and charities will take care of them" or will it be a good, old-fashioned "gently caress you, got mine?" Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
You have to remember that a lot of these people do believe that Other People should just die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:What happens to these people if they don't have jobs and there's no government programs to help them? Hmm, let me guess, some combination of "the invisible hand" and "churches and charities will take care of them" or will it be a good, old-fashioned "gently caress you, got mine?" Should every individual have a right to employment? Yes: Incorrect. Yikes! If there is a right to have employment, it imposes an obligation for someone else to provide a salaried position. Such tyranny is immoral. According to your answer, your preferred social system is fascism. So probably the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:One of the questions compares regulations and subsidies to giving vegetarians 20 meters advantage in a foot race. The last question asserts that supporting public policy to positively address the common good is communist, which I guess includes the precious United States Constitution. The question posits that you are a racer who continues to eat meat even in the face of such regulations, causing you to lose races and prize money. Why would you, as a rational person, continue to eat meat under such a system? It's really a stupidity/stubbornness tax. Capitalism Is posted:Allegory - You’ve landed a new job! On your first payday you get no paycheck and instead are informed that for the first 4 months of your employed year your salary will go to your employer, who will use those funds for various company initiatives and to supplement lower-paid staff members’ salaries. Dumbfounded, you ask a colleague about this. She observes that you obviously make more than her, since she doesn’t have to participate in that program; only the higher-paid people do. Is this a fair policy? Whatever my employers decide to do is fair, at least under a free-market system. After all, if I don't like the terms of my employment, I'm free to work for another company or strike out on my own, aren't I? Why do you hate the free market, Capitalism Is?  E: The analogy also fails because it presumes that I wasn't told about my being taxed before my first payday; i.e. that the company got me to work through them through fraud. But if you live under a government, how could you not know that you're going to be taxed? Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The guy behind that bullshit is back, explaining what capitalism really is with an wonderfully over-designed website called Capitalism Is. ETA: I also like how the 'incorrect' answers are all "Yes!  " whereas the 'correct' answers are "NO NO NO NO NO NO! " Sounds right at home in the Party of No, doesn't it?
Urban Space Cowboy fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
What was the GDP of the Soviet Union in 1920 versus, say, 1970? Either systems other than capitalism create wealth, or they've got to concede the Soviet system as being capitalistic (and, ideally, forfeit its use as a bogeyman in the future.) VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What was the GDP of the Soviet Union in 1920 versus, say, 1970? The guy being discussed probably believes the US still has the highest standard of living. I love it when I hear people say this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Oh sweet baby Jesus, look at this guy's personal webpage: http://www.andyrutledge.com/ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Well he doesn't have terrible taste in beer, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
 quote:Thanks for taking the quiz. Your answers do not indicate a working understanding of liberty, rights, or capitalism, so we hope you take the time to investigate and study the information found at the links listed below.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
Do all Objectivists list all their ubermenschian titles that they call themselves whenever they try to communicate with anyone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
"Hi, I'm John Galt, swordsman and capitalist."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:Do all Objectivists list all their ubermenschian titles that they call themselves whenever they try to communicate with anyone? Of course, more titles=more accomplishments=more worth, duh. It's just a totally logical and not at all pathetic way to present yourself as a well rounded person with skills that are totally applicable to pretty much every part of modern life. Glitterbomer, poster, gay uncle, multiple time winner of buffalo wing eating contests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Oh sweet baby Jesus, look at this guy's personal webpage: This is probably getting dangerously close to dogpiling, but here's another  from the same guy. When I first read it, I laughed, because I thought the deadpan tone and delivery was hilarious. Then I read about "capitalistic morality" and realized he was serious."Of Beards and Men posted:A man should have a beard. There's more in the comments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
I thought this guy was some kind of freedom loving objectivist, but then goes on to spew invective and bile against people who don't have beards, which is something he considers "compulsory?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Dude's got a beard for a beard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I thought this guy was some kind of freedom loving objectivist, but then goes on to spew invective and bile against people who don't have beards, which is something he considers "compulsory?" I imagine the "logic" goes something like this: Allegory! If a man in the woods doesn't have a beard is he really a man at all? Congratulations, you sound like a capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
I wonder how he feels about women who don't shave their armpits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I wonder how he feels about women who don't shave their armpits. I wonder how he feels about men that can't grow facial hair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:53
|
|