|
jrodefeld posted:This is another reason why that study is so bogus. I don't know a single libertarian who voted for Romney. Not a single one. In the circles I travel in, the very concept of voting for Romney was so repugnant that it was never even seriously considered. Or maybe you're using the no-true scotsman fallacy.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Waitwaitwait. So if we set up a state and tell you that you have to pay taxes or leave the country, then that's violent extortion because no one can claim the right to rule a geographical area and aggress against the inhabitants with "so leave" as an out to make it "voluntary". But if I'm living in a city and a coal plant opens up then hey, gently caress you, move away if you don't like it! I Am The Scum posted:It's actually extremely common among mainstream libertarians (and some hardcores) to ignore the ideology when it becomes slightly detrimental. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is another reason why that study is so bogus. I don't know a single libertarian who voted for Romney. Not a single one. In the circles I travel in, the very concept of voting for Romney was so repugnant that it was never even seriously considered. Oh, well if you don't know of a single libertarian who voted for Romney then that changes everything now doesn't it, what with you being king poo poo of Libertarian mountain, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:jrod (or other an-caps/whateverists): what happens to intellectual property in libertopia? Patents, copyrights, and trademarks all only exist due to state enforcement. Should IP be eliminated? Or is this one of those things where DROs will somehow sort out a completely voluntary IP regime? Yes intellectual property should be eliminated. See Stephen Kinsella on this subject. Intellectual "Property" is not really property, it is more correctly described as monopoly privilege. If I voluntarily share an idea with the world, you all can use that idea without taking that idea away from me. If you duplicate a movie and give it out, you don't remove MY copy of the movie. If you want your ideas protected, don't share them with others. If you DO share your ideas, then you cannot use force to keep them from using those ideas in practice. See "Against Intellectual Property" by Stefan Kinsella: http://mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property Here is a lecture given by Kinsella on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This chart is highly suspect. Unfortunately the term "libertarian" is one that has been misapplied and used to refer to people with vastly different beliefs. How descriptive could a word be when both Bill Maher AND Glenn Beck have self identified as libertarians at one time or another? Here is the source. Unlike you I am more than capable of sourcing anything that I assert without using a link to Mises.org. In this instance I used an infographic solely because it was easier to read than a multi-page study that had the statistics I cared to comment on buried halfway in. The methodology of the study is towards the end but seems to be boilerplate survey. Your assertion that people might self-identify as libertarian who you don't think are libertarian means nothing because you are not the final arbiter of who is a libertarian. People who self-identify as libertarians are libertarians. They are also, statistically, very white. quote:Even if we take that chart at face value, who says that a person who is white and male cannot also be poor? That is a strange and unsupported leap you are making. Basic statistics? Whites, and in particular white males are typically the highest income earners in america, edged out only slightly (strangely) by asian americans. More tellingly, the typical net worth of a white family is $280,000, while the typical income of a black family is $28,000. While there are certainly outliers and it is not only possible for there to be white libertarians who are poor, basic math tells us that it is almost impossible for a party that is 96% white, which account for 7% of voters, to be 'typically poor'. White people are wealthier. I don't think anyone is going to dispute this. So unless you are going to argue that the 96% white, 68% male libertarian party demographic consists largely of poor whites, I'd suggest conceding this point before you look any more out of touch. quote:From my own experience, I can only tell you that the people I have associated with who are libertarians have been VERY diverse, socioeconomically and ethnically. If we look at the modern libertarian movement as those who got involved with Ron Paul's campaigns and/or are active in movement organization, then you will discover that they are very diverse and not at all especially privileged. Evidence is not the plural of anecdote. The fact that you personally have met libertarians who are diverse, a 'fact' that we cannot check by the way, means absolutely nothing to this discussion. The statistics tell us that the typical libertarian voter is almost assuredly white and most likely male. This is because as an ideology it does not appeal to people who are poor or downtroden. If you are on food stamps you generally don't cheer on the guy who calls you an immoral leach on society. As for the Ron Paul campaign? You're kidding right? Ron Paul's advantage in republican policy wasn't reaching across racial or economic lines, it was reaching for young people. Ron Paul is racist as balls, just like his son, and african americans know that. Here are some of the top google image search results for "Ron Paul Rally." Lets play count the minorities:     That fourth one is a little small, so I don't blame you if you can't where's waldo them. Edit: Incidentally I went and looked up voter racial demographics for paul out of curiosity. It is a little hard to pull up specifics for his presidential run since he never made it past the primary, but in his 2010 house race (his last one) Ron Paul only pulled in 15% of the african-american vote despite winning with over 80%. A racial hero he most certainly is not. Double Edit: I've got 6. Anyone able to see more than six visible minorities in those pictures? quote:I think you are treading on rather shaky ground here. You are tiptoeing around what you really want to say which is "I read a pole that says libertarians are mostly white which probably means you are all a bunch of racists." Even if that is not what you are saying, even implying something like that is a tactic that is unworthy of serious consideration in a debate. I read a poll. Not pole. And no, that isn't what I am saying at all. While I agree that libertarians and racists have pretty massive cross overs as I have detailed to you in numerous threads, such as the reason magazine support for apartheid and holocaust denial, that wasn't at all what I was getting at. My point was that it says a ton about an ideology when the only people it appeals to are the privileged. You don't see poor black libertarians, or middle class hispanic libertarians (to say nothing of an-caps) because your ideology is toxic to them. Libertarianism appeals to people who begin their lives in relative priviledge, who are capable of believing the lie that they are themselves an island and they don't need anyone else, or any society to help them. Any person who has collected food stamps, or gone for housing assistance, or worked under an abusive boss knows the lie of libertarianism. The know that the ideology is based around this idea of self-serving greed. That is the reason, the primary reason anyways, that libertarians poll at 96% white and primarily male. Because it appeals to people who believe themselves to be the natural social elite, the john galts, the ubermench. quote:Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on an ethic head count of its proponents. The total lack of popularity of an ideology among large swaths of a population is worth discussing, because it tells us a lot about public perception of said ideas. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Because they may use the land more efficiently or to greater social benefit than you do. There are a lot of things humans need to survive. Individual ownership of land is not one of them. Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "need" or "social benefit" could only lead to far more conflict and violence in society? If anyone could seize the property of anyone else if they have a greater "need" for it then conflict will be constant and unending. The first user principle leads to conflict avoidance. If you use any other definition of property acquisition, you must introduce violence because you must seize property that others are currently using and redistribute it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Then what's the loving point of your moral system? Morality exists to provide us guidance in those difficult times, when right and wrong isn't easy and clear. For example, I don't need a moral system to tell me that pulling a gun on a little child who won't give me a piece of his candy is wrong. It's easy. But it's when times are hard that we need those moral systems the most, because that's when we really need to try and get things right. If your moral system collapses the minute the stakes are high, then what good does it do? This was a really cool post Cemetry Gator. I might go and dig it up at some point, but one thing you need to know about Jrod is that he doesn't believe in subjective morality. Jrodefeld believes that you can have objective morality, in the same way as god can divinely suggest rules that we should live by, Jrodefeld believes that we can objectively divine moral codes via pure reason and logic. When Jrodefeld says it is wrong to steal, he means that it is objectively, universally wrong to steal in every possible instance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "need" or "social benefit" could only lead to far more conflict and violence in society? Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "I got here first and jerked off on it so its mine" could only lead to more conflict and violence in society? The first user principle only leads to conflict avoidance if and when it is accepted by everyone. If we already agree that people are accepting a definition of property as legitimate then his is as viable as yours, and just as viable as my bloodstone circle proposal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Is Jrode one of those people who doesn't think that the New Deal got us out of the Depression, but WWII did? Or does he not even go that far? The spending cuts AFTER World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. War doesn't get us out of recessions. War may unfortunately be necessary for defense, but it is never a benefit to an economy. If a recession occurs you first have allow the correction to occur, you deflate the bubble and reallocate scarce resources and clear the malinvestment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The spending cuts AFTER World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. On the other hand, reality. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:On the other hand, reality. No no no, you see, Jrodefeld is using a different variation of the word 'out'. The US was still in the depression, it was just totally being masked by the government spending and the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I agree with eliminating IP also. I have a question Jrode, you previously said that if someone successfully shows that pollution put out by a factory harmed that individual, that the factory should have to give recompense (I'm paraphrasing here). Who is going to force the factory/owner to do that? Who does the individual prove the harm to? What power is utilized to ameliorate the victim? Edit: Here's the quote jrodefeld posted:You CAN bring up charges against someone for causing pollution. But, like any other property rights invasion, you have to demonstrate some harm. If you can demonstrate that harm, then the aggressor should be forced to pay you restitution. You mention bringing up charges. With whom do you file these charges? What authority is utilized? How do you "force" someone to pay restitution in libertopia? Arri fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He posts such staggeringly dull walls of text I don't blame you for missing it, but he did claim last page (I think) that it's a given that economic interventions in the 30s failed at best and made things worse at worst, and that conventional history agrees with him on that. It was only one, out of many, things he is entirely wrong about. I know he definitely doesn't think the New Deal helped, but the usual response from right-wingers is that WWII did get us out. edit: oh he answered it! Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Arri posted:You mention bringing up charges. With whom do you file these charges? What authority is utilized? How do you "force" someone to pay restitution in libertopia? If I can ethically shoot a trespasser walking across my lawn, can't I ethically burn down a polluting factory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "need" or "social benefit" could only lead to far more conflict and violence in society? Can you please point to any single point in history where "first user" principle lead to conflict avoidance? Why should I not be accepting of some level of violence? You are accepting of some levels, why can't I?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The first user principle leads to conflict avoidance. If you use any other definition of property acquisition, you must introduce violence because you must seize property that others are currently using and redistribute it. But where's the objective definition of "use"? There doesn't seem to be any. I go and homestead myself a farm, mixing my labor with the land. As I am tilling the ground and fencing off my new property, a rancher shows up, says I'm on his land, and that he grazes his cattle here every year before herding them down to Texas. I say no, he was using it, but I'm improving it so it belongs to me. He says that grazing it is a use and he was there first. Who is right? Is picking some fruit or sending animals to eat some grass enough to give you ownership over a whole area? Or do you have to start building improvements on the land? Oh yeah, and this happened all the time in the West, and it was generally settled by violence and range wars, despite everyone involved having the ability to use their Human Reason to deduce from self-evident a priori axioms that the land properly belongs to the rancher/farmer/actually some Indian dudes (  jk the red man can't own property).Edit: Also water rights. Lots of parcels of land draw from the same water table. Does the first person to get there and use a drop of that water own that entire watershed and become entitled to decide how its to be apportioned and charge everyone? Or do people only gain rights as they use the water, and if that's the case, what do you do when one guy starts wasting huge amounts of it on water-intensive projects and creating shortages? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:If I can ethically shoot a trespasser walking across my lawn, can't I ethically burn down a polluting factory? It's only ethical if the owner happens to be occupying it at the time. Jrod, what's wrong with collective ownership of land by the community that resides on it and utilizes it? The only conflict comes into play when a person wants to hoard the land for themselves and accumulation of wealth. The community in that instance would, in my opinion, be fully entitled (<- lol) to self defense. Do you not agree, and why? Arri fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The spending cuts AFTER World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. War doesn't get us out of recessions. War may unfortunately be necessary for defense, but it is never a benefit to an economy. No one called you on this, but it is factually untrue. Even ignoring the most obvious examples of economies that were based at least in part on war, such as the Romans or Mongols, It still can't really be said that war is never a benefit to an economy. World War II for example, greatly benefitted the US in the end, or rather, the end result benefitted the US. A big reason the US held the status of superpower for much of the 20th century is because Europe effectively obliterated its economy. This left the US as the only game in town on the capitalist side, which greatly benefitted the US economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is a myth that democracy leads to a more efficient State that more effectively solves social problems. In fact, as Hoppe has argued, I would wager that a benevolent monarch would do far less harm and probably more good for a society than a democratically elected Congress. See, this is why people keep asking you to defend the worst stuff these people write. It's because you do things like cite a horrible stupid argument defending monarchy and in the part you cut, talked about some genetically pure noble race. There's no point in talking about only the benevolent monarchies vs all democracies good or bad. quote:Senators have a great deal of job security. Have you seen the reelection numbers? Incumbents win reelection over 90% of the time. Even if the public is able to rise up and "throw the bums out" why would the new politicians do any better? I don't understand your confusion. When the majority of people find a guy they like for a job, it's pretty reasonable that they continue to like him a few years later. The poor job security comes from how quickly you can be removed once people agree that you are doing the job poorly and there is a well known better replacement. quote:For a private business, there is a system called profit and loss which provides an incentive structure where they must satisfy voluntarily paying customers or face losses or even bankruptcy. Futhermore, anyone can compete for provision of those same services so people have options. With a State monopoly, people have no alternatives. In a Democracy, politicians need a thing called "votes" to be re elected. Each citizen of the area they represent can give them 1 vote during each "election". Elections are held at regular intervals. If during the election, a different person gets the majority of the votes, that person gets the politician's job. quote:I don't like the service of the post office in delivery of mail? Tough luck, no alternative.  So who the gently caress was that guy who brought me the box with the stuff I bought from Amazon in it?quote:You would be on my side completely if I was criticizing a private monopoly. Yet when I speak of a State monopoly you rush to defend the monopoly. Yes because the two are totally different things, I'm glad you've finally noticed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:
Dude, dude, he's complaining that he can't receive a slow letter by UPS/FedEx. I know it's ridiculous to complain about, but that's his complaint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "need" or "social benefit" could only lead to far more conflict and violence in society? Ah, that's the thing. We don't want people just being able to sieze any property that they think they need. Instead, we want some group of people, representing the needs of everyone, who are chosen to discuss and distribute limited resources in a way that will promote the most public good, while simultaneously allowing personal ownership of non-critical resources and providing protection against outsiders who would seek to take our resources without fair compensation. In other words: a state. Call it a DRO, if you will, or a voluntary commune. We all tacitly agree to live in it, and are perfectly chill with you choosing not to. Our objection is to you continuing to suck the resources of our society while refusing to put anything in, and trying to tear apart our system that we've all agreed to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Dude, dude, he's complaining that he can't receive a slow letter by UPS/FedEx. I know it's ridiculous to complain about, but that's his complaint. Which you can absolutely do by fedex if you wanted to. The fact that fedex does a lovely job doesn't negate that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Caros posted:Which you can absolutely do by fedex if you wanted to. The fact that fedex does a lovely job doesn't negate that. You can't, except by FedEx loving up. Unless you know of some instance of FedEx managing to get around the first class mail rules which would mean massive fines for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't, except by FedEx loving up. Unless you know of some instance of FedEx managing to get around the first class mail rules which would mean massive fines for them. Ah, my mistake. I'm a Canadian and your postal system rules are sort of beyond me. Its a good point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
UPS sends next day/second day letters all day every day. They don't (when I worked for them) really offer a ground letter service. The reason people don't use it over the post office is because of how much more expensive it is. I know this because I worked for UPS for a time. So, in actuality, the service he is asking for exists, he just doesn't want to pay for it, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes intellectual property should be eliminated. See Stephen Kinsella on this subject. Intellectual "Property" is not really property, it is more correctly described as monopoly privilege. If I voluntarily share an idea with the world, you all can use that idea without taking that idea away from me. If you duplicate a movie and give it out, you don't remove MY copy of the movie. If you want your ideas protected, don't share them with others. If you DO share your ideas, then you cannot use force to keep them from using those ideas in practice. Do you understand why any of the things you discuss come into existence? Do you actually any of the things you discuss? Because your understanding of intellectual property... well, it's loving idiotic. First off, while there are problems with our current implementation of property rights (patent trolls, never-ending copyrights), for the most part, the idea of intellectual property is a good thing. Because a lot of these ideas take a long time and a lot of money to get out into the market. You know the life-saving medication that keeps you from dying? Well, in America, we allow the companies that produce this medication to patent it so that way they get a chance to recoup the costs of doing the hard research and testing and all that time consuming work. After a certain number of years, the medication can go generic, and then anyone can produce that chemical compound and sell competing medications. In fact, patents require you to disclose your ideas to the public. Which means I can take that medicine you made and make it even better! It's a balance around allowing ideas to flourish in the hands of others, but also allowing people to profit from their labor. For example, here's a serious question: why would big budget movies exist without intellectual property? I mean, why would I spend millions of dollars to produce a film like Aliens if I cannot guarantee that I will be able to make money on my investment. A collective group of highly talented and skilled individuals spent a significant about of money putting this together, and it was done so I could make money. Why would I do that if someone could just make a copy, and start selling it or giving them away? Now sure, people will still produce films and albums and software and books. They will. They do. There's plenty of people who do things for free. But for the most part, they're a different quality and quantity than the stuff that's produced for profit. Hell, I do it. I make music, and I don't sell any of it for a dime. Because it's something I do for fun. And guess what, I can take the music that I've been influenced by and make new original work, and they don't come after me. Brian Wilson has yet to ask me to stop producing work influenced by his song writing. But I can't just take Pet Sounds are start copying it and giving it away. I did not put forth the money to buy the studio time, the tapes, pay the musicians, write the songs, spend the time recording and mixing the album. I didn't put any work into the album. So why is it okay for me to take Pet Sounds and give it away, but not okay for me to take your home and give it away? Sure, I might not lose my copy of a work you copy, but I lose the opportunity to make the money off of it. In conclusion: Jrodefeld, please stop talking about things that you don't understand. Please stop discussing things that you don't know anything about. You are an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Arri posted:UPS sends next day/second day letters all day every day. They don't (when I worked for them) really offer a ground letter service. The reason people don't use it over the post office is because of how much more expensive it is. I know this because I worked for UPS for a time. So, in actuality, the service he is asking for exists, he just doesn't want to pay for it, lol. It is illegal for UPS to offer anything besides next day close by/second day far away letters. It's illegal for them to offer a "ground" letter service. It is illegal for their letter services to be cheap, because the USPS holds a monopoly on such service, by longstanding law. And it's important that the USPS gets to hold that monopoly because it means that delivery to people who want to live 200 miles from civilization gets subsidized by routine business correspondence that doesn't leave the same section of the city. He is complaining about this state of affairs, because he's dumb enough to think that a) UPS/FedEx would really offer the same low prices the USPS does for a long time period if it was legal and b) it's immoral that the government gets to deliver mail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is illegal for UPS to offer anything besides next day close by/second day far away letters. It's illegal for them to offer a "ground" letter service. It is illegal for their letter services to be cheap, because the USPS holds a monopoly on such service, by longstanding law. And it's important that the USPS gets to hold that monopoly because it means that delivery to people who want to live 200 miles from civilization gets subsidized by routine business correspondence that doesn't leave the same section of the city. I see now. Yeah, UPS doesn't deliver to quite a few addresses that only the postal service will provide service to because of its federal mandate. In his mind does that mean poor people born in rural areas should just pack up their bootstraps and thumb it to the nearest city? I'm guessing it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The spending cuts AFTER World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. War doesn't get us out of recessions. War may unfortunately be necessary for defense, but it is never a benefit to an economy. The hell? I'm honestly trying to figure out what you're saying here. What metric are you using as us officially "got us out" of the Depression?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The hell? I'm honestly trying to figure out what you're saying here. Did a tax cut happen ever, in the last 80 years? Okay right there, there it is, that's the moment we "got ourselves out" of the Depression
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The hell? I'm honestly trying to figure out what you're saying here. Did the Depression ever "really" "end" if we still have fiat currency? Makes you think. (End the Fed.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did a tax cut happen ever, in the last 80 years? The best part is that even tax cuts are perfectly in line with Keynesian policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes intellectual property should be eliminated. See Stephen Kinsella on this subject. Intellectual "Property" is not really property, it is more correctly described as monopoly privilege. If I voluntarily share an idea with the world, you all can use that idea without taking that idea away from me. If you duplicate a movie and give it out, you don't remove MY copy of the movie. If you want your ideas protected, don't share them with others. If you DO share your ideas, then you cannot use force to keep them from using those ideas in practice. The entire point of patent law is to incentivize people to share their ideas with the world. There's no point to tinkering in one's garage if the minute you make your idea public it can be taken by bigger, better capitalized actors. I guess in your world our choice really will be between wage slavery and joining Valhalla DRO. Also all the things CG said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The entire point of patent law is to incentivize people to share their ideas with the world. There's no point to tinkering in one's garage if the minute you make your idea public it can be taken by bigger, better capitalized actors. I guess in your world our choice really will be between wage slavery and joining Valhalla DRO. Be serious. Your idea will be scooped and sold out from under you long before you decide to take it public. All DRO contracts are going to include a waiver allowing them to steal any invention or artwork you create within range of the security cameras you're required to let them install in your home, and your ISP and all postal services will have the same clause regarding any correspondence you send.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is illegal for UPS to offer anything besides next day close by/second day far away letters. It's illegal for them to offer a "ground" letter service. It is illegal for their letter services to be cheap, because the USPS holds a monopoly on such service, by longstanding law. And it's important that the USPS gets to hold that monopoly because it means that delivery to people who want to live 200 miles from civilization gets subsidized by routine business correspondence that doesn't leave the same section of the city. If you're curious as to what's being mentioned here, it's the PES - Private Express Statute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
The invention of patent laws a few centuries ago happened to coincide with the greatest explosion of technological innovation in the history of humanity. jrod's certainly right that IP is the granting of monopoly privileges, and therefore constitutes a massive state intervention in the market. It's also been an unqualified success (in aggregate).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Have we ever gotten an answer from Jrod on why the DRO with the thickest jackboots and heaviest truncheons won't just start up Mongol Horde 2.0? Or are we pretending that, faced with being either a) raped and pillaged or b) pressed into military service and/or indenture, rational actors are going to pick the former because Non Aggression?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
There's a certain class of person, jrod included, who discuss morality in a way that really brings to mind HL Mencken:quote:Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. I feel a strong urge to just cede the moral argument altogether. He claims that we statists are complicit in all manner of crimes. Well, what of it? I feel no guilt at his allegations; perhaps I really am deeply morally inferior, as he seems to think. Then why shouldn't I start slitting throats? I mean, despite the dogmatic nature of an-caps, there's nothing metaphysical about it. He can say I'm immoral, but there's no God above to judge me and punish me. So what's wrong with immorality?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The invention of patent laws a few centuries ago happened to coincide with the greatest explosion of technological innovation in the history of humanity. jrod's certainly right that IP is the granting of monopoly privileges, and therefore constitutes a massive state intervention in the market. It's also been an unqualified success (in aggregate).  - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:41 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You CAN bring up charges against someone for causing pollution. But, like any other property rights invasion, you have to demonstrate some harm. If you can demonstrate that harm, then the aggressor should be forced to pay you restitution. You can't escape pollution. In some cases it's globe spanning, (CO2, ozone depletion), in other cases it travels great distances. whi Telling people to leave isn't close to a solution. What if I buy a farm on a river and 8 companies 100 miles upstream start dumping pollutants? I'll never prove which one is causing my crops to fail and I can't leave because my land is worthless. These solutions you put forward are guaranteed to not solve the problems brought up and by your own definition aggression is the result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:48
|
|
