|
jrodefeld posted:What moral claim does anyone else have on my justly earned property? You have an apartheid and child slavery apologist in your avatar. He is your hero. Your discussion of moral claims has no weight. You do not understand moral claims. The vast majority of humanity does not share your understanding of morality. Please understand this.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
The wealthiest people on the planet did not earn their wealth. They inherited already productive properties and companies, many of which (if not all) were taken by force and coercion. State backed or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Jrod, when you're at a restaurant and you get your bill at the end of the meal do you simply walk away without paying for the food and service provided? I'm going to guess not, as that would be stealing and this be morally wrong. And so it can be said that the restaurant has a moral claim to your "justly" earned (the fact that you have never in your life justly earned a single thing is a topic we'll touch on another time) property, in this case in the form of money. And so it's the same thing with taxation. You use our roads, drink our water, siphon our electricity, enjoy the protection of our emergency services, and so much more. You consume and take all of that and then have the gall to say that it's immoral for you to pay a fair price for these things? What sort disgustingly arrogant and morally repugnant scum are you? VVVVVVV Pretty much, yeah. Isn't it convenient that Jrod always suddenly becomes too busy to post right around the time he talks himself into a corner and is shown to be the idiot that he is? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey, can you provide examples of a stateless society fending off a better funded state-backed aggressor like I asked you three pages ago? You don't get to shift the burden of proof on the poo poo you pull out of your rear end. The thread is now at the point where we grab a single point and repeat it in the hopes jrod answers it. He won't, and will instead disappear for a few months until he turns up again in a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:37
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
That may be true but we've managed to at least get SOME of the basic ideas of civilization into the heads of SOME of these liberries so hey, points for that, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Did he ever circle back and explain why he wanted examples of warfare funded by not paper money, but precious gold? Because I think we gave him about 10 examples in five minutes. e: no, it's been abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did he ever circle back and explain why he wanted examples of warfare funded by not paper money, but precious gold? Because I think we gave him about 10 examples in five minutes. As per usual he immediately dropped that line of discussion and is pretending that it never existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:That may be true but we've managed to at least get SOME of the basic ideas of civilization into the heads of SOME of these liberries so hey, points for that, am I right? D&D: Forum imperialists bringing the light of enlightened leftist civilization to the noble savages. No we don't see anything ironic about that, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D: Forum imperialists bringing the light of enlightened leftist civilization to the noble savages. No we don't see anything ironic about that, why do you ask? You're really bad at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Almost all major wars in the history of civilization were financed partially or mostly or entirely through inflation. That is just a historical fact. In fact, can you name a single major war of aggression that was fought in the past several centuries that was not financed with paper money? Every single loving war before the beginning of the adoption of fiat money in the 19th century you loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D: Forum imperialists bringing the light of enlightened leftist civilization to the noble savages. No we don't see anything ironic about that, why do you ask? And we even managed to do it without enslaving, slaughtering, and otherwise oppressing people into licking our boots, farming our turnips, and picking our cotton! God drat we're on a roll, ain't we boys! Let's go hunt some of the native fauna for a larf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:jrodefeld, are you the sort who changes his mind when confronted with better arguments, or are you the kind of person who would ignore a better argument to maintain his original position? I'd like to join the discussion with you but if I'm willing to change my mind when confronted with good arguments or evidence and you are not, it would be a somewhat disingenuous debate. He's been pulling this same poo poo with the same arguments for years across the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Because, given your admittedly off-the-cuff model, there's nothing I see there that would allow for protection of existing civil rights, nor for their extension on issues such as gender wage equality and LGBT non-discrimination, which in general non-shitheads agree should be the case. Or were those in the "etc" at the end? I bring this up as numerous states, primarily but not exclusively in the South, have state laws and ordinances on the books that legalize discrimination in any number of venues should federal supremacy fall away. A federal government like the one you proposed very much resembles the bog-standard libertarian "night watchman" state, with a few cursory elements nailed on to deal with uncomfortable externality issues. Civil rights can be in. We'd probably disagree on exactly what that would entail. For instance, non-discrimination in employment would be a thing for me but wage parity laws would not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:You're really bad at this. You're not really in the target audience for this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:And we even managed to do it without enslaving, slaughtering, and otherwise oppressing people into licking our boots, farming our turnips, and picking our cotton! God drat we're on a roll, ain't we boys! Let's go hunt some of the native fauna for a larf. To be fair you had no power to do any of that nor expectation of ever having the power so it's not much of an accomplishment, at least imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
c-c-c-combo breaker drat man post less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Civil rights can be in. "Women and darkies can work, but not for as much pay as a glorious white man." -A real person in TYOOL 2014
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
DEKH posted:This is so adorably wrong I have to point it out. I mean I actually agree with you, but that's because I'm a big dumb progressive. What you are describing is something that only exists in the context of government intervention. Under the common law or a "freedom of contact" system, your employment is presumed to be "at-will". You may leave whenever you so desire and your employer may fire you for any reason. Unless you explicitly contract for extra rights and privileges, you have none. In a classical contract system as imagined by most libertarian thinkers, an employer may make your continued employment contingent on anything they want. If they don't like you complaining about X, they may fire you, and your "retaliation" claim does not exist. With a few rare exceptions retaliation claims in America come from Title VII, the ADA, worker's comp and whistleblower laws. You have no natural right to these protections absent government intervention. I feel like we're getting hung up on terms and talking past each other a bit. Retaliation is a specific thing defined in federal law, but it's also just a word that means "doing something to get back at someone for something they did", and that's the sense in which I'm using it rather than the legal sense. Of course having a recourse to federal law is contingent on their being a federal law. =) DEKH posted:Prior to the Progressive age there were only a few exceptions to this rule, the big one being you couldn't make someone's continued employment contingent on breaking the law. (Certain protected professions such as attorneys, trustees and doctors had additional projections that allow them to seek compensation when they were fired if it was found that their employment had become contingent on breaking one of their professional obligations or fiduciary duties.) Assuming sex work is legal and I'm employed at-will what is inherently wrong with that other than it probably being a waste of everyone's time? If you wanted a sex worker why didn't you just hire a sex worker? DEKH posted:Here's how the actual economic coercion comes in. In a system without state protection employers make all of their own rules. In the pre Progressive Era it was normal for lumber barons to contract with their employees to release them from any and all liability related to their job. If you were injured it was your sole responsibility. Sure your company had no safety standards, but your employees knew that perfectly well when they started working for you! After all, nothing made you sign the contract! Freedom! You could always look for work elsewhere. The protections we take for granted today, anti-discrimination, workers comp, ADA were all built in opposition to the right of contract preferred by modern libertarians and the old Gilded Age industrialists. They impose additional duties on contracts that would not exist otherwise. And remember these protections are imposed on contacts by force. Don't get me wrong I am glad that you see retaliation as wrong, but don't pretend there's any room in your theory for a retaliation claim without walking all over your precious freedom to contract and natural rights. Any unlimited right is problematic so it seems reasonable to posit that certain things are excluded from for instance the right to contract on the basis that allowing them is either a really bad idea or it conflicts with other rights or anyone who would agree is ex ante a crazy person and not capable of agreeing or etc. "You can't fire somebody for pursuing a valid claim against you" (or something like that) seems like a fair limit to the right to contract.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You're not really in the target audience for this sort of thing. Maybe if you phrased it in the form of an image macro?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D: Forum imperialists bringing the light of enlightened leftist civilization to the noble savages. No we don't see anything ironic about that, why do you ask? Noble savages? I think you're patting yourselves on the back there a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You're not really in the target audience for this sort of thing. I used GIS to find your target audience 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Women and darkies can work, but not for as much pay as a glorious white man." -A real person in TYOOL 2014 Equal pay for equal work is a good slogan and a fine ideal, but it's impossible for a regulator to accurately determine whether two workers who are being paid differently are indeed equal in all the ways that matter except, for instance, gender. A test imposed by law would be a nightmare for companies, for a ton of workers, and for the government. What pay gap remains is going to disappear or even reverse in a couple generations, anyway, as more women move into positions of power and if women keep graduating from college at a rate higher than men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Equal pay for equal work is a good slogan and a fine ideal, but
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Once again Jrod and wateroverfire, I am waiting for your explanation of libertarian information technology because I assert 90% of what you believe in and hold dear is impossible with that pandoras box open and your entire philosophy is a historical relic of vile people who never predicted that statists could make anything like the internet. Go on then, and remember that failure to explain it indicates you're a hypocrite who is using statist technology to argue it shouldn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Once again Jrod and wateroverfire, I am waiting for your explanation of libertarian information technology because I assert 90% of what you believe in and hold dear is impossible with that pandoras box open and your entire philosophy is a historical relic of vile people who never predicted that statists could make anything like the internet. Well, first, I'm not a libertarian and probably not committed to whatever vision of government you think makes IT impossible. If asked to design a system like that I'd probably go to people who know more about it than I do and ask "hey so how does that internet thing work and what do we need to do it" then go from there. But that's maybe getting ahead of things. What exactly is the problem you think is irreconcilable and what kind of libertarianism generates that problem? I read your original post and it didn't really specify.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
McAlister posted:In the current system my body isn't my bosses property, I'm not breaking a contract if I say no, and if he retaliates against me for saying no I have the possibility of suing him for it so that the bad poo poo happens to him, not me. quote:In your system your rear end is literally, legally, your bosses property. Whatever financial distress coerced you into signing the slave contract is still present because part of the definition of the word "slave" is not being paid for your work so unless its time for libertarian word definition roulette again your money problems haven't gone away. quote:Still not getting a libertarian explanation about how children are guaranteed access to education in libertopia at least as good as what the state provides now. twodot fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Equal pay for equal work is a good slogan and a fine ideal, but it's impossible for a regulator to accurately determine whether two workers who are being paid differently are indeed equal in all the ways that matter except, for instance, gender. So what you're saying is that women and minorities deserve to make less because they don't work as hard as white men. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think this habit you have of picking out choice exerpts of writings from various libertarians and making me answer for the opinions of others is an immature debate tactic. Do you have any idea of the shear volume of material that Stefan Molyneux has written and recorded over the years? He has thousands and thousands of several hour long podcasts and call in shows speaking on every topic imaginable, both related to libertarianism and unrelated. Are you loving real?!  You realize I pulled those quotations off google in a handful of seconds right? Like I literally typed in Stefan Molyneux Misogynistic Hate speech and came back with that in the first 10 results. I can find you dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of examples of Molyneux saying equally disgusting things if you'd like. I am limited more by my own personal amount of free time than I am by the number of loving horrible things Stefan Molyneux has said. I could go for days transcribing awful poo poo that he has said on his podcasts and not have skimed the surface of his hate speech. To say that I'm picking out 'choice' excerpts is absurd. quote:If I list him as an influence, am I honestly supposed to answer or agree with everything he ever said? Or if not, do you really think I should be wasting my time publicly vociferously denouncing every word another prominent libertarian writes that I disagree with so I can be super politically correct in front of my leftist friends? Everything he has ever said? No. The overall context of what he has said? Yes. Let me make this clear to you JRodefeld, you have listed as an influence a man who is the leader of a cult. You have listed as an influence a man who was one of the lead speakers at the first annual 'A Voice for Men' conference, the Men's Rights Activist conference hosted by probably the most famous misogynist alive, Paul Elam. You have listed as an influence a man who refers to women as "Estrogen Based Parasites." If you list someone like that as an influence, but fail to actually denounce the horrible loving things that he has said and continues to say on a nearly daily basis, I get to make fun of you for it. I get to point out that you think a goddamned cult leading, women hating sociopath is a good philosophical influence. quote:I find Molyneux interesting. I agree with him on some things and I disagree on others. He has done a great amount of good overall getting people to think about philosophy and anarchy but I disagree with him on plenty of issues. Such as? Do you disagree with him on the things I posted before? The hate speech that I criticized him for? quote:I don't believe for a second that he is a misogynist. He has criticized women in particular in recent years because he puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of raising children peacefully. He personally was abused as a child and he has done a lot of working on the value of not spanking your children and raising them in a responsible way. Since woman typically have the role of child rearing in society and they are the ones who disproportionately hit their children, he is critical of those that do. This doesn't mean that he "hates women". He has been extremely critical of men who beat their children and who don't support their families. I don't believe for a moment that Stefan Molyneux was actually abused as a child to be honest. Keep in mind that Stefan Molyneux lies a lot. He lies about his credentials, he lies about having DMCA actions taken against people who try to to show how much of a vile human being he is and on and on. I don't believe that he was actually abused in any way that a normal person would consider abuse, especially considering that he seems to believe that simply being a single mother is child abuse. quote:But he believes that society has given women a pass and not held them to account in their monumental role in shaping the next generation. Whether you agree or disagree, you have to understand the context. Wait... oh poo poo, wait. Do you actually buy into this stuff? I've been working under the assumption that you just want to willingly ignore his constant hate speech, but this sounds like boilerplate Molyneux which means you've actually heard him say some of this stuff. Do you actually agree with him? quote:Even IF Molyneux is a misogynist and cult leader and Hoppe is a racist, that still does nothing to disprove the validity of the non-aggression principle or libertarian theory. It is the ideas that I am concerned with. I follow a great number of libertarian thinkers, including but not limited to the following: You know the difference between you and me? I don't think I have a single thinker who I quote for my ideas who vigorously spews anti-women filth on a day to day basis. In my similar list there isn't a single person who has had racist newsletters posted under his name (but who totally didn't write them, for realsies!). I don't have anyone who can be accused of being a white supremacist, a misogynist or anything else of the sort. And the other difference is that if I did, I would denounce that motherfucker immediately, because that is sick and twisted. Seriously JRodefeld, why is it so hard for you? I've asked you twice now whether you agree with this statement: quote:"I'd also like to hear your opinion on whether you still believe that this orwellian hellscape is a fair example of your principles in action?" And twice now you have refused to answer. I also asked you "At what point does it bother you that the people you support hold sickening personal beliefs like this." and I think that I have the answer now. It doesn't really bother you at all, does it? You are fully capable of trying to believe that you can separate the vicious Misogyny out of Stefan Molyneux's beliefs and just add it to your dragon's horde of liberty. You don't seem to care at all that you are vocally supporting horrible people simply because they agree with you on some small things. And thats just the worst, because I can't take you seriously at all when you don't even have the sense of self to realize that this is really wrong. I hate to be that guy and godwin it up, but you're doing the modern equivalent of "Hitler had some good ideas", but you can't even seem to gather the courage to say "Yeah, but that jewish stuff was pretty loving awful." quote:I agree with all of these people on at least 50% of what they write and say. Do you honestly want me to waste my time publicly denouncing the views of those I disagree with just for your benefit? It serves no purpose to me. They all are serious thinkers who have contributed a great deal. If one of them makes a bad argument then I am not afraid to say so. As when Rothbard failed to extend the non aggression principle to children in The Ethics of Liberty. He was wrong in that case and I am not afraid to point that out. As I pointed out in a post slightly after the one you quoted, 13 of Molyneux's last 30 videos have had his warped views on women as their primary focus. I'd say since june that number comes pretty close to 50% of what he has said. And yes, I want you to publicly denounce the views of an unabashed misogynist before you try and bring up his philosophy as a good thing. You say that if one of them brings up a bad argument that you are not afraid to say so, but you've yet to answer the question on Stefan Molyneux's DRO's as just one of countless examples. Rothbard seems to be the only case I have ever seen of you saying you outright think an idea is wrong, and that only because it is so egregious that there is simply no defence. Well there is no defence for a man who says things like this: quote:On Marriage: That's their entire job, 'yes' or 'no' Put some false eyelashes on, push your tits up and say yes or no. That's their loving job, yes or no. And that's the foundation of just about everything that goes on in the world, is the woman saying yes or no. quote:On Marriage again: Do you want to be this vagina parasite that inhales wallets up her cooch without even crouching? eeek, some sort of reverse vacuum cleaner that Hoovers coins out of penises? I mean that's not what you want, right? You don't want to be that! Like, we (men) don't know what it's like to get paid for having an organ. quote:On wives and children: "Well if they chose a man who's not around, then they are still responsible for that choice... the woman is the gatekeeper, because the woman is the one who suffers a lot more of the pregnancy. Historically what would hapen prior to the welfare state is the woman who got pregnant outside of wedlock... would go on vacation.. give birth to the child, the child would be given up for adoption, which was in the best interest of the child, because children who are adopted into two parent households do just fine. They do just fine relative to everybody else. quote:Stefan Molynuex about his mother:"Yes she is! That's why she's not loving DEAD now! The bond was strong enough that I didn't loving kill her, and that's my forgiveness." I don't recommend anyone click the links unless they have a strong stomach. I actually feel physically ill from writing some of that stuff, and as I said I have literally just skimmed the surface. I took a couple of trushibes videos that talked about women pretty much at random and this is what I've come up with. So JRodefeld, do you still think that Stefan Molyneux is not a misogynist? A man who literally referred to women as being a 'hole based parasite?' I will absolutely drop this subject as soon you admit that he is, and denounce that fact. Believe me, I want to drop this subject because I am sickened just thinking about how much hatred a man can have for women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Jrodefeld, how do you view the history of the nation state? Was it necessary to have it before we could reach the libertarian view in its maturity, or would be be better off without some of the most iconic and first states, such as Rome, who went all in with public spending, citizenship and concepts such as laws, administration and bureaucracy where participation was not voluntary, but it was forced that you belonged to the nation and could not simply just opt-out? I still want an answer, really. Not just trying to be a dick here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What moral claim does anyone else have on my justly earned property? Whether or not a wealth transfer is popular or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the transfer. And why on earth would you assume that the private sector who need to match the State dollar for dollar in replacing State monopolized social services with private alternatives? Considering that we already both seem to agree that property is simply a development of hairless monkey society to determine who gets what, I'd say we have plenty of moral claim. Under you system, probably not much but then again I don't exactly care about the moral system of a serial killer when it comes to whether murder is or is not appropriate now do I? The moral system used by the VAST majority of the world views taxation as perfectly legitimate in the form of a democratic system of government. If you don't like that, that is absolutely fine and you are well within your rights to attempt to change the moral perspective of society to be in line with your views. Wishing or saying does not make that so however. As for why I would assume the private sector would need to match the state dollar for dollar... basic math would be a start. Social security for example pays out in such a way that it is almost dollar for dollar in and out. If we acknowledge that many people rely solely on social security for their income, then we are going to need to replicate that, and in a situation where it is dollar for dollar you're going to need to be in the same general ballpark. Social Security isn't buying anything, its giving cash payouts and those cash payouts are going to need to be of that same value whether it is run publicly or privately. That or old people starve. Medicare on the other hand, is incredibly efficient as other posters have mentioned. For the people it covers medicare is several times more efficient than any private insurer in the US, I'm honestly being generous in suggesting that they merely need to match dollar for dollar. Fun fact, each eligible worker in the us would have to pay roughly $9,677 in charity to maintain just these programs, while the median amount of taxes paid in america for a household is about $12,000 or so. This is of course before paying for your DRO, every other form of insurance, the military, and so forth that you'd need to live. I'm sure people would be HAPPY to just give that money away. quote:Do you honestly have such a low opinion of our species that you think the only feasible way we have prevent our grandparents corpses from piling up on the streets is to point guns at everyone and steal their property, give it to an "elite" who are above the moral laws that govern mere mortals and permit them to redistribute it in politically motivated ways? Before Social Security 67% of our elderly lived in poverty. So... yeah, I think that social security has massively decreased poverty amongst the elderly, and the only way to run such massive social insurance program is to have everyone involved. No I don't think that involves pointing guys at everyone since that is a false comparison, I could easily ask you whether you think pointing guns at people is the only way to secure private property, since that is the end result if someone doesn't stay off your land is it not? quote:Furthermore how can you prove that you are not falling for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Sure people are doing better now than they were a century ago but how do you know that this progress is due to State actions? And, more importantly, how can you be sure that had the market worked in the absence of State intervention, high taxation and redistribution, that poverty rates wouldn't have continued to decline at a faster rate than under the Great Society and War on Poverty? You know its actually kind of cute to me that you seem to have learned a new word. Was it from west wing? Or did you pick it up all on your lonesome. All I know is that you're not really using it in the method for which it was intended. At the risk of Tu quoque, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that I am incorrect, which is the problem with you simply declaring it a fallacy. For Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc to function you need to be able to show or at least convincingly suggest that my reading of it is wrong, or that yours is somehow more correct. You cannot do that, on the other hand, I can. Take social security. Currently 50% of our elderly rely on social security as their primary source of income, and another 25% will likely rely on it once their savings run out. If poverty among the elderly had simply fallen as a result of the almighty market, then we would see many more people who live off of their own incomes and merely take SS as a bonus that is offered to them. Instead if we were to take Social Security out of the equation we'd see poverty rates rise pretty quickly back to where they were before the introduction of said program. Another example would be Great Society era welfare programs. These programs unequivocally reduced poverty when they were introduced, but as I mentioned, were cut down by people like you more concerned with budgets than the poor. If poverty was on a continuous downward slope it would have gone down and stayed down, instead it went down with great society programs, and then wack-a-moled back up as the funding for those programs was cut. quote:It is not as if poverty rates were stagnant for the first fifty to sixty years of the twentieth century and only started to shift once government intervened. It is a matter of historical record that the poverty rate fell substantially every single decade. Someone up thread covered this. The short version is that you're wrong, but I've spent about an hour and a half telling you so about a variety of things and I have work to do. You wouldn't believe them anyways because statistics and evidence don't matter much to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Any unlimited right is problematic so it seems reasonable to posit that certain things are excluded from for instance the right to contract on the basis that allowing them is either a really bad idea or it conflicts with other rights or anyone who would agree is ex ante a crazy person and not capable of agreeing or etc. "You can't fire somebody for pursuing a valid claim against you" (or something like that) seems like a fair limit to the right to contract. This is one of the biggest keys and a really easy way to dismiss poor ideology. Consider free speech, is it a right? Yes. Does that right literally mean you're immune from the consequences of anything you say or write? Absolutely not. Every time we punish someone for initiating criminal activity verbally we're infringing on the right to free speech and we do it because rights are constantly in conflict with one another. A murdering criminal kingpin can use speech alone to infringe on other rights and we're faced with the choice of compromising one right (life, property etc) for another (speech). Actually coming up with a good solution requires compromise. Besides thinking that his viewpoints are totally consistent, Jrod also thinks being totally consistent is a good thing - it's decidedly not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:bureaucracy CAN be inefficient at times but exists for really good reasons like checks and balances- into a sport for the wealthy to do on their off days, when they FEEL like it. Bureaucracy is inefficient by design, and for good reason. Bureaucracies are designed to keep any given system functional despite brain drain/turnover that occurs by codifying fairly complex things into a series of checklists that any idiot can perform. Sure you are less efficient than you would be if you had a star *insert specialty here* doing the job instead of a team of merely ok guys, but the system also doesn't grind to a halt when the superstar dies, retires or just plain quits otherwise. Bureaucracy maintains stability, and civilizations that lean upon it heavily tend to last, meanwhile the number of dead empires/kingdoms that primarily relied on the capabilities of a few good people fill entire reams of history books with their falls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:I don't recommend anyone click the links unless they have a strong stomach. I actually feel physically ill from writing some of that stuff, and as I said I have literally just skimmed the surface. I took a couple of trushibes videos that talked about women pretty much at random and this is what I've come up with. Since you have the stomach for wading through Molyneux I have to ask, didn't he try to make a sockpuppet account on one of his videos as a reasonably educated 21 year old woman who agreed with everything he said, but forgot to logout of his real account first? I seem to recall somebody in the MRA hate-o-sphere loving up that badly and I think it was him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Since you have the stomach for wading through Molyneux I have to ask, didn't he try to make a sockpuppet account on one of his videos as a reasonably educated 21 year old woman who agreed with everything he said, but forgot to logout of his real account first? I seem to recall somebody in the MRA hate-o-sphere loving up that badly and I think it was him. The incident you're thinking of occured when he reposted this comment in his "The Truth about Frozen": quote:I love this. You totally kinda ruined frozen for me but i really enjoyed this a lot more than the actual movie. And you really got me thinking about a lot. Being an attractive young woman, I understand what is like to be seen as nothing more than a sex doll. I also know what it is like to use that to my "advantage" to "get over" the system. HELL I even know what it is to suffer mental illness, only to be told bu my parents to ignore it. HOWEVER, despite all of this I feel like I have learned more lessons from everything that has happened in my life. Thank you so much for posting this. Honestly I want to make a difference in the world, and I looked to people like you to sort of guide me in the right direction. THANKS SO MUCH. By everything I've read it appears to be a real quote. Stefan loves reposting quotes from people who work the shaft because his is an egotistical cult leading sociopath, and it looks like he didn't bother citing the quotation in this instance. I honestly don't think he'd bother sock-puppeting since he has loyal followers to do that for him. Personally what is more concerning to me is that Stefan Molyneux did a 61 minute video commentary on a disney children's movie about female empowerment to explain how all the female characters in the film are insane and its actually the men in the movie that are the protagonists. But that is par for the course for him really, this is the man who did a two hour video apologizing for mass shooter Elliot Rodger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Alright that's more reasonable, still doesn't make him any less hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Alright that's more reasonable, still doesn't make him any less hosed up. No, no it does not. At some point in the next day or so I'm going to do a big write up on Molyneux, his shift from 'liberty' to his new focus on anti-women views and his connection to groups like A Voice for Men. Not directed at JRod, but just as an informative thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So what you're saying is that women and minorities deserve to make less because they don't work as hard as white men. Got it. None of that is what I said, bro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:You would be pretty loving stupid to sign a slavery contract that didn't compensate you somehow. If you for some reason did, the contract would most likely be invalid since there was no consideration exchanged, and you could break it consequence free. The libertarian ideal of the justice system is effectively a big computer that we stick a contract in one side and get a judgement in favor of whoever can 'hack' the system the best out the other. If the justice system declares a contract void in part or in whole, then it's allowing one of the parties to the contract to violate the rights of the other party to the contract. They agreed to the contract without any consideration, so they're required to uphold the contract. Taken to the ultimate conclusion, laws are just an implicit contract between parties that any other contract can completely rewrite subject to the agreement of all parties involved. This contract is divinely ordained (or whatever axiomatic copout you prefer) and looks like some hosed up synthesis of the last 400 years of common law as interpreted by some guy with a learning disability and enough speedballs in his system to kill a horse. If carrying out the terms of the contract means that some third party's rights rights are violated, then it's up to that third party to make the complaint. The only form of tyranny is the government acting of its own accord and not someone else's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:They agreed to the contract without any consideration, so they're required to uphold the contract. edit: Also your "they're required to" wording ungracefully ignores that I've been saying the whole time that the specific response to people who do break contracts is very important here. You can demand whatever you want from people, but short of mind control or physically moving their body around, you can't guarantee they will do it. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Libertarian and An Cap thread: Do you want to be this vagina parasite that inhales wallets up her cooch without even crouching?wateroverfire posted:None of that is what I said, bro. You spend a lot of time saying what you didn't say, like every pro-austerity Tory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:24
|
|