|
Muscle Tracer posted:This appears to come from Wikipedia, but is also a misinterpretation of the data. Wiki says 6% of the free population were slave-owners. Besides, (and this will be news only to Jrod) if I, Johnny Plantation Owner, have a wife and three minor children, plus two White foremen, the slaves are all in my single name, although there are seven people whose livelihoods depend upon slavery. Yeah, I should have been more clear about that. The 6% figure is true, but is a useless statistic compared to households with slaves, because the figure is obtained by dividing by the number of free persons which included women and children.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:No, I mean I remember some libertarian in one of the last few threads unironically using the term negroid. I just don't remember who. You'll have to go to the gas chamber to find it. It was from that thread about whether it's racist not to be sexually attracted to people of a certain race (nobody talk about this, nope, stop, don't do it). As usual that kind of thread attracts trolls and gimmicks, one of whom argued that race is not a social construct but a real biological category and kept referring to mongoloids and negroids. Jrod never used the term. He sticks firmly to dogwhistles about time preference, mean ol' Lincoln's disrespect for my State-recognized property rights, and pro-apartheid as long as it's not the government doing it but is instead the voluntary moral choice of white people who stole the best land to exclude black people from it noncoercively (read: coercively)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This appears to come from Wikipedia, but is also a misinterpretation of the data. Wiki says 6% of the free population were slave-owners. Besides, (and this will be news only to Jrod) if I, Johnny Plantation Owner, have a wife and three minor children, plus two White foremen, the slaves are all in my single name, although there are seven people whose livelihoods depend upon slavery. And it goes well beyond slave-owners and their families. From The Case for Reparations: TA-NEHISI COATES posted:In 1860, the majority of people living in South Carolina and Mississippi, almost half of those living in Georgia, and about one-third of all Southerners were on the wrong side of Calhoun’s line. The state with the largest number of enslaved Americans was Virginia, where in certain counties some 70 percent of all people labored in chains. Nearly one-fourth of all white Southerners owned slaves, and upon their backs the economic basis of America—and much of the Atlantic world—was erected. In the seven cotton states, one-third of all white income was derived from slavery. By 1840, cotton produced by slave labor constituted 59 percent of the country’s exports. The web of this slave society extended north to the looms of New England, and across the Atlantic to Great Britain, where it powered a great economic transformation and altered the trajectory of world history. “Whoever says Industrial Revolution,” wrote the historian Eric J. Hobsbawm, “says cotton.” TA-NEHISI COATES posted:Here we find the roots of American wealth and democracy—in the for-profit destruction of the most important asset available to any people, the family. The destruction was not incidental to America’s rise; it facilitated that rise. By erecting a slave society, America created the economic foundation for its great experiment in democracy. The labor strife that seeded Bacon’s rebellion was suppressed. America’s indispensable working class existed as property beyond the realm of politics, leaving white Americans free to trumpet their love of freedom and democratic values. Assessing antebellum democracy in Virginia, a visitor from England observed that the state’s natives “can profess an unbounded love of liberty and of democracy in consequence of the mass of the people, who in other countries might become mobs, being there nearly altogether composed of their own Negro slaves.” America's existence rests at the feet of slave labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Thanks black people!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Thanks black people! The should be grateful they get to live in a country so made rich and prosperous by the forced labor of their ancestors! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
America should really see about getting black people something nice (not money or land, let's not go crazy here).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:America should really see about getting black people something nice (not money or land, let's not go crazy here). Hellooo, we let that pudding guy on TV decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This confederate apologism is fun and all, but to go off topic real quick, a couple of pages ago we were talking about how Keynesianism failed in the 70s. Can someone elaborate on this? The problems that happened in the 70s I thought was mainly due to the oil embargo by OPEC and the fed jacking up interest rates by the end of the decade. Via the Austrian perspective, Keynsian economics cannot succeed, therefore it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Personally, I think it's unfair to say Jrode can't vet sources. Why should we expect him to disagree with a "senior member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute", or a teacher at the reputable "League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History"?Jack Kershaw, League of the South board member, 1998 posted:Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:Personally, I think it's unfair to say Jrode can't vet sources. Why should we expect him to disagree with a "senior member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute", or a teacher at the reputable "League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History"? Well let me tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Jack Kershaw, League of the South board member, 1998 posted:Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Here are some of the things JRodefeld considers himself an expert on, since he can write 12 paragraphs on libertarian views on any subject 1. Wage laws 2. The economy 3. Ethics and moral 4. Labor 5. Political Science 6. Intellectual Property 7. Health Care 8. History - American 9. History - European 10. War 11. Human Psychology 12. Human Nature 13. Anthropology 14. Honesty and Integrity And I'm sure there's many more things I've missed. But you know, in his 3 pages of posting, the one thing he has never done - admit to being wrong. Clearly, Jrodefeld, you are a Renaissance man. You must be one of the brightest shining stars in mankind. Surely, they must be building a statue of you somewhere. Clearly, magazines have covered the story of a man as talented and intelligent as you are! I mean, all these wide subjects, and you have yet to ever admit you're wrong. Instead, you change the loving subject. Let's stick with healthcare. Admit you're wrong about at least some of your points about healthcare. Admit that you made a few arguments that did not hold up to counterarugments. Because you do this all the time. You change the subject, and like kids chasing a soccer ball, we go after it. Well not this time. Please finish your conversation on healthcare. Please deal with all the various points we've made against your arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But you know, in his 3 pages of posting, the one thing he has never done - admit to being wrong. Ever wonder why you never see Eripsa and jrodefeld posting at the same time?  (I really wish they'd debate each other some time, just to see the enormous wall-to-wall posts of them being ever-correct. I feel this has enormous prospects in the field of intellectual cross-pollination.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:Ever wonder why you never see Eripsa and jrodefeld posting at the same time? In the last iteration of this thread, they actually both did start to get into things and oh, how the word salad started to fly. It could have been glorious, but Jrod ducked out after only a brief exchange as I remember it. A pity, I had such high hopes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
If we can get the two of them to post at each other for a significant length of time, then I hypothesize that the result should be a series of words that creates a profound need for the eyes to slide past it without reading, such that any object on which they are inscribed will become effectively invisible to the human and mechanical eye. The result will be the next great leap in stealth technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Admit you're wrong about at least some of your points about healthcare. Admit that you made a few arguments that did not hold up to counterarugments. Because you do this all the time. You change the subject, and like kids chasing a soccer ball, we go after it. Well not this time. Please finish your conversation on healthcare. Please deal with all the various points we've made against your arguments. It's even worse than that. At least admit that the rest of us are right about *some* things. Like, we can definitely agree with Jrod that a capitalist market does have its place and can do better than any alternative at times. A market is going to do a better job of producing, say, the right number of running shoes, than a truly centrally-planned Soviet-style approach would be. As far as I'm aware there are no staunch communists or marxists here, or if there are they aren't suggesting we pivot to marxism immediately. Yet Jrod won't even allow a penny of taxation, or even admit that the government can have a net positive impact at times. It's like trying to write a story with somebody that only likes the letter H, and refuses to use any other letters. The letter H has its uses, but it just doesn't have any place in words like "utility" or "fairness" or "common good."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
jrod, doesn't the very existence of slavery, in so many times and so many places throughout history, drive a huge stake through the idea that people will voluntarily follow the NAP? Heck, the South wanted slavery so loving much that they seceded and started a huge war over it, and they didn't even have The Fed so it was way harder to start wars or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod, doesn't the very existence of slavery, in so many times and so many places throughout history, drive a huge stake through the idea that people will voluntarily follow the NAP? Heck, the South wanted slavery so loving much that they seceded and started a huge war over it, and they didn't even have The Fed so it was way harder to start wars or something Arguing for the NAP makes about as much sense as arguing for pacifism. Yeah, it would be really nice in principle, but then you realize that it only takes a few people who disagree and then the whole system is ruined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:... If you look at any State mandated welfare program you will see two groups of people. The first group are those who genuinely have fallen on hard times and need some assistance or those with physical and mental disabilities who cannot get by without help. The second group are those that take advantage of the system and allow welfare programs to disincentivize them. They could be working and getting out of dependence but they make the decision to rely on State aid. There are many cases where State welfare programs pay as much or more than minimum wage jobs, so the rational thing to do would be to not work and get welfare. Look, I understand that pointing any of this out makes a person a horrible, uncaring person in your eyes but the incentive structure does matter. I don't blame people for making the rational choice to rely on State aid. But it does tend to trap people in a cycle of poverty rather than allowing a path into the middle class. I've already explained the sort of alternatives I'd support to help people. Charity should fill a larger role in society. Mutual aid societies, friendly societies, lodges and clubs should, as they have in the past, provide a safety net through the market where lower class people have a community to rely on in case they get sick or need assistance. The crucial difference between State welfare, aside from the immorality of violently expropriated people to fund it, and mutual aid and charity is that the State is incentivized to get more people on welfare and assistance while market based aid is focused on getting people back on their feet and into the workforce again, able to sustain their own lives. I agree with the ghist of what Hoppe is saying. I don't find it to be in conflict with what I am saying at all. Personally I think there are already more than enough incentives not to come down with some horrible illness but the idea that you will get free care should you ever get sick would naturally provide a disincentive for being as healthy as you can possibly be. If the cost of medicine came down in the market, would that provide less incentive to stay healthy as if the cost of medicine was very high and getting ill would bankrupt you? It might, but that is still quite a bit different than if a commodity is seen as being free, provided through the State. If I lived with a nationalized healthcare system where I thought that, should I ever get sick, all my medical bills will be paid by the State and I'll be taken care of (whether that is true or not) of course that provides a perverse incentive to not avoid illness as you otherwise might. I still think this is a tangential point that, while important, hardly is the central argument for market based healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
The problem with JRodefeld is that he is Christopher Columbus. Now, hear me out. In 1492, contrary to popular opinion, most people in Europe knew the world was round. The ancient Greeks had worked that one out easily enough ( you just have to look at ships coming over the horizon, after all ), and most of educated people in Europe knew this to be the truth, including Columbus himself. The thing is, as far as everyone in Europe knew, Eurasia and Africa was the whole world and everything they knew supported this; Scripture, the Greek philosophers, Roman and European Explorers, every source agreed that Europe, Asia and Africa was all there was. Which is why Columbus made a perfectly logical and brilliant error: Given the fact that the world was round, it would be possible to sail from Spain to India, China and Japan by going due west, if you made certain entirely reasonable and logical guesses about the circumference of the earth. The problem, of course, was that those beautiful and entirely logical deductions Columbus had made were rather spoiled by the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria crashing into a bloody big continent that was inconveniently in the way. So, how did Columbus deal with this inconvenience? Rather than accepting that the initial premise of his day - that Eurasia and Africa were not, in fact, the only lands in existence, Columbus kept insisting until the day he died that he had found a westerly route to Asia. Even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary that kept mounting up, Columbus died convinced that he and his deductions were right and empirical evidence be damned. It's the same thing with JRodefeld: He has decided that he has found the metaphorical westerly route to Asia, and any pesky, inconvenient continents in the way do not exist. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Glorifies violence, is imposed on us by an authoritarian dictatorship with the cooperation of plutocrats who are terrified of a communist revolution, is only made available to white people, has snazzy dress code. No, I am using the term "fascism" to mean corporatism, the collusion between the State and business interests. The pharmaceutical lobby, insurance companies, and medical lobbyists of all sorts collude with the government to pass legislation to benefit them at the expense of the rest of the market. They distort the market in their favor, give themselves a monopoly and create a barrier to entry for would be competitors. As Benito Mussolini wrote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you look at any State mandated welfare program you will see two groups of people. The first group are those who genuinely have fallen on hard times and need some assistance or those with physical and mental disabilities who cannot get by without help. The second group are those that take advantage of the system and allow welfare programs to disincentivize them. They could be working and getting out of dependence but they make the decision to rely on State aid. There are many cases where State welfare programs pay as much or more than minimum wage jobs, so the rational thing to do would be to not work and get welfare. Abuse is under 5%. This is a fallacy that gets repeated over and over by the Right to no end. jrodefeld posted:Look, I understand that pointing any of this out makes a person a horrible, uncaring person in your eyes but the incentive structure does matter. I don't blame people for making the rational choice to rely on State aid. But it does tend to trap people in a cycle of poverty rather than allowing a path into the middle class. You've got to be loving kidding me. There is no magic middle class ladder that the poor can use to climb out of poverty. Another fallacy that comes up over and over again, loving bootstrapping is called pulling yourself up by your bootstraps because you LITERALLY CANNOT PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR OWN BOOTSTRAPS. jrodefeld posted:I've already explained the sort of alternatives I'd support to help people. Charity should fill a larger role in society. Mutual aid societies, friendly societies, lodges and clubs should, as they have in the past, provide a safety net through the market where lower class people have a community to rely on in case they get sick or need assistance. The crucial difference between State welfare, aside from the immorality of violently expropriated people to fund it, and mutual aid and charity is that the State is incentivized to get more people on welfare and assistance while market based aid is focused on getting people back on their feet and into the workforce again, able to sustain their own lives. No, you keep saying this and it does not become any more true. Newsflash: You already live in a 'Healthcare Market', nearly ALL providers are private for profit companies with NO incentive to lower prices. Even the vast majority of government healthcare is provided outsourced (expect for local state level agencies). jrodefeld posted:If the cost of medicine came down in the market, would that provide less incentive to stay healthy as if the cost of medicine was very high and getting ill would bankrupt you? It might, but that is still quite a bit different than if a commodity is seen as being free, provided through the State. ....this is so stupid. You literally suggest people want to get ill because 'someone will take care of me'. No. jrodefeld posted:I've already explained the sort of alternatives I'd support to help people. Charity should fill a larger role in society. Mutual aid societies, friendly societies, lodges and clubs should, as they have in the past, provide a safety net through the market where lower class people have a community to rely on in case they get sick or need assistance. The crucial difference between State welfare, aside from the immorality of violently expropriated people to fund it, and mutual aid and charity is that the State is incentivized to get more people on welfare and assistance while market based aid is focused on getting people back on their feet and into the workforce again, able to sustain their own lives. Charities will never replace social programs. Ever. We have nearly 200 years of proof that charities are not the solution, because charities did gently caress all when no one was actually willing or able to give to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
How does an anarcho-capitalist society compensate for shortfalls in charitable contributions over the course of the business cycle? When times get tough, people tend to give less, at the same time that charitable work becomes more necessary. (Also, donations won't result in a tax break, because no taxes.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the cost of medicine came down in the market, would that provide less incentive to stay healthy as if the cost of medicine was very high and getting ill would bankrupt you? It might, but that is still quite a bit different than if a commodity is seen as being free, provided through the State. The thing with illness is that it can get worse. That persistent cough could be the early stage of lung cancer. That worrying rash might be meningitis. That animal scratch may give you rabies. Initially, the symptoms are not severe, and by the time they become severe you're at serious risk of dying. In a system where every check up and doctors visit costs you hundreds of dollars, and you're living on a margin at the best of times, you put it off. It's probably just a cough, no big deal. And then you're dead, of something that you didn't need to die from, because the alternative was not eating or not paying rent. "Incentivizing" people to "Not be as healthy as they could be" is a bloody good thing, because it means that people are more likely to get the important stuff checked out early, and less likely to die. (There's a dozen other reasons encouraging people to seek medical treatment readily is good for society, including things like preventing the spread of infections through the workforce and the ability to deal with chronic but bearable conditions to massively improve quality of life, but let's use "ACTIVELY STOPS EASILY PREVENTABLE DEATHS" as the headline.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is literally true. Did you honestly just say that if I favored secession I MUST be a racist? Honestly? Why don't you continue that line of thinking and apply it to any other right "to leave" any association? If I secede from my marriage I must be a racist. If I secede from my membership to the country club, I must be a racist. If Germany secedes from the European Union, all Germans must be racist. I don't think much commentary is even necessary. What you have said is absolutely absurd. Furthermore, why do you insist on assuming that if I criticize Lincoln, I must therefore support the Confederacy or apologize for its atrocities and human rights abuses? I don't support the Confederacy, I don't support the Union either and, most of all, I certainly don't support the institution of slavery. Abraham Lincoln has been deified because he is "America's president", the one who firmly established the supremacy of the Union over the States. Yes I am overjoyed that he eventually passed the 13th Amendment, but a civil war that caused a century of repercussions, hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and regional resentment and hostilities that persist even to this day is the absolute worst means to accomplishing abolition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Did you honestly just say that if I favored secession I MUST be a racist? Honestly? If you favor the CSA's secession? Yes. Because it was done entirely for racist reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Look, I understand that pointing any of this out makes a person a horrible, uncaring person in your eyes but the incentive structure does matter. I don't blame people for making the rational choice to rely on State aid. But it does tend to trap people in a cycle of poverty rather than allowing a path into the middle class. People are staying poor because they want to be poor? Cool, makes sense. quote:If I lived with a nationalized healthcare system where I thought that, should I ever get sick, all my medical bills will be paid by the State and I'll be taken care of (whether that is true or not) of course that provides a perverse incentive to not avoid illness as you otherwise might. The incentive to avoid illness is the illness itself you loving lunatic!! "Oh, lung cancer is free now?? Sign me up!!!" —an actual person, ever Besides which, if this were true, it would logically dictate that we in fact pose a maximum wealth cap, because if people get too rich, then healthcare costs won't matter to them and they'll have no disincentive to avoid illness. Remember that any financial incentive argument you make about the poor-but-insured should equally apply to the extremely wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Did you honestly just say that if I favored secession I MUST be a racist? Honestly? Why don't you continue that line of thinking and apply it to any other right "to leave" any association? If I secede from my marriage I must be a racist. If I secede from my membership to the country club, I must be a racist. If Germany secedes from the European Union, all Germans must be racist. No, but when your reason for Secession is literally 'Slaves' it might be racist. If Germany seceded from the EU to expel Jews, it would TOTALLY be racist, and racist to support them jrodefeld posted:Abraham Lincoln has been deified because he is "America's president", the one who firmly established the supremacy of the Union over the States. Yes I am overjoyed that he eventually passed the 13th Amendment, but a civil war that caused a century of repercussions, hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and regional resentment and hostilities that persist even to this day is the absolute worst means to accomplishing abolition. HE didn't start the Civil War. The South did. Take a crack at why they did. (HINT: SLAVES :HINT) jrodefeld posted:Furthermore, why do you insist on assuming that if I criticize Lincoln, I must therefore support the Confederacy or apologize for its atrocities and human rights abuses? I don't support the Confederacy, I don't support the Union either and, most of all, I certainly don't support the institution of slavery. Then you need to explain to us why you are citing a Neo-Confederate, and a pseudohistorian at that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes I am overjoyed that he eventually passed the 13th Amendment, but a civil war that caused a century of repercussions, hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and regional resentment and hostilities that persist even to this day is the absolute worst means to accomplishing abolition. And yet, it was also the only option, and therefore also the best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, I am using the term "fascism" to mean corporatism, the collusion between the State and business interests. The pharmaceutical lobby, insurance companies, and medical lobbyists of all sorts collude with the government to pass legislation to benefit them at the expense of the rest of the market. They distort the market in their favor, give themselves a monopoly and create a barrier to entry for would be competitors. ... Oh, loving hell. You really do not have the slightest inkling about what Fascism means either. I shouldn't be surprised that you keep on being ignorant of/re-defining the meaning words, but Fascism is far, far more than the 'merger of state and corporate power' in that quote. Which, incidentally, is a fradulent one, notable for being used by idiots without the ability to do their loving Research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Libertarians: in favor of every measure that could be taken against slavery, except for the one that actually succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
"If people know that they won't starve or die of sickness, they won't just accept whatever meager scraps I deign to throw them to slave away in my factory, while I chortle and sip mint juleps! The horror!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And yet, it was also the only option, and therefore also the best. Like it was his choice too, which is why this whole debate is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:... Oh, loving hell. You really do not have the slightest inkling about what Fascism means either. I shouldn't be surprised that you keep on being ignorant of/re-defining the meaning words, but Fascism is far, far more than the 'merger of state and corporate power' in that quote. Which, incidentally, is a fradulent one, notable for being used by idiots without the ability to do their loving Research. I look forward to jrod never admitting this mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
JRod, you have been caught repeating fabricated quotes, using incorrect or outright falsified facts and figures, as well as making claims that do not hold up to basic scrutiny. On top of that, you have directly referenced known racists over well understood points of history. Are you sorry for any of this? Do you admit any fault? Have you done any self-reflection over why it may be that you have done this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But it does tend to trap people in a cycle of poverty rather than allowing a path into the middle class. Hahaha, no. The guarantee that regardless of how poor you are or whether or not you're employed, you can still get healthcare does not keep people poor. Poor people are not animals, they are more than capable of looking at their own lives and realizing having more money would be pretty cool even in nations with UHC. Hell, you want to talk anecdotes, my parents did not grow up with wealth, and despite living in a communist country, they still went to university and got Master's degrees so they could have better lives than their parents did. quote:If I lived with a nationalized healthcare system where I thought that, should I ever get sick, all my medical bills will be paid by the State and I'll be taken care of (whether that is true or not) of course that provides a perverse incentive to not avoid illness as you otherwise might. Guess what, I've lived in both! What you're describing does not happen in significant numbers in nations with UHC! Medical costs in UHC nations are lower than in the USA so there likely isn't a huge influx of medical patients dragging down the system, their obesity rates are lower so people aren't exploiting the free healthcare to live lives of gluttony, at best you can maybe say there are more smokers in the UK than the USA but in turn there are UHC nations with far lower rates of smoking than the USA, etc. Also, most illnesses are not caused by negligence. The modern medical community has this wonderful thing called "Germ Theory". In it, disease is caused by microorgansms infecting your body and making you sick. You can be the most diligent motherfucker and still get cancer because tough luck fucknuts, one of your cells hosed up dividing. Please stop reading medical texts from the 1500s, poor character does not in fact cause illness. I was half kidding when I said you think that poor people choose to get sick, but now I'm not sure it is a joke. Creating a financial incentive to not get sick is stupid because it's not a personal choice you goof. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:On top of that, you have directly referenced known racists over well understood points of history. Honestly though, what is the point of this particular line of argumentation? An appeal to authority is not meaningful in the first place, so what does it matter, especially when their repulsive beliefs are only tenuously connected to the ones relevant to this discussion? And besides, if we extended this to, say, condemnation of the works of homophobes and misogynists, we'd have to discount the a tremendous number of important thinkers (although not Keynes, lol). It just seems strange to me to say "Person has bad opinon A, therefore opionion H is also bad."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Honestly though, what is the point of this particular line of argumentation? An appeal to authority is not meaningful in the first place, so what does it matter, especially when their repulsive beliefs are only tenuously connected to the ones relevant to this discussion? And besides, if we extended this to, say, condemnation of the works of homophobes and misogynists, we'd have to discount the a tremendous number of important thinkers (although not Keynes, lol). It just seems strange to me to say "Person has bad opinon A, therefore opionion H is also bad." Becuase the beliefs are tied at the hip. They don't want government getting in the way of their right to oppress the Other of their choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Honestly though, what is the point of this particular line of argumentation? An appeal to authority is not meaningful in the first place, so what does it matter, especially when their repulsive beliefs are only tenuously connected to the ones relevant to this discussion? And besides, if we extended this to, say, condemnation of the works of homophobes and misogynists, we'd have to discount the a tremendous number of important thinkers (although not Keynes, lol). It just seems strange to me to say "Person has bad opinon A, therefore opionion H is also bad." Because when the person you are citing not only has questionable motives for his beliefs, but has already been outed as a pseudohistorian, his validity is highly questionable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:You mention that only 6% of the population of the CSA owned slaves and that attacking that 6% would have been justified in your view. Let's pretend that only that 6% actually supported slavery and the other 94% only wanted to secede because of tariffs (despite this being retarded). How was the Union supposed to attack only that 6%? The Confederacy sure as poo poo wasn't going to let Union soldiers march across their lands to the slave plantations. And assassinations historically have only ever led to escalating violence incredibly quickly rather than stopping it, just look up Archduke Franz Ferdinand. If you allow the southern states to secede, immediately you repeal all fugative slave laws. What this means is that if a slave escaped to the North they would be free immediately and not returned to their "master" in the South. You have to remember that the institution of slavery was heavily subsidized and propped up by government law. Non-slave owning whites where made to go on slave patrols hunting for runaway slaves and then returning them to the plantations. Fugative slave laws existed where slaves who had escaped to other States, including States where slavery was illegal, would be returned. What I would do is make a declaration that slavery would be abolished entirely in ALL the Union States and I would have passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which would not have applied obviously to the Confederacy. I would declare that the Union would not do any business with the South so long as the institution of slaver persisted. If and when the South abolished slavery, economic restrictions would be lifted and they could benefit from free trade and they could be integrated back into the Union. All the while, each and every slave that escaped to the North would be free immediately. The underground railroad would continue to transport escaped slaves across the border to freedom. Citizen led insurrection efforts would help the slaves to stage a revolt against their masters making life very dangerous for slave owners. Word would be spread that if you own slaves, you could be killed by the abolitionist movement and free blacks. This would make it even more economically unprofitable to rely on slave labor. Similar proposals were propagated by classical liberal and anarchist abolitionists like Lysander Spooner. Spooner hated slavery as much as anyone. But he considered it hypocritical to oppose slavery on the one hand but deny the right of secession and freedom of association. Furthermore the Union relied upon conscription, which is another form of slavery, to fight the Civil War. Here is Lysander Spooner speaking about the Civil War: And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest -- enormous as the latter was -- are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further -- and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid -- by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war**, and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE." The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you. These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people. The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!" By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest. The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this -- that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people -- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) -- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats -- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one -- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want. The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called -- that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered -- so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 17:34
|
|