|
SedanChair posted:Libertarian and An Cap thread: Do you want to be this vagina parasite that inhales wallets up her cooch without even crouching? People spend a lot of time being purposefully obtuse. Not much I can do about that.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People spend a lot of time being purposefully obtuse. Pro-austerity Tories chief among them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why would this be? Contract systems have to have rules. If contract systems didn't have rules I could just unilaterally write contracts that declared everyone my slave. "Consideration must be exchanged" is a valid rule, and a key component since all of my posts are in the context of having a contract system similar to our current one. If we are talking about some other contract system, someone needs to sit down and write out all the rules. You seem to be advocating for contractual slavery in a weird vacuum where the only thing that exists is modern, currently-existing contract law and only specific bits of relevant modern law. Except that in a system that allows for self-sale and contractual slavery, contract law would work differently and explicitly allow for it. If I sign a contract with you where I pay you money and in exchange you give me a toaster, you cannot simply walk in one day, take my toaster and say "I didn't like the way you were using my toaster, so I am taking it back." That is theft, and surprise surprise, stolen property will be returned to the owners. Even in a system where we assume Really Nice Slavery where instead of simply ownership, they become your Legal Guardian, you will still be dragged back to your Contract Holder. No court will need to declare you incompetent, because you already waived whatever right you had to that by signing the contract in the first place. No society that has allowed for voluntary slavery has ever allowed the slave to say "Nope, sorry, this isn't what I thought it would be so I am taking my ball and going home". By signing a voluntary slavery contract, you become a new class of citizen: a slave, who has few rights under the law and very little recourse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
As a father with a baby daughter, Stefan Molyneux should be killed, preferably with a guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Pro-austerity Tories chief among them. Great post. A fascinating debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Great post. A fascinating debate. But the only way to debate pro-austerity Tories is with mockery, otherwise people who aren't paying attention mistake them for policy experts. I mean at least doctrinaire libertarians have beliefs. Tories have nothing, they won't even have the wealth their masters promised them in the end. e: I also find Molyneux's image of coins shooting out of a penis to be incredibly revealing, to in essence be the entirety of libertarian thought distilled into one image, that of a golden coin firing out of a turgid caucasian penis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Great post. A fascinating debate. Because you are arguing in such an honest and open-minded fashion, and not at all just shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:You seem to be advocating for contractual slavery in a weird vacuum where the only thing that exists is modern, currently-existing contract law and only specific bits of relevant modern law. Except that in a system that allows for self-sale and contractual slavery, contract law would work differently and explicitly allow for it. quote:Even in a system where we assume Really Nice Slavery where instead of simply ownership, you become my Legal Guardian, you will still be dragged back to your Contract Holder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Great post. A fascinating debate. You didn't say those things, specifically, no. You just happened to say things that align perfectly with those statements. "I never said women and blackies should be paid less, I just said that I don't think we should waste time making sure they're paid equally."
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:You seem to be advocating for contractual slavery in a weird vacuum where the only thing that exists is modern, currently-existing contract law and only specific bits of relevant modern law. Except that in a system that allows for self-sale and contractual slavery, contract law would work differently and explicitly allow for it. I don't think he's advocating for contractual slavery. I think he's just trying to work with JT's hypothetical. Probably a better response to JT would have been "dude you brought up slavery, and you specified how contracts were to be enforced, so you're the one generating ethical problems".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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. To try to keep this as surface level as possible, there are three things that make the internet impossible under what are generally considered libertarian methods of governance, at least as we experience things today. 1) Management of the RF spectrum, without the FCC and its counterparts in other nations, there is no way for wireless technologies to work, and even wired technologies, by sheer matter of physics become near impossible because of the amount of sheer bullshit people could perform if there wasn't a central authority telling people what was allowed and not. Even some sort of business consortium couldn't pull it off because like all the other aggression scenarios libertarians like to bring up, it only takes one bad actor to break everything. 2) The backbones and connectivity the internet runs on now are basically the governments ultimate handwaves about rights of way, property ownership and utility management. They exist basically at the behest of state actors allowing private entities to borrow land and property of the commons for their own profit. The internet as we currently know it is only plausible under full or partial state control. The implied libertarian solution is some sort of contract negotiation which would either make the transfer of data cost prohibitive due to all the people needing to be compensated more than nothing or a bizzare techno pony express system that wouldn't be able to transfer data in the same real time. 3)The system the internet currently funds itself on is a strange ad based creature similar to television broadcasting, as soon as either of the two prior conditions even remotely become a thing the advertising model breaks down without even going into notions of privacy or right to not be subjected to ads. Each network you touch or land owner you cross now has the right for some compensation in a libertarian world, because in the land that property rights are king, there is no commons, only gently caress you, got mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's reasonable. What specific changes to contract law do you think people who support self-sale additionally want to institute? In the only system I'm familiar with (the current one), I don't really see any problems with self-sale. If someone is proposing a new system, they need to define it. Well, for starters, in our current system, self-sale is illegal. Slavery is illegal (except as a punitive action by the State). If I had to guess what an advocate for self-sale would want while only working within a current, modern framework of laws it would be this: you would be a prisoner. You would effectively be selling yourself into prison, except the prison isn't Angola, it's GloboCorp Shantytown or Bob's Backyard Shed. wateroverfire posted:I don't think he's advocating for contractual slavery. I think he's just trying to work with JT's hypothetical. Probably a better response to JT would have been "dude you brought up slavery, and you specified how contracts were to be enforced, so you're the one generating ethical problems". Well poo poo, if it's JT's hypothetical world, then when you signed the contract you signed away your ownership of self to someone else, so anything goes. Tough luck dummy. Shoulda made a more rationally self-interested decision. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:You would effectively be selling yourself into prison, except the prison isn't Angola, it's GloboCorp Shantytown or Bob's Backyard Shed. From what I understand from what you've said, the problem with the contract system you are describing isn't that self-sale is possible and bad, it's that every conceivable contract can lead to bad situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:This isn't a coherent description of a system where you can sell your self. What happens if you don't want to be in prison anymore? Before answering this question remember the sex hypothetical someone else brought up, in the system you are describing, if someone agrees to have sex with me, and later changes their mind does the system allow me to rape them? What happens if I agree to ship someone coffee beans and then don't? Does some authority figure come around and physically manipulate my body to grow and then walk coffee beans to them? So you want me to describe a system where-in you sell your self, or rather, your services, and in exchange you receive benefits. In addition, if you no longer enjoy performing your services, you can just walk away. Good news! We already have a system like this in place. It's called "Employment".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:You didn't say those things, specifically, no. You just happened to say things that align perfectly with those statements. I said there's no practical way to make sure they're paid equally. Workers with similar profiles (years of service, education, that kind of thing) and job titles can in fact be doing different work with very different productivity, and without that information regulatory enforcement would be a poo poo show for everyone. Being well intentioned doesn't make a policy a good idea. Caros posted:Because you are arguing in such an honest and open-minded fashion, and not at all just shitposting. Uh huh. There are a shitload of posters in this thread, most of whom you agree with and would never call out, who would have to go down for dishonest closed-minded poo poo posting before I did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:So you want me to describe a system where-in you sell your self, or rather, your services, and in exchange you receive benefits. In addition, if you no longer enjoy performing your services, you can just walk away. Good news! We already have a system like this in place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I said there's no practical way to make sure they're paid equally. Workers with similar profiles (years of service, education, that kind of thing) and job titles can in fact be doing different work with very different productivity, and without that information regulatory enforcement would be a poo poo show for everyone. Pay the same wage for the same work and similar levels of education and then fire the ones that come in under the productiveness bar at review time. Granted this wouldn't work for nepotism hires but what does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah, I've repeatedly stated that self-sale in the existing contract system would be very similar to employment (it would be a little different in that quitting would create more damages than ordinary employment would, but thankfully we have bankruptcy for that). If you want to talk about a different system, you need to provide a coherent definition for it. What you're looking for won't exist because there is inherently too much risk for the buyer. You could, now, offer someone a contract where they pay off your debt and in exchange you provide services for them, but no business would take it because all you had to do would be declare bankruptcy and then they're out for whatever your enormous debt was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Bureaucracy is inefficient by design, and for good reason. That's not necessarily true, in point of fact! Bureaucracy can be HIGHLY efficient under a remarkable number of circumstances. Like.. Okay simple example. Tag office, where you go to pay the taxes on your vehicle tags and whatnot. Down here in Columbus, it used to be a long arduous process that took hours like ye olde DMVe due to tightly compacted office spaces shared with a buttload of other branches of local government so everything took forever. They opened a secondary building to ease the weight on the central building. You go in to pay your tags, register your car, poo poo like that? Takes at most thirty minutes. Maybe an hour on a really slow day during flu season and half the staff is sick and can't work. But it's hella efficient now compared to how it was- people pay their taxes, register their vehicles, pay property taxes, etc, in minutes compared to the hours it took before. But yeah otherwise I agree with you- it is largely inefficient by design and for lots of very good Reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:What you're looking for won't exist because there is inherently too much risk for the buyer. You could, now, offer someone a contract where they pay off your debt and in exchange you provide services for them, but no business would take it because all you had to do would be declare bankruptcy and then they're out for whatever your enormous debt was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Uh huh. There are a shitload of posters in this thread, most of whom you agree with and would never call out, who would have to go down for dishonest closed-minded poo poo posting before I did. And? You were making a berating comment for someone else having a low content post. I am now doing the same thing to you. The difference is that someone like SedanChair will usually contribute something to a discussion. You seem to exist solely to post about Chile or to pedantically poo poo up threads. Its not just that I don't agree with you on most things, though I don't. Its that your posting is maybe one step above worthless troll posting. Fortunately I have a solution for this! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree that it would typically be foolish to buy someone, and it would probably be rare, which is a part of why I don't see the problem with it (under a similar to current system). Edit: Basically, what you are talking about is not Voluntary Slavery. That poo poo is an entirely different beast. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People spend a lot of time being purposefully obtuse. I'm noticing a lot of you liberries throwing that word around. I think it does not mean what you think it means. We've all been pretty much clear as loving crystal, with the exception of SedanChair who's been as transparent as loving breathable atmosphere because he's a straightforward rear end in a top hat, and you're calling us OBTUSE? Please stop talking and go look up that word in the dictionary. In fact read the dictionary- Oxford, ideally- and come back when you understand English better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Again, what's causing the confusion here is that, by the framework you describe, you aren't buying someone. What you are doing is giving a lump-sum up-front payment in exchange for future services provided. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that right now, but it's a stupid business decision and it would be handled the same way as any contract is where payment is made up-front and then services are not provided.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:And? You were making a berating comment for someone else having a low content post. I am now doing the same thing to you. The difference is that someone like SedanChair will usually contribute something to a discussion. You seem to exist solely to post about Chile or to pedantically poo poo up threads. You forgot the smug. At least J seems sincere, for all his problems I don't doubt that he is trying to honestly say his opinions. Water just seems like he is trying to troll D&D, but he is terrible at it. Sedan could school him something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so we are back to self-sale isn't a problem because it can't exist as whatever definition you have in your head. I still don't see a problem. Like I edited into my previous post, my definition of self-sale isn't the problem. You are literally just describing up-front payments, except on a ludicrously long timeline. That poo poo is legal right now, but you will never find someone willing to do it. What you are describing is NOT Self-sale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You forgot the smug. Yeah, that is my take on it. Jrodefeld is a missionary. If he is a troll he's been working it for upwards of five years on multiple different websites and would put even the greatest troll like toblerone triangle to shame. Wateroverfire just seems like an rear end in a top hat who wants to be contrary, which is why he is on my ignore list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Bureaucracy is inefficient by design, and for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:What you're looking for won't exist because there is inherently too much risk for the buyer. You could, now, offer someone a contract where they pay off your debt and in exchange you provide services for them, but no business would take it because all you had to do would be declare bankruptcy and then they're out for whatever your enormous debt was. Or they'd structure the contract so the buyer makes payments on your debt for the duration of your service without assuming the debt themselves. If you walked away they could stop paying. That's probably what I'd propose if for some reason I wanted to do it. Raskolnikov38 posted:Pay the same wage for the same work and similar levels of education and then fire the ones that come in under the productiveness bar at review time. Granted this wouldn't work for nepotism hires but what does. This wouldn't work for a whole bunch of situations. How people get paid and why is a pretty interesting topic that might be worth its own thread. RuanGacho posted:To try to keep this as surface level as possible, there are three things that make the internet impossible under what are generally considered libertarian methods of governance, at least as we experience things today. This is pretty interesting and thanks for the reply. In an An Cap world where there is NO GOVERNMENT I think you're right and these problems would be pretty thorny. Maybe not insurmountable but certainly much more difficult to work with. In my world we'd just shrug and go "spectrum allocation board seems like a useful solution to this" and call it a day but that's not as interesting to talk about. On the RF issue, is there any benefit to throwing a signal out there that is just going to be interfered with by another signal? If not an industry group could maybe create some standards and help new entrants slot into the existing structure so that everything can keep operating. On #2 my understanding was traffic was often bi-directional so that fees paid for sending traffic would be netted out by revenue from carrying traffic from your network partner. Is that right? If so then negotiated agreements might be possible since nobody has very much to gain. I also thought charging for traffic was a thing that happens now anyway in some circumstances, and that was what all the recent press over Netflix was about. #3 - How is right of way negotiated now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah I've said it before but jrodefeld is literally the best and most tireless and consistent defender of the libertarian/ancap wing that I've seen on the internet. That ain't the highest of bars but it is higher than any of his idols have managed to achieve. Well except Rothbard I guess, dude would say whatever. You hear that jrod? You're the true heir of Murray Rothbard! A CROWN OF PURE AFRICAN GOLD IS COMING TO YOU
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Like I edited into my previous post, my definition of self-sale isn't the problem. You are literally just describing up-front payments, except on a ludicrously long timeline. That poo poo is legal right now, but you will never find someone willing to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:And? You were making a berating comment for someone else having a low content post. I am now doing the same thing to you. The difference is that someone like SedanChair will usually contribute something to a discussion. LOL. Caros posted:Its not just that I don't agree with you on most things, though I don't. Its that your posting is maybe one step above worthless troll posting. Shockingly, I don't think much of you either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok what is self-sale and why is it bad? Please first gives the rules of contractual system you are applying such that self-sale is bad. Also if the system you are applying is your "competent people can irrevocably grant other people legal guardianship of themselves" I agree that system is bad, but I don't understand what you think the relevance of it is. Self-sale is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. I trust I don't need to explain to you why slavery is bad. Even Indentured Servitude, while not irrevocable (as it had a set end point), was not able to be terminated by the servant. This poo poo was enforced by the courts. Why do I think it is relevant? Because you keep talking about self-sale/voluntary slavery, you dope. This is the definition of the word. You keep telling us how you don't see how it would be a problem, but when pressed, you retreat to some imaginary version that only exists in your head and apparently is functionally identical to employment. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:On the RF issue, is there any benefit to throwing a signal out there that is just going to be interfered with by another signal? If not an industry group could maybe create some standards and help new entrants slot into the existing structure so that everything can keep operating. As for "an industry group," there are multiple industries, all with conflicting interests. How would you expect them to mediate among themselves, and why would this be better than just having an FCC? Even with the blue-est of blue sky thinking this would obviously be a trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
One thing I've learned Jack- that it's a trainwreck doesn't matter. The libertarian will support it without question under the impression that they are one of the true captains of industry who will, no matter what, come out on top of the heap after the train has burst into flames. They will have the money and power to do as they please, when they please, and how they please with impunity. That's always been one of the biggest draws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Self-sale is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. I trust I don't need to explain to you why slavery is bad. Even Indentured Servitude, while not irrevocable (as it had a set end point), was not able to be terminated by the servant. This poo poo was enforced by the courts. "It has been asserted, for instance, that the capitalist wage system amounts to voluntary slavery" and "Libertarian Murray Rothbard criticized the term as self-contradictory." I think I'll stand by my "voluntary slavery either can't exist or is effectively identical to the wage system, so voluntary slavery can't be particularly bad" stance (though I do also think the capitalist wage system is bad).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:From your own source: "Amounts to" and "is identical to" are two very different things. Which is what the previous poster talking about rape was trying to get you to realize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This wouldn't work for a whole bunch of situations. How people get paid and why is a pretty interesting topic that might be worth its own thread. Could you give an example of some of these situations because I'm having a hard time thinking of one where a HR printed rubric saying x job has y base pay and this increases by amounts w and z per year of education and experience respectively, unless you're talking about raises and bonuses which my idea doesn't address.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
The idea that people are paid based on how hard they work is pretty ludicrous, really. Last I checked, construction workers and other manual-labor jobs pay by the hour, not by the pound. So the idea that "Well, they don't work as hard so they get less pay" is absurd to me. I'm sure migrant farmers are paid by the pound, but that's an entirely separate beast, I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Depends on the crops. The apple orchards I saw up in Virginia paid people by the bushel and nothing else. You want good pay? Pick fucktons of fruit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:46
|
|