Caros posted:Frankly life would be very dangerous to be an abolitionist in the confederacy Even the ones that wasn't afraid to use violence got caught and executed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
|
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:37 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 04:10 |
|
Alhazred posted:Even the ones that wasn't afraid to use violence got caught and executed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) Heck, when George Fitzhugh, author of Sociology for the South, was in Boston in 1855, he was surprised at how cordially he was treated by abolitionists and the general public, knowing drat well that an abolitionist couldn't set foot in the South for fear of getting lynched. Raskolnikov38 posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy Heck, didn't Lloyd Garrison get dragged around with a noose around his neck by an anti-abolitionist group in Boston during the 1830s? Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 11, 2014 |
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:39 |
|
JRod, can you point me to a credible health care policy expert that shares your opinion?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:39 |
|
Alhazred posted:Even the ones that wasn't afraid to use violence got caught and executed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy Abolitionist newspaper publisher is murdered in 1837 in Illinois. Forget going to the South for your live to be in danger.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:40 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you think that people who don't exercise every day want to get sick? Do you think people that eat too many sweets want to get diabetes? Do you think people that smoke want to get cancer? No, they all assume that they will be able to lead unhealthy lives and get away with it. And yet, the United States, where health care costs are phenomenally higher than any other developed nation, incidences of obesity and diabetes are also phenomenally higher!! It's as thought the opposite of what you are saying is true, and the truly bad thing about sickness isn't being broke, it's being loving sick. quote:Yes, getting cancer should be disincentive enough. "Should?" gently caress you. quote:But what of just getting the flu and then getting a week of paid vacation from work? Or free doctor care? Getting a mild case of the flu is not that bad but if you get free doctor care and paid vacation there is far less incentive to avoid that outcome than if you lost a weeks pay and had to pay a couple hundred dollars to see the doctor. Show me a stastic that say the uninsured are more likely to get a flu shot. Praxeology holds no water here. quote:Does this same incentive structure work in reverse for the very wealthy? To a degree, I'd argue that it does. The difference is that if the wealthy become sick through negligence of their own health, they have the means to pay for their own care and they don't force anyone else to pay for it. For social welfare programs for the middle class and lower class, if you are disincentized from taking care of your own health, you rely on State aid that is forcefully extracted from the rest of us. The whole point of this statement is that there isn't a correlation with wealth and unhealth, it's the reverse, because they can afford medical care.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:42 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you think that people who don't exercise every day want to get sick? Do you think people that eat too many sweets want to get diabetes? Do you think people that smoke want to get cancer? No, they all assume that they will be able to lead unhealthy lives and get away with it. Well of the top three in your post, we actually tax cigarettes specifically because the inevitable illnesses associated with it put a strain on our public healthcare systems. If you do something that is outright stupid like that you do actually end up paying more, but lets get to the very special part of your post. First and foremost, do you think most people have much say in avoiding getting the flu? There are flu shots I suppose, but in a private healthcare system they may of course be disincentivized from taking a flu shot since the chance of getting a flu vs the cost of seeing the doctor for the shot. But okay.. how about the common cold? Considering the history of the common cold and its virulent (get it!) nature, do you really think that your average layman has much of a choice over whether or not he catches a cold? Especially when transmission is as much a product of the behavior of others as himself. Your typical adult gets 2-4 colds each year in america, and about the same number in Canada. You are going to catch a cold, whether you are incentivized to or not. What UHC allows is that it incentivizes people to see a doctor to be sure it is 'just' a cold, and it incentivizes people to stay home from work rather than being loving typhoid mary.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:45 |
|
archangelwar posted: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. There are several dozen quotes that are frequently cited by Mussolini that say essentially the same thing, being that the essence of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. That particular quote is commonly cited. What I read is that it's attribution to Mussolini is disputed. Upon further reading, that quote is incorrect. See, an admission of error. However, the ghist of what Mussolini was saying is correct and is bolstered by a great many other quotes correctly attributed to him. What we have is not hardcore fascism but a sort of soft fascism. I understand that fascism is an inflammatory word that has all but lost its meaning through incorrect use over the years. In fact fascism has become almost an all encompassing smear term to label anyone or anything you disagree with. Yet there is indeed a real definition of the term. The relationship between private capital and the State is what I am referring to. Private profits but socialized loses, State partnerships and various controls placed upon industry, regulations on the economy and barriers to entry into certain markets. We could disagree all day about whether my use of the term "fascist" to describe this phenomenon is appropriate or not. What I am trying to get through to you though, is that the existence of private profits in a market does not in any way mean that the market is "free" or any approximation of laissez faire. You might just as easily be criticizing the real estate market in 2006 for making housing unaffordable due to the astronomical home prices at the height of the housing bubble, ignoring the fact that Federal Reserve and State policy caused the soaring home prices that we saw. Or you could criticize the free market for making college unaffordable because tuition to Harvard is $50,000 a year (this is a guess, it might be higher). You need to get your cause and effect in order. The rising prices that exist in the housing market, higher education and healthcare are primarily the result of State intervention and distortion of the price mechanisms that would usually drive down the costs. I have not sourced any "well known racists". I have not done that nor would I ever trust or admire a racist commentator, economist or historian. You are falling back on that old leftist trope of employing the term "racist" as a catch all smear to tarnish the reputations of those who disagree with you. It is a tired cliche at this point.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:51 |
|
Caros posted:Well of the top three in your post, we actually tax cigarettes specifically because the inevitable illnesses associated with it put a strain on our public healthcare systems. If you do something that is outright stupid like that you do actually end up paying more, but lets get to the very special part of your post. This also ignores the fact that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles tend to cost less in healthcare resources overall due to early termination. They definitely cause more acute illness/injury, however.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:52 |
|
archangelwar posted:JRod, can you point me to a credible health care policy expert that shares your opinion? Dr. Moreau. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh5iOitreQ8 As you can see the lack of statists hobbling the good doctor leads to incredible results.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:52 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You might just as easily be criticizing the real estate market in 2006 for making housing unaffordable due to the astronomical home prices at the height of the housing bubble, ignoring the fact that Federal Reserve and State policy caused the soaring home prices that we saw. Alright, I'm out. Have fun guys. (Jrod, I work in home loans, and let me tell you there is no question that the banks were responsible. Literally nobody who knows anything about this agrees with you.)
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:59 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you think that people who don't exercise every day want to get sick? Do you think people that eat too many sweets want to get diabetes? Do you think people that smoke want to get cancer? No, they all assume that they will be able to lead unhealthy lives and get away with it. Okay, I've been following this thread for a while and have never made a comment, but this struck a chord in me and I just have to say something. "If poor people don't have to suffer when they get sick, then they will get sick more often." JROD, TYOOL 2014 The way that you are coming at this shows a little glimpse behind the curtain. You're dressing it up in cute words like "disencentivized" but you really, really think that if the most vulnerable in society can't afford medical care, can't take care of themselves in the system that exists, then they don't deserve it. You don't want poor people to have time off when they get sick, because if they can't afford it it means that they aren't working hard enough. Come live in the real world, Jrod. Please, come meet me here. We'll hang out, I'll buy you a beer. Come see the working poor, who go to work when they are sick because they do lose pay when they don't go to work. That's not hypothetical, that happens. That describes the situation we are in. You say that you have chronic health issues. Imagine, if every time those chronic health issues flare up, you lose your job! Which you need, because now you have medical bills! That accurately describes the situation for a lot of people, people that you see every day, people that contribute to your life, people that wash your dishes and fix your car and cook you food when you go out to eat and pour your a frosty cold one when you're out with your friends. I've seen some wrongheaded stuff thrown around, but I cannot disagree with your sentiment on this issue strong enough. People on the lowest rung of society work really, really hard. Long shifts that leave their feet hurting and their hands raw, and they make many, many times their salary for the people above them. I believe you have this idea that if people are poor, its because their efforts are obviously insufficient. You're wrong. You, being a captain of industry, a mover and a shaker despite being held down by the shackles of The State, obviously are unable to sympathize with people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder if you think this way. Do you know any of the working poor? Because if you really think this way, you must not. (Please, please do not say that it's The State that's preventing these people from negotiating for a fair wage. Please don't. I have a response to that, but I don't want to believe that someone can be so dedicated to their wrongness that they would throw out the argument that the state is responsible for the existence of low-paying jobs.) Seriously, let's hang out sometime. Get outside of your bubble a little bit. Maybe even outside your comfort zone. Maybe you'll learn something.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:00 |
|
People acting outside their own rational self-interest? We do not approve!
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:04 |
|
jrodefeld posted:What we have is not hardcore fascism but a sort of soft fascism. I understand that fascism is an inflammatory word that has all but lost its meaning through incorrect use over the years. In fact fascism has become almost an all encompassing smear term to label anyone or anything you disagree with. Yet there is indeed a real definition of the term. The relationship between private capital and the State is what I am referring to. Private profits but socialized loses, State partnerships and various controls placed upon industry, regulations on the economy and barriers to entry into certain markets. I genuinely don't know how a human being could write the first part and the second in the same post.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:07 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I have not sourced any "well known racists". I have not done that nor would I ever trust or admire a racist commentator, economist or historian. You are falling back on that old leftist trope of employing the term "racist" as a catch all smear to tarnish the reputations of those who disagree with you. It is a tired cliche at this point. "Hans motherfuckin' Hoppe posted:"The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration [...] The power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners. [...], if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements [...]"
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:13 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I genuinely don't know how a human being could write the first part and the second in the same post. I don't understand how a human being can believe that easy access to healthcare somehow encourages illness. What the actual gently caress. And I suppose I was being unfair to Jrod, Caros. But the more I read the less inclined I am to be fair. At first I thought he just believed really hard in the Free Market and it was a sort of innocent optimism. But this is just all so beyond the pale.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:15 |
|
jrodefeld posted:There are several dozen quotes that are frequently cited by Mussolini that say essentially the same thing, being that the essence of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. That particular quote is commonly cited. What I read is that it's attribution to Mussolini is disputed. Upon further reading, that quote is incorrect. See, an admission of error. However, the ghist of what Mussolini was saying is correct and is bolstered by a great many other quotes correctly attributed to him. Gist. The Gist of what Mussolini was saying is correct. There is no H in ghist, that is why there is that little red line underneath it. If there are several dozen quotes that are frequently cited by Mussolini, then produce a few. Hell, produce one. While you try and fail, let me produce some actual quotes on the subject: quote:The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14) quote:Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15) quote:The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41). On top of all that, corporatism meant something very different to Mussolini all those years ago than it means to us now. As referenced in my second quote, the corporatism he is talking about is a sort of vertical syndicalist corporatism based on early guilds, rather than the beasts that we have today. By all means try and find quotes that agree with your position, but I think you will come up wanting and never mention those "dozens" of quotes again. quote:What we have is not hardcore fascism but a sort of soft fascism. I understand that fascism is an inflammatory word that has all but lost its meaning through incorrect use over the years. In fact fascism has become almost an all encompassing smear term to label anyone or anything you disagree with. Yet there is indeed a real definition of the term. The relationship between private capital and the State is what I am referring to. Private profits but socialized loses, State partnerships and various controls placed upon industry, regulations on the economy and barriers to entry into certain markets. It has lost its meaning because of people like you who use it as an all encompassing smear term to label anyone or anything you disagree with. There is a very real definition of the term, I agree with that to. The definition of the term has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You do not understand what Fascism is, and your babbling about what we have being 'soft' fascism vs 'hardcore' fascism is a blatant attempt to try and manipulate the word to try and twist it into meaning what you want it to mean so that you can call people who disagree with you fascist. quote:We could disagree all day about whether my use of the term "fascist" to describe this phenomenon is appropriate or not. I have no doubt that you could spend all day being wrong about the term. Unless you believe that corporatism is right wing authoritarian nationalism, characterized by ultra nationalism and a devotion to the military, then you are not talking about fascism. We can all agree that corporatism is bad, you don't have to compare it (wrongly) to Hitler to try and win points. quote:What I am trying to get through to you though, is that the existence of private profits in a market does not in any way mean that the market is "free" or any approximation of laissez faire. - I have gone beyond the level of argument by assertion. I call this form, Argumentum Ad Nauseum. You have spent probably the last five page making naked assertions that prices are going up because the government is making them go up without providing a shred of evidence to support your position, while at the same time denying any alternate positions, even ones supported by historical facts and figures. Literally the only thing you have presented for your argument that government increased healthcare prices was a chart that showed that healthcare prices diverged from the typical CPI inflation in and around 1960. Well you know what? POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC! Correlation is not causation. You have provided nothing but repeated assertion after assertion that healthcare prices have increased. When I have pointed out that there are multiple other reasons that health care prices could have (and did) increase, your only response was to say "That is absurd" and then repeat your postion for the upteenth time. Others have asked you why healthcare costs are substantially lower in UHC countries, despite the fact that those countries have total government control over healthcare, instead of merely partial. You have been unable to answer this. Did something snap in your brain? Have you gotten caught in some sort of blue screen of death where you believe that simply repeating the same argument over and over without new backing or substance will get you anywhere? It wont. quote:I have not sourced any "well known racists". I have not done that nor would I ever trust or admire a racist commentator, economist or historian. You are falling back on that old leftist trope of employing the term "racist" as a catch all smear to tarnish the reputations of those who disagree with you. It is a tired cliche at this point. quote:However, the ghist of what Mussolini was saying is correct and is bolstered by a great many other quotes correctly attributed to him. Well... there is Mussolini. You did just source one of the most well known racists of the twentieth century. Its a cheap shot, I know, but it amused me nonetheless. At the risk of turning this into JRod supports racists thread 462, I'm going to drop only a single real name. Murray Rothbard. The linked article is called "Race! That Murray Book" wherein he discusses, supports and frankly cheers on the conclusions of a book called "The Bell Curve" which found that African Americans are intellectually inferior. quote:Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary. That is racist. Full stop. Murray Rothbard believes it is self evident that racial groups (blacks in particular) are stupider than whites. quote:It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. That is Murray Rothbard publicly declaring his support for former grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke. quote:A second, and more plausible, form of black nationalism is for a separate black nation in currently existing black areas: a New Africa comprised of Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Detroit, Watts, et al. with its capital the old Washington, D.C., and President Jesse Jackson sitting in the Black House. But then more problems arise. Apart from all the problems of enclaves and access, does anyone really believe that this New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A., and strictly limited migration between the two nations? In a pig's eye. That is Murray Rothbard talking about how he might have supported a free state for blacks, except that he believes that blacks would need money from the USA. Because they are black and are too stupid to succeed. quote:4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error. Murray Rothbard does not understand the Judge Dread is supposed to be satire. This one isn't necessarily racist, but I have no doubt that we all know who Rothbard thinks are the real criminals. quote:If the female social reform activists were almost all Yankee, by the late 19th century, Jewish women were beginning to add their leaven to the lump. Of the crucial 1860s cohort, the most important Jewess was Lillian D. Wald (b. 1867). Born to an upper-middle-class German and Polish-Jewish family in Cincinnati, Lillian and her family soon moved to Rochester, where she became a nurse. She then organized, in the Lower East Side of New York, the Nurses' Settlement, which was soon to become the famed Henry Street Settlement. It was Lillian Wald who first suggested a federal Children's Bureau to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, and who led the agitation for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing child labor. While she was not a Yankee, Lillian Wald continued in the dominant tradition by being a lesbian, forming a long-term lesbian relationship with her associate Lavina Dock. Wald, while not wealthy herself, had an uncanny ability to gain financing for Henry Street, including top Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff and Mrs. Solomon Loeb of the Wall Street investment-banking firm of Kuhn-Loeb, and Julius Rosenwald, then head of Sears Roebuck. Also prominent in financing Henry Street was the Milbank Fund, of the Rockefeller-affiliated family who owned the Borden Milk Company. Full disclosure, Murray Rothbard has jewish heritage. That said, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone being Jewish has anything to do with the fact that they supported the welfare state. Also the word Jewess comes up a bunch of times in this and maybe its just a product of the times... but that is hosed up. I get a distinct bit of enjoyment from the fact that Hans Hermann Hoppe spelled muslims wrong. Caros fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 11, 2014 |
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:23 |
|
Severe meningococcal meningitis is the byproduct of differentiated time preferences.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:27 |
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
Saying that people have the right to exclude people from their own property for whatever reason they choose is clearly not racist. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gay Scout Masters because they are a private religious organization, does that mean I am homophobic or a bigot? If I say that the KKK have the right to free speech does that make me a white supremacist? Hoppe is explaining the libertarian theory of property rights, which naturally implies the right to discriminate for any reason. He is not saying he would endorse or support discriminating against anyone for racial reasons. That should be obvious.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:32 |
|
Choosing to do so on the basis of their skin color is racist, so sorry no, point not made.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:33 |
|
Thom Hartmann had some conservative lady doctor on his show yesterday and her solution to our health care problems was to have people pay doctors directly, which would some how make treating cancer more affordable. Then she said that people are being forcibly euthanized in the UK and Canada.QuarkJets posted:I still can't believe that someone seriously thinks that affordable medical care will make people more sick because they no longer have to worry about the financial consequences of getting sick. Like jrod must think that there are just a ton of people in Canada and the UK sticking random needles in their arms and drinking puddle water because they're not worried about having to pay for medical care if they get sick. And yet despite all of those lack of disincentives to get sick, they still pay less per capita for medical care, but jrod won't recognize that. I always joked that if the government ever provided free wheelchairs to people who couldn't walk, conservatives would then claim that this would provide an incentive for people to break their legs. It wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:34 |
|
jrodefeld posted:There are several dozen quotes that are frequently cited by Mussolini that say essentially the same thing, being that the essence of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. That particular quote is commonly cited. What I read is that it's attribution to Mussolini is disputed. Upon further reading, that quote is incorrect. See, an admission of error. However, the ghist of what Mussolini was saying is correct and is bolstered by a great many other quotes correctly attributed to him. No. Wrong. Try again. You have 'admitted error' only in the most cursory and pusillanimous way by going "So, yeah, the quote was wrong, but Mussolini totally meant what the quote said". Sorry, but no. Just no. You do not get to slip away from this. Retract it fully. jrodefeld posted:What we have is not hardcore fascism but a sort of soft fascism. I understand that fascism is an inflammatory word that has all but lost its meaning through incorrect use over the years. In fact fascism has become almost an all encompassing smear term to label anyone or anything you disagree with. Yet there is indeed a real definition of the term. The relationship between private capital and the State is what I am referring to. Private profits but socialized loses, State partnerships and various controls placed upon industry, regulations on the economy and barriers to entry into certain markets. And wrong again. Fascism as a political system, is an actual, descriptive political term with a specific meaning. Just because you want it to mean something, doesn't mean it magically takes on the meaning you ascribe to it. There is no 'soft' or 'hardcore' fascism. There is Capitalism, however, returning to its roots as an unfettered force, which is precisely the opposite of the Fascist system. Fascism suborns the entirety of society into a whole under control of one, strong, authoritarian leader; The military, education, and the economy. That's the entire point of Fascism to begin with: The whole society, pulling together as one organism, to achieve self-sufficiency ( autarky ) as the first step towards eventual domination of their neighbours through military means. It is certainly possible for private individuals to make enormous fortunes under Fascism, of course, but "Private profits, socialized losses" are a capitalist, free-market idea through-and-through. jrodefeld posted:We could disagree all day about whether my use of the term "fascist" to describe this phenomenon is appropriate or not. Your use is not appropriate at all. Again, words have actual meanings that do not change at your whim. jrodefeld posted:What I am trying to get through to you though, is that the existence of private profits in a market does not in any way mean that the market is "free" or any approximation of laissez faire. It is the most free market in existence today, and we have seen the results of that, haven't we? jrodefeld posted:You might just as easily be criticizing the real estate market in 2006 for making housing unaffordable due to the astronomical home prices at the height of the housing bubble, ignoring the fact that Federal Reserve and State policy caused the soaring home prices that we saw. Citation loving needed. No, seriously. I want to see numbers on this. I want to see actual economists making this point, when the housing-market crash came right on the heels of the biggest deregulation of financial institutions in the US since the 1890s. jrodefeld posted:Or you could criticize the free market for making college unaffordable because tuition to Harvard is $50,000 a year (this is a guess, it might be higher). Actually, yes, I can. Because here's a thing: I went to university for - virtually - free. I had to pay 100 dollars or so a semester in copyist fees to keep the place in toner and paper, but tuition? Nada. Zip. Zilch. jrodefeld posted:You need to get your cause and effect in order. The rising prices that exist in the housing market, higher education and healthcare are primarily the result of State intervention and distortion of the price mechanisms that would usually drive down the costs. And yet, here in the socialist hellhole that is Scandinavia, with our thoroughly regulated education and health sectors, I pay a co-pay of 50 dollars for an MRI and nothing for education. Well, apart from those 100 bucks a semester in copyist fees. It's almost as if you have it completely backwards. Oh! And if you want to, and can afford it, you can still choose to send your kids to a private school, or go to a private clinic to get things taken care of right now. In point of fact, you have liberty. Proper liberty. Because the only thing, literally, that stands in your way of success here? Is you. Anyone here can, if they apply themselves and get the grades, apply to become, say, a doctor or a lawyer, both of which are high-status, high-pay professions, along with market analysts, off-shore managers, consultants of every stripe, lobbyists, etc. etc.. You also live in the knowledge that your life will not be ruined if you should come down with a serious illness or an accident were to happen. Your children, should you choose to have them, will be guaranteed an education, irrespective of your ability to pay. And as it turns out, when that is what you get? You don't mind paying taxes. E:fb by Caros.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:41 |
|
jrodefeld posted:If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gay Scout Masters because they are a private religious organization, does that mean I am homophobic or a bigot? We've been had, boys. Nobody is this stupid.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:48 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Saying that people have the right to exclude people from their own property for whatever reason they choose is clearly not racist. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gay Scout Masters because they are a private religious organization, does that mean I am homophobic or a bigot? If I say that the KKK have the right to free speech does that make me a white supremacist? Man, if I had known the Confederacy was simply exercising their right to discriminate in owning slaves. After all, they were just their property.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:49 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I have not sourced any "well known racists". I have not done that nor would I ever trust or admire a racist commentator, economist or historian. You are falling back on that old leftist trope of employing the term "racist" as a catch all smear to tarnish the reputations of those who disagree with you. It is a tired cliche at this point. jrodefeld, why are you a liar? Did your parents raise you that way? You cited DiLorenzo, who is a supporter of the League of the South. You cited Hoppe: Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted:...if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements [...] There literally doesn't need to be anything else said. You are either an idiot, or a liar. Which one is it?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:52 |
|
Yes. You are homophobic and bigoted.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:55 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Man, if I had known the Confederacy was simply exercising their right to discriminate in owning slaves. After all, they were just their property. quote:You cited Hoppe: The Hoppe thing is really not the hill you guys want to fight him on, because he is actually right as far as it goes. Private institutions are, and should be allowed to discriminate based on all manner of things even in our current society. The boyscouts don't let in gays, and while that does make the boyscouts homophobic, it does not reflect badly on someone who points out that they still have every right to do that. I think the Klan has every right to say the horrific stuff that they do, and to exclude 'the negro' from their private meetings. I'm not a racist for thinking that, and I can think they are allowed to do that while also acknowledging that the Klan is racist as all gently caress. Things like Citing DiLorenzo are good examples, and I won't even disagree that Hoppe is probably a racist, its just that this specific line of argument is not one that I think you are in the right on.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:56 |
|
Jrode, explain:quote:TOPEKA http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article3729756.html#storylink=cpy How does the government asking for less revenue result in less revenue?!
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:03 |
|
jrodefeld why are you so interested in making people with the flu go to work so they can make everybody else sick? Why do you hate productivity? This is the same short-sighted attitude many business owners have about minimum wage. If they would just pay a little better their turnover would improve.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:08 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Saying that people have the right to exclude people from their own property for whatever reason they choose is clearly not racist. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude gay Scout Masters because they are a private religious organization, does that mean I am homophobic or a bigot? YES!!!
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:11 |
|
Caros posted:The Hoppe thing is really not the hill you guys want to fight him on, because he is actually right as far as it goes. Private institutions are, and should be allowed to discriminate based on all manner of things even in our current society. The boyscouts don't let in gays, and while that does make the boyscouts homophobic, it does not reflect badly on someone who points out that they still have every right to do that. They don't actually, not under the laws of Canada or the US. At least businesses don't. And since I'm pretty sure we're taking about moral right and not technical legal right, I'll say that naw, bigots don't have the moral right to exclude people. That they do proves they are immoral bigots, and HHH's inclusion of them in his ideal society, especially describing physically excluding people from a region, is racist, as is the man himself.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:11 |
|
Caros posted:The Hoppe thing is really not the hill you guys want to fight him on, because he is actually right as far as it goes. Private institutions are, and should be allowed to discriminate based on all manner of things even in our current society. The boyscouts don't let in gays, and while that does make the boyscouts homophobic, it does not reflect badly on someone who points out that they still have every right to do that. That particular quote is not. These quotes, on the other hand: quote:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. And this screed quote:Libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards quote:The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. God this is the gift that keeps on giving. He wrote this poo poo a few months ago. You can't get any more steamy. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Nov 11, 2014 |
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:12 |
|
Political Whores posted:They don't actually, not under the laws of Canada or the US. At least businesses don't. And since I'm pretty sure we're taking about moral right and not technical legal right, I'll say that naw, bigots don't have the moral right to exclude people. That they do proves they are immoral bigots, and HHH's inclusion of them in his ideal society, especially describing physically excluding people from a region, is racist, as is the man himself. Private organizations absolutely do, which is what Hoppe is talking about. That is why the boy scouts were able to exclude gays for so long, as well as atheists and agnostics. Don't get me wrong, the idea that people would actually do something like that is hosed up to all hell, but you're taking the point he is offering out of context. quote:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. This isn't racist. Stupid as gently caress and filled with incredible overtones about how it is almost certainly the whites who will be the natural social elites? Absolutely. But this statement in and of itself is not actually racist. quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. Again, not racist in the context it is being used. These passages from Hoppe are talking about his own, ideal theoretical situation where there is no government and all property is owned by someone. Within these private covenants, people set their own rules, and it is entirely possible those rules could be 'no blacks/gays/mexicans'. He isn't proposing that, merely saying that it is an inevitable consequence of his beliefs. Now is that belief system disgusting? Yeah, I think any system that is set up in which discrimination is up to the whims of the powerful is absurd, but it is hard to necessarily say that Hoppe is supporting racism. More to the point, its not a winning argument against Jrodefeld because Jrod actually believes that such a 'free' society would have no incentive to be racist for 'reasons'. I'm mostly pointing this out because there are way better selections of racist quotes to chose from than the ambiguously racist stuff. Ron Paul's racist comments, or the Murray Rothbard stuff I've posted above are much, much more blatant, and give Jrod way less wiggle room.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:23 |
|
Caros posted:This isn't racist. Stupid as gently caress and filled with incredible overtones about how it is almost certainly the whites who will be the natural social elites? Absolutely. But this statement in and of itself is not actually racist. If it weren't such a thoroughly disgusting subject, I would put effort into the argument that if you encourage racism/bigotry (he is not just saying it can it exist, he is saying it SHOULD exist in those quotes) you are a bigot/racist. Do you give the same benefit of the doubt to the last couple of quotes I edited in?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:35 |
|
Triple H posted:The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. S-social research? Empiricism?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:41 |
|
Holy poo poo Archangelwar, way to knock it out of the park on that last one. I'm quoting it in its entirety because... wow. It is really easy to forget that Hans Hermann Hoppe isn't a stereotypical racist from the 19th century, but is in fact a living, breathing person making these quotes in TTYOL 2014:quote:Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:42 |
|
quote:What left-libertarians typically ignore in their nonchalant or even sympathetic appraisal of the predictable crisis is the fact that the immigrants who caused the collapse are still physically present when it occurs. For left-libertarians, owing to their egalitarian preconceptions, this fact does not imply a problem. For them, all people are more or less equal and hence, an increase in the number of immigrants has no more of an impact than an increase of the domestic population via a higher birthrate. For every social realist, however, indeed for everyone with any common sense, this premise is patently false and potentially dangerous. A million more Nigerians or Arabs living in Germany or a million more Mexicans or Hutus or Tutsis residing in the US is quite a different thing than a million more home-grown Germans or Americans. With millions of third- and second-world immigrants present when the crisis hits and the paychecks stop coming in, it is highly unlikely that a peaceful outcome will result and a natural, private-property-based social order emerge. Rather, it is far more likely and indeed almost certain that civil war, looting, vandalism, and tribal or ethnic gang warfare will break out instead – and the call for a strong-man-State will become increasingly unmistakable. quote:If it weren't such a thoroughly disgusting subject, I would put effort into the argument that if you encourage racism/bigotry (he is not just saying it can it exist, he is saying it SHOULD exist in those quotes) you are a bigot/racist. Nope, he made a lot of outright racist or otherwise hilariously awful statements in this one. Excellent catch. I'd never really taken Hoppe for a Randist before, but a lot of that post just screams Ayn Rand at me. Also, sorry for the wall of text guys, it needed to be seen to be believed however.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:45 |
|
Caros posted:Also, sorry for the wall of text guys, it needed to be seen to be believed however. And just so everyone is clear, this is posted on lewrockwell.com, a common Libertarian link target in the same vein as mises.org
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:49 |
|
SedanChair posted:S-social research? Empiricism? No SedanChair, don't you worry, this empiricism agrees with Libertarianism and so we can accept it. It's only when someone tries to use empiricism or research to say libertarianism is wrong that we can safely ignore it.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:50 |
|
DrProsek posted:No SedanChair, don't you worry, this empiricism agrees with Libertarianism and so we can accept it. It's only when someone tries to use empiricism or research to say libertarianism is wrong that we can safely ignore it. You see, Leftists use empiricism but Libertarians use empiricism (only I just lied about it supporting me tee hee hee).
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:51 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 04:10 |
|
I wonder what Triple H would think about Amy Chua, of Tiger Mom fame.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:52 |