|
Caros posted:Can I please answer. I know the answer! *Looks desperately around the otherwise silent class* Anyone besides Caros?
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
So this came up earlier in the Ebola thread, and I'm going to leave it as an open question to Jrod or any libertarian who feels like taking it up. How the gently caress does the free market deal with Ebola? What mythical market process exists which would help contain the spread of any rampant disease, either domestically or abroad? paragon1 posted:*Looks desperately around the otherwise silent class* 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Keep in mind when answering the Ebola question that while the status quo handled it poorly by only reacting when it got really super bad, it's not enough to say "the status quo went poorly ergo we must do my thing", because as I mentioned before, you need to demonstrate what Libetarianism could do different that the status quo cannot. For example, "It would be profitable for them to make a vaccine and so someone would have made one!" is not a valid answer because the way our current funding of disease research is built around "what is profitable to cure" and so pointing out Libertarianism shares that fault is not a point in your favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Keep in mind when answering the Ebola question that while the status quo handled it poorly by only reacting when it got really super bad, it's not enough to say "the status quo went poorly ergo we must do my thing", because as I mentioned before, you need to demonstrate what Libetarianism could do different that the status quo cannot. For example, "It would be profitable for them to make a vaccine and so someone would have made one!" is not a valid answer because the way our current funding of disease research is built around "what is profitable to cure" and so pointing out Libertarianism shares that fault is not a point in your favor. What it can do is not be the most profoundly immoral thing ever to exist, because it violates the one rule which is supreme because I say it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
I don't see how you're expecting a group of people who can't answer how they're going to string tin cans together for communication to tackle something full of coercive aggression like "I'm infected with disease and I'd like help." How this doesn't already invoke libertarians treating the world like zombie apocalypse I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I don't see how you're expecting a group of people who can't answer how they're going to string tin cans together for communication to tackle something full of coercive aggression like "I'm infected with disease and I'd like help." Well to be fair, libertarian DRO road warrior seemed pretty cool, so why wouldn't lib Zombie Apocalypse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:So this came up earlier in the Ebola thread, and I'm going to leave it as an open question to Jrod or any libertarian who feels like taking it up. In their attempt to stop the spread of the disease and protect their costumers, Valhalla DRO™ will valiantly drop incendiary bombs on infected areas. Some Valhalla DRO™ costumers might be living in those areas, but by being infected with Ebola they have become aggressors against people who aren't, thus invalidating their terms with Valhalla DRO™.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:So this came up earlier in the Ebola thread, and I'm going to leave it as an open question to Jrod or any libertarian who feels like taking it up. the only way to save ebola is to make ebola profitable PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Do libertarians masturbate to Jennifer Government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:How the gently caress does the free market deal with Ebola? What mythical market process exists which would help contain the spread of any rampant disease, either domestically or abroad? In a libertarian society, only three types of people will succumb to ebola:
* The retort "how does one know whether a given person is infected? It's practically undetectable during the initial incubation stage!" merely reveals the stupidity of the questioner. It is economically useful to know whether or not a person is infected with ebolavirus, and therefore the market will provide tools to ascertain an answer. Some of these tools will of course be unreliable, ineffective, or downright fraudulent. But an effective tool must (it is Catallactically true!) outcompete an ineffective one, so the problem will resolve itself without any need for outside intervention, regulation, or even supervision. Until effective tools become available, a rational actor will arrange his affairs so as to minimize physical contact with persons whose infection status is unknown (according to a personal calculation which balances infection risk against disruption of his normal economic activity).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
If you got Ebola, we want it. Valhalla will pay premium prices for your infected family members. Ask us about same day pick up and delivery. On a completely separate note, Valhalla Subsidiaries is proud to introduce our newest line of baby formula guaranteed to boost your infant's immune system and promote probiotic health. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You mean the studies that showed a decrease in hours worked only in cohort groups that really should not be working anyway like high school students and single moms? Because that would be a benefit to society. Why shouldn't single moms be working? Anyway, it's a digression because what you said is completely false anyway:  SedanChair posted:Which safety nets are these? (nobody else answer please) Obvious answer: unemployment benefits Other, indirect answers: all benefits that are only provided to low income people which might make them choose between receiving the benefits instead of working a small amount of hours more and receiving additional income at the expense of losing the benefits. So some US examples: food stamps, public housing (and rent assistance), Medicaid, free school lunches, TANF
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:If you got Ebola, we want it. And anyway any true Valhalla subscriber knows that contracting illness is a sign of the gods displeasure, and that the only rational response is to attack your enemies in a berzerker's frenzy until killed, lest they come to lie amongst the dishonored dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha, did you just link to an essay that was followed with a disclaimer about how the author's critical review of the BIG pilot was so flawed that the publisher retracted it publicly? You mean the part of the article where some of the former BIG: Namibia project leaders QQ about being under criticism while still not releasing their data, having a control group, etc? I am shocked, SHOCKED that they would argue!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I don't see how you're expecting a group of people who can't answer how they're going to string tin cans together for communication to tackle something full of coercive aggression like "I'm infected with disease and I'd like help." Libertarians have an answer to the communications systems question, and it's the same answer that they give universally for all infrastructure questions; mooch off of the infrastructure the State already built.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
As it's far more profitable to treat symptoms of disease, cures would be suppressed entirely in a Libertarian world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? (e: or without government funding which covers a lot of it as is) Polygynous fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? "mumble mumble time preference" -Common libertarian response
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? Probably. Even if we're talking about the NO GOVERNMENT, ALL IS ANARCHY, LET CHAOS REIGN brand of An-Cap that you guys seem to take as the One True Libertarianism. Even most applied research doesn't pay off in a quarter - that would be fruit hanging so low it hits you in the face while you walk by. Companies are not as short sighted as people seem to imagine. Research universities could still exist in principal though with a different business model funded by tuition, wealthy individuals and interested corporations. Some things done now probably wouldn't get done but other things would. We might be farther along with stem cell research. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? No, which is why pharma companies never do their own research, Apple didn't take chances creating new products, and we're all posting from mainframes.  America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:No, which is why pharma companies never do their own research, Apple didn't take chances creating new products, and we're all posting on the internet. I almost hate to keep harping on that, but really. Decades of effort and expense with little payoff. In libertopia it would have just sprung forth fully formed from some ubermensch's forehead I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:on the internet. It's kind of a lazy thing to harp on, though. In Libertopia (of whatever stripe) there could have been an alternate development and funding path and that doesn't take a great leap of imagination since we're just constructing a hypothetical. If you're unwilling to conceive of a way it could have happened that's sort of on you and not on an ideology. You could as validly argue "the internet wouldn't have happened under communism" because bureaucrats in charge of allocating resources and looking at cost/benefit analysis would have seen decades of expense with little payoff and decided to allocate funds to more concrete needs. It's a stupid point to cling to either way because we could we could appeal to more forward-thinking planners, or a robust independent university system, inevitability given the existing technology or any other thing to justify the rise of an Internet because it's our hypothetical and we can build the hypothetical how we want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
 somehow!In Libertopia the internet will arise because the upfront costs will plummet in an economy of limitless free energy drawn from the fierce wind patterns generated by furious handwaving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
That sounds like a dumb hypothetical but w/e you can hypothesize how you want to, bro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's kind of a lazy thing to harp on, though. In Libertopia (of whatever stripe) there could have been an alternate development and funding path and that doesn't take a great leap of imagination since we're just constructing a hypothetical. If you're unwilling to conceive of a way it could have happened that's sort of on you and not on an ideology. Technology isnt a civ game where if you get enough science points and then a technology pops out. I dont have a stake in defending if the internet would be possible under communism because I don't want to live under communism. However as outlined many times in this thread and now others, the point is very worth clinging to because it runs up against laws of physics repeatedly that libertarians have no societal answers to get around. I dare you to explain how the electromagnetic spectrum would be allocated in libertopia, please I've literally been waiting months for an answer, my BTC stunt just bad theatre to draw attention to it. This is your invitation to tell a litteral expert in a field of how something works could be done in a diferent way. I am very intensely interested to know how even it might hypothetically work because I could then go use market forces to impliment it. As I have even said before I'll even let you break the rules of physics if you can determine the societal strucure that makes the internet possible in libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Probably. Even if we're talking about the NO GOVERNMENT, ALL IS ANARCHY, LET CHAOS REIGN brand of An-Cap that you guys seem to take as the One True Libertarianism. Well you don't like Mises', Hayek's, or Rothbard's definitions of coercion. That's a very large chunk of Libertarianism excluded. It's like being Christian but not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, or signing onto any version of Nicene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's kind of a lazy thing to harp on, though. In Libertopia (of whatever stripe) there could have been an alternate development and funding path and that doesn't take a great leap of imagination since we're just constructing a hypothetical. If you're unwilling to conceive of a way it could have happened that's sort of on you and not on an ideology. On the other hand, one of the guys at Xerox who was responsible for the development of ethernet said explicitly that if it were left up to the marketplace he would not have expected to see the internet for a couple of decades after it actually arose, largely because there was zero profit to be made for most companies in early development or expansion of the network.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I dare you to explain how the electromagnetic spectrum would be allocated in libertopia, please I've literally been waiting months for an answer, my BTC stunt just bad theatre to draw attention to it. Verizon and the other giants who "built" the infastructure and towers would lay claim to it, pay off judges to agree, and violently war with anyone who tries to argue for their "aggression".
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Why shouldn't single moms be working? Right right, why aren't more single moms prostitutes, why aren't more children in the coal mines, we get it, we know. To the data: Could you link the study this is from (if you did and I missed it, sorry). It would be good to know how the negative income tax experiment worked. Did it penalize people for working (as in did a higher wage income reduce the amount of the subsidy?) Because that is a pretty big difference in operation and incentives from a basic income grant which doesn't means-test to dispense benefits, and you can't discount that when theorizing about why these results differed so much from the very small (and arguably beneficial since most of it took the form of letting a spouse devote time to childcare and letting children stay in school longer) work reductions in the Mantioba basic income experiment, or the rise in earnings in the Namibia experiment. Also note that we're talking single-digit percentage reductions (or occasionally gains) in annual hours worked by the primary earner in your study. And of course that's not even getting into the health benefits that were documented in the Manitoba study. Also, what's the deal with this? Did that study explain why annual earnings (I assume "earnings" doesn't include the negative income tax) increased despite a fall in number of hours worked for subjects in New Jersey? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Verizon and the other giants who "built" the infastructure and towers would lay claim to it, pay off judges to agree, and violently war with anyone who tries to argue for their "aggression". So now we're back to
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Majority Stakeholder of DRO Pass would make for a really cool video game, not so much actual policy to live under.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Probably. Even if we're talking about the NO GOVERNMENT, ALL IS ANARCHY, LET CHAOS REIGN brand of An-Cap that you guys seem to take as the One True Libertarianism. You seem to believe that research universities pay for research and not the other way around e: In case this is unclear, you have no idea how research is funded in this country. If private entities were interested in basic research, there would be private basic research opportunities. These are basically nonexistent. Even private research universities lean heavily on public funding for basic research funding. Every school that accepts research funds takes a share of that to fund the school; the net contribution to research funding from universities is deep into the negative QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To step back a moment, if you enter with the premise that people lack all agency you're fundamentally at odds with the libertarian in a way that I don't think can be reconciled because you disagree on a really important level about how the world works. You are right, reality does frequently contradict libertarian principles. That's why they rely on praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
I'd like to hear some libertarian thoughts on how the free market would handle companies injecting billions of gallons of fracking wastewater directly into aquifers. I understand that there's the whole "sue them" angle, but that seems to be extremely inefficient if you want to not drink oily wastewater. How does a libertarian society prevent this sort of poo poo from happening if regulation is the enemy? This sort of thing is why we need some sort of governing body that has authority over negligent fuckers who don't give a poo poo about the health and safety of others. In this case, serious damage was done due to a lack of oversight, and the situation would have been way worse if a bunch of facilities hadn't been shut down recently by "the men with guns" due to fear of exactly this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'd like to hear some libertarian thoughts on how the free market would handle companies injecting billions of gallons of fracking wastewater directly into aquifers. I understand that there's the whole "sue them" angle, but that seems to be extremely inefficient if you want to not drink oily wastewater. How does a libertarian society prevent this sort of poo poo from happening if regulation is the enemy? This sort of thing is why we need some sort of governing body that has authority over negligent fuckers who don't give a poo poo about the health and safety of others. In this case, serious damage was done due to a lack of oversight, and the situation would have been way worse if a bunch of facilities hadn't been shut down recently by "the men with guns" due to fear of exactly this scenario. It's OK because now the "men with guns" are wearing polo shirts and guarding the fracking equipment. There's no risk to you, just ask this scientician.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. One of your members gifted me a membership, so I figured I might as well make your brains hurt a bit. I'll try to keep this brief to avoid wasting way too much time. Let's go straight to an example: Suppose you support the war in Afghanistan. For whatever reason, you think it's good for mankind, or your fellow countrymen or whatever. You want the US military in Afghanistan, spreading the joy of democracy and you'll gladly participate in covering the costs of this noble endeavour. I personally *don't* support the war in Afghanistan, but I'm perfectly fine with you supporting it: I have no right to decide how you use your money, and long as you're not violating anyone's rights, you're free to do whatever the hell you drat well please. (Please refrain from de-railing the conversation with "externalities" etc. That's a separate issue) Now then, here's the important part: Are *you* willing to let *me*, in turn, decide how to use *my* money? Are you willing to let me *not* support the war in Afghanistan, and refrain from participating in funding it? Or do you want me to be *forced* to support it, even though I don't want to? You've got two choices here: 1) You insist that I should be *forced* to support the war. 2) You accept that I should be free to use my property as I see fit. In the first case, you are advocating the initiation of the use of force against me, even though I've never harmed anyone. You are beyond repair and talking to you is pointless. Otherwise, we've just established you're actually an anarchist - you just didn't know it yet. You see, every single tax dollar spent means that we've been *forced* to support whatever the dollar was spent on. If you accept that we all have the right to use our property as we see fit, then you cannot support the state any longer (because the state is based on violating that right). It's not that complicated: - A mafia threatens you with violence to get money from you. - A government threatens you with imprisonment to get money from you. The former is called by its right name: extortion, but the latter is known as "taxation". They're exactly the same though: An organisation threatens you with <NOPE> to get money from you. Even sociopaths know that extortion is immoral, they just don't give a gently caress. But if you're not one, it will be clear to you that: - Taxation is extortion - Extortion is immoral - Governments are based on taxation (=extortion) - Governments are immoral Alright, I'll stop here. Don't be afraid of thinking for yourselves. It'll sting for a while, but you'll be glad you started.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:- Taxation is extortion Prove all these points; thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvObIj7MKXY
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
So privately-funded colonialist wars are just fine, Libertarians only object to the funding it with taxation part? gently caress yeah, where will I be able to buy some shares in the Neo Dutch East India Company, I expect profits in the slave trade to be through the roof!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So privately-funded colonialist wars are just fine, Libertarians only object to the funding it with taxation part? Typical libtard, thinking you'll own the slaves instead of being one. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:06
|
|