|
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. No we ARE talking about the legal right. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to not hire a gay scoutmaster, what I am saying is that it is not morally defensible to use force against them to deny their right to freedom of association. I personally oppose exclusion based purely on race, religion or sexual orientation. I find such bigotry to be reprehensible and I would not do business with anyone who is a known bigot. I would use my freedom of association to disassociate with people who use their freedom of association to express their bigotry. It may come as a surprise to you, but forcing people to associate with people they don't want to associate with does not remove bigotry from society. It many cases it exacerbates it and increases racial tension. If racists want to reveal their racism through exclusion from their property and disassociation, let them. Then the rest of us can punish them through the marketplace. For Hans Hoppe to point out that the right to property necessarily implies the right to discriminate and determine how that property is used, it doesn't mean he endorses any such discrimination. As an earlier poster pointed out, you cannot dismiss an idea or proposal because you think the person who is proposing it might be a racist. Shouting "racism" is not a valid debate tactic. What you should be addressing is whether the theory of property that libertarians like Hoppe describe is valid or not. Why the separation between personal property and commercial property? By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home?
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No we ARE talking about the legal right. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to not hire a gay scoutmaster, what I am saying is that it is not morally defensible to use force against them to deny their right to freedom of association. Jrodefeld, are you planning on addressing the fact that you were caught blatantly plagurizing an article from Mises.Org in a post two days ago? I know this is unrelated, but the fact that you are talking about 'an earlier poster' which is me, means you are still reading my posts, and frankly I think you need to address it if you are going to continue to try and have a debate in this thread. I know that I for one am having difficulty keeping civil. Caros fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No we ARE talking about the legal right. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to not hire a gay scoutmaster, what I am saying is that it is not morally defensible to use force against them to deny their right to freedom of association. Ah yes, the time-honored practice of the marketplace solving racist issues which totally is a thing that has ever worked, examples of which I will now list in alphabetical order: quote:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? Because, compassionate individuals that we are, we'd rather not inflict you upon racial minorities. They have it hard enough in this country as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If racists want to reveal their racism through exclusion from their property and disassociation, let them. Then the rest of us can punish them through the marketplace. For Hans Hoppe to point out that the right to property necessarily implies the right to discriminate and determine how that property is used, it doesn't mean he endorses any such discrimination. But what if the market decides not to punish them? It wasn't the market that punished the South into giving up slavery. What do you do if and when the market fails? What if the market is working too slow? Why should we allow someone to keep slaves until the market has thoroughly punished them? Why is it moral to stand aside when someone's rights are being abused by someone else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No we ARE talking about the legal right. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to not hire a gay scoutmaster, what I am saying is that it is not morally defensible to use force against them to deny their right to freedom of association. Ideally anyone who expressed vile reprehensible racist opinions would be instantly ostracized and prevented from ever interacting with society again. I misspoke, in the US you are right that free association covers noncommercial private groups. Thankfully Canada doesn't have any such idiotic rules in its founding documents, and someone trying it here would definitely find himself up against a human rights complaint. That you or Hoppe should favor anything else is in fact active support of bigotry and make you a reprehensible human being. And I agree, why split between commercial and non-commercial? Any organization practicing discrimination should be shut down or rightfully sued into oblivion. Ideally every group that pracices exclusion absed on keeping moral inferiors out, from the Freemasons to country clubs to the KKK, would find itself incapable of functioning. E: And if your motivation for not letting someone into your dinner party was because they were a black man, then yes I would favour you being punished for it. That'd be sort of hard to prove unless you blatantly said "no darkies" thought. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? Jrod, you've brought this up in quite a few threads and I don't really know why because it was a hilariously bad argument the first time, and it has not gotten better with age. Not all property is the same. I can't block all black people from entering my home because as residential property, EVERYONE is banned from my home unless I specifically approve them. And that's okay because my home, as residential property, doesn't have anything inside it anyone but me needs. Meanwhile, commercial property like a pharmacy does have things that other people need, like medicine! Also dude, you played your hand way too hard, first quoting HHH, then being a neoconfederate quoting League of the South members, and now you're trying to go with "Nuh uh, YOU'RE the real racists!"? It's too loving funny dude, just go the Stormfront route and call yourself a supporter of human biodiversity if it means that much to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If racists want to reveal their racism through exclusion from their property and disassociation, let them. Then the rest of us can punish them through the marketplace. No thanks, lets punish them with laws. Because if the rest of us are also racist, the marketplace will reward them instead of punishing them. And society is racist sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
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? quote:If I say that the KKK have the right to free speech does that make me a white supremacist? quote:Hoppe is explaining the libertarian theory of property rights, which naturally implies the right to discriminate for any reason. Right, that is racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. The quotes offered are either not racist at all or are entirely taken out of context. But even supposing, and I don't concede this, that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another, that really says nothing about their economic arguments and contributions to libertarian theory. I'd much rather talk about the concepts themselves. I have personally read a great deal more Rothbard and Hoppe than you all have. I know pretty much all there is to know about Rothbard and Hoppe's views on race and racism. Remember, that Rothbard was a very prolific writer throughout the civil rights movement and he wrote a great deal about it. Over his prolific career Rothbard made various alliances with different groups of people. He aligned himself with the New Left and Antiwar liberal movements of the 1960s, he was instrumental in establishing the Libertarian Party and working within that movement. And he eventually, and mistakenly in my view, aligned himself with Paleoconvervatism in the early 1990s. He wrote commentary on every subject under the sun. He contributed articles to newsletters and journals, he wrote serious economic treatises and light political commentary in equal measure. Playing the game of picking out a quote or two and thinking you have understood Rothbard's views on a subject like race is ridiculous. And the question really is where did you get these quotes from? There are entire websites that are dedicated to destroying the character of Rothbard and Hoppe. When you strike a nerve with people, certain interests try to destroy you. So if you are cherry picking these "racist" quotes from leftist websites with titles like "debunking libertarianism", then you should be ashamed of yourselves. So I will return with a different topic since there is no reason to go over this poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? Why not indeed!? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. The quotes offered are either not racist at all or are entirely taken out of context. But even supposing, and I don't concede this, that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another, that really says nothing about their economic arguments and contributions to libertarian theory. I'd much rather talk about the concepts themselves. Economic and political arguments have often been proposed for the purpose of advancing racist agendas. It is almost as if the outcomes described by Libertarians might be influenced by particular motives. quote:I have personally read a great deal more Rothbard and Hoppe than you all have. I know pretty much all there is to know about Rothbard and Hoppe's views on race and racism. Remember, that Rothbard was a very prolific writer throughout the civil rights movement and he wrote a great deal about it. Over his prolific career Rothbard made various alliances with different groups of people. He aligned himself with the New Left and Antiwar liberal movements of the 1960s, he was instrumental in establishing the Libertarian Party and working within that movement. And he eventually, and mistakenly in my view, aligned himself with Paleoconvervatism in the early 1990s. He wrote commentary on every subject under the sun. He contributed articles to newsletters and journals, he wrote serious economic treatises and light political commentary in equal measure. He supported David Duke. quote:Playing the game of picking out a quote or two and thinking you have understood Rothbard's views on a subject like race is ridiculous. And the question really is where did you get these quotes from? There are entire websites that are dedicated to destroying the character of Rothbard and Hoppe. When you strike a nerve with people, certain interests try to destroy you. So if you are cherry picking these "racist" quotes from leftist websites with titles like "debunking libertarianism", then you should be ashamed of yourselves. Oh, why don't you reference the article I linked and Caros quoted?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:When you strike a nerve with people, certain interests try to destroy you. So if you are cherry picking these "racist" quotes .... then you should be ashamed of yourselves. Tell me more about Lincoln jrod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. Yeah because it keeps being true. Libertarianism is a den of white power activists and 19th century throwbacks to phrenological anthropology. We're not going to let go of it because it's true. quote:The quotes offered are either not racist at all or are entirely taken out of context. You're the one who takes them out of context. We put them back in context by saying "oh look at all the other things this person has written! Look who they're publishing alongside on this website! Look who they're shaking hands with in this photograph!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
JRod, why do you think Libertarian thinkers write so many words about how Libertarianism would allow for justified discrimination if they were in fact not excited about the idea that discrimination is a logical outcome of Libertarianism? Why do they spend so much time talking about how people would have to suffer in order to not have incentive to do something they don't want them to do, if they don't want people to suffer for those things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. Why gosh it's almost like there's a correlation between racism and Libertarianism! Why do you think that is, jrodefeld? jrodefeld posted:The quotes offered are either not racist at all or are entirely taken out of context. But even supposing, and I don't concede this, that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another, that really says nothing about their economic arguments and contributions to libertarian theory. I'd much rather talk about the concepts themselves. Hm it's not like their economic theories could be pushing their racist agenda there is no way we should consider that! jrodefeld posted:Playing the game of picking out a quote or two and thinking you have understood Rothbard's views on a subject like race is ridiculous. I don't need to read all of Rothbard's work to know that it is kind of immoral to suggest that a market in children would be a good thing. And before you go "buihuhuhughguhug PROVE IT WAS HIM THAT SAID THAT", it's here; it's even a nice mises.org link so you should be familiar with it. jrodefeld posted:And the question really is where did you get these quotes from? That super hilarious racist post that Caros quoted in its entirety and archangelwar originally posted came from noted libertarian bashing website LewRockwell.com. Try again, jrodefeld. jrodefeld posted:So I will return with a different topic since there is no reason to go over this poo poo again. You're a liar and a coward. Your parents must be proud of you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So I will return with a different topic since there is no reason to go over this poo poo again. The list of things you don't want to discuss grows ever longer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. The quotes offered are either not racist at all or are entirely taken out of context. But even supposing, and I don't concede this, that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another, that really says nothing about their economic arguments and contributions to libertarian theory. I'd much rather talk about the concepts themselves. The whole reason we got onto this train of discussion is because you said this: 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. You don't want us to harp on the fact that you draw ideas from people who are racist, then don't say that you don't source quotes from people who say racist things! It really is just that simple JRodefeld. I also don't want to talk about how racist Murray Rothbard is, because his economics are equally as bad and you get all up in a tizzy when people point out that your big thinkers are racists, but you don't get to claim that you don't quote racists and then say "Lets move on" when people point out that 'yes, you do.' quote:I have personally read a great deal more Rothbard and Hoppe than you all have. I know pretty much all there is to know about Rothbard and Hoppe's views on race and racism. Remember, that Rothbard was a very prolific writer throughout the civil rights movement and he wrote a great deal about it. Over his prolific career Rothbard made various alliances with different groups of people. He aligned himself with the New Left and Antiwar liberal movements of the 1960s, he was instrumental in establishing the Libertarian Party and working within that movement. And he eventually, and mistakenly in my view, aligned himself with Paleoconvervatism in the early 1990s. He wrote commentary on every subject under the sun. He contributed articles to newsletters and journals, he wrote serious economic treatises and light political commentary in equal measure. I highly doubt the bolded. Even if you've read more than me or a few others, there are a LOT of former libertarians in this thread. Quantity has a quality all its own. That said, you're doing a great job detailing Murray Rothbard's career and how varied it is. So what? Are you arguing that if you look into the background of any prolific economist you'll find racism? Because I highly doubt that. I don't think if you look into Paul Krugman's background you're going to find him singing the praises of a former leader of the KKK, or talking about the loving bell curve of how black people are dumber than white. quote:Playing the game of picking out a quote or two and thinking you have understood Rothbard's views on a subject like race is ridiculous. And the question really is where did you get these quotes from? There are entire websites that are dedicated to destroying the character of Rothbard and Hoppe. When you strike a nerve with people, certain interests try to destroy you. So if you are cherry picking these "racist" quotes from leftist websites with titles like "debunking libertarianism", then you should be ashamed of yourselves. Honestly? I typed Murray Rothbard Bell Curve into google and pulled the first half dozen quotes that struck me as hilariously offputting. As for cherry picking... and? Murray Rothbard has gone on record saying that he thinks black people are stupider than white people. He thinks that this is a self evident fact. He thinks that if a black state were developed it would need consistent aid from the USA to succeed because blacks just aren't as good as whites. I don't care if he's written fifty books and we've cherry picked these quotes, because these quotes are loving offensive and disgusting. Does a man have to be a skinhead constantly heiling hitler for them to actually be racist? Why is it okay for them to make some racist comments? What is the number of racist comments someone has to make before you consider them to be at least a little bit racist. quote:So I will return with a different topic since there is no reason to go over this poo poo again. Okay. If I might suggest a topic, how about we discuss how you blatantly plagiarized a significant part of one of your previous posts from a Mises.Org article and refuse to comment on it. Because I bet everyone wants to hear you talk about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I dream of a day when blacks are once again barred from education, jobs, and economic opportunity, but of course liberals are going to try shamelessly to discredit me with their cheap tactic of calling me a racist for not agreeing with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Guys you're just pulling out all the racist things my heroes said, you're not ignoring them 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Well there's one thing you have to admire in the boy and that's his sheer, dumb, stubborn commitment to his crusade. If only he'd stick to an argument all the way through instead of abandoning it, he might concede a point or two. But, the end goal is to win I suppose, and the only way to do that is to slink off to fetch another handful of fresh tripe from mises.org to throw onto the thread when it looks like people are done cleaning up the last smear. To continue on that note, I find all this talk about the corrective and miraculous powers of the market to be eerily similar to religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Jrode refusing to discuss a topic anymore because it's coming dangerously close to him being forced to admit fault with libertarianism is about as close as you guys are gonna get to him actually admitting he was wrong. Savor it, Caros et al. Honestly, it would be more challenging to find an esteemed libertarian thinker who doesn't have some kind of racist beliefs, overt or otherwise. Almost like the whole movement is based around people who really really wish segregation was legal again and needed a veneer of intellectualism to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Wait hold up here a minute, jrodefeld is still posting? He's been at it for months now
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But what of just getting the flu and then getting a week of paid vacation from work? A vacation?  Have you never caught the flu, or something? quote: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. I'm not even going to address the fact that you believe people get sick because they're too lazy or foolish to avoid illness, because that's self-evidently insane. I'm just going to note that people going to work sick is actually an outstanding example of a market failure. The common assumption you're making is that people who are mildly ill should tough it out and go to work anyway to avoid the loss of a working day. Working on that assumption, many employers have discouraged absenteeism due to illness by refusing sick leave or establishing strict limits on it. However, when the issue has actually been probed scientifically the finding has been that the more serious problem is "presenteeism," the act of going to work when mildly ill. The worker who has the flu will not only be significantly less productive than usual, he's also very likely to spread contagious illness to other workers, causing absenteeism--or worse, causing additional presenteeism so that the entire organization is ravaged by an epidemic and productivity is massively reduced for weeks. e.g. quote:[M]ost studies confirm that presenteeism is far more costly than illness-related absenteeism or disability. The two Journal of the American Medical Association studies, for example, found that the on-the-job productivity loss resulting from depression and pain was roughly three times greater than the absence-related productivity loss attributed to these conditions. That is, less time was actually lost from people staying home than from them showing up but not performing at the top of their game. Generous sick leave policies and free health care actually have the exact opposite effect from what you thought, because they're an incentive to stay home when needed. This behavior is both healthier and more economically efficient than denying sick leave! And this is far from the only case like this, because of how preventative medicine works. There's a huge variety of chronic illnesses that can be treated cheaply in their early stages but become extremely expensive and destructive to a person's economic productivity if they're allowed to run on. Excess mortality has its own costs, as in opportunity costs, because when somebody dies they're no longer economically active. In a case like Caros's friend, where initial care was extremely expensive, her overall economic contributions over the course of the life she never got to live would most likely have exceeded the figure dramatically. People as economic actors are generally okay at assessing cost vs. benefit in a small or immediate sense, like buying a hamburger, but they're very bad at working out cost vs. benefit as above. It's hard for them to understand long-term running costs and opportunity costs, which is one of the reasons we need the state. It has the resources to research efficiencies and the regulatory authority to encourage or require efficient economic behavior when necessary. Health care is one of the most important areas for this, but again, the examples are many and various. Take child labor in the USA, for example. Public opinion began to turn against the practice in the mid-1910s and it was increasingly constrained at the local and state level before finally being largely banned federally in 1938. Many people argued that child labor was necessary, because the income contributed to the survival of the children's families, and because the cheap labor kept prices down. After regulations limiting child labor were enacted and enforced by the government, however, the results were uniformly positive. Because adult workers were no longer being underbid by children their wages rose and family income generally increased, and unemployment fell. Anything that was bad for labor would seem to be bad for capital, except that per-worker productivity was higher with adults providing the labor, and the increased income went into higher spending. Moreover, being freed from the workplace freed children to pursue education, with resulting dramatic improvements in the educational attainment of workers in subsequent generations. This improvement in the quality of the workforce may have made a significant contribution to the USA's explosive productivity and GDP growth in the late 1940s-1950s, because that was the period when the first generations of these children were finally going to work. Regulation of child labor is one of those cases where basically everybody affected was affected positively, an unqualified success. But because people are bad at working these ideas out on their own, the free market did not ban--would never have banned--child labor. These are among the many reasons that your worldview is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Wait hold up here a minute, jrodefeld is still posting? He's been at it for months now Yeah, I think the fact that we have a libertarian thread actually helps. Jrod's usual problem was that he was the sole focus of the thread. So he'd post up a big thread, get poo poo on for thirty pages and then stop replying entirely, get banned and have the thread get locked. With this thread there is no big flashing "OH gently caress JROD IS BACK" like there is when he starts a thread, so the replies are slightly less crushing. That coupled with the fact that he doesn't get in poo poo for leaving is actually remarkably helpful. I consider this thread a great success tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? jrodefeld posted:So I will return with a different topic since there is no reason to go over this poo poo again. "You're all the Real Racists!" *people laughing their asses off* " STOP BEING MEAN TO ME AND MY HEROES I DON WANT TO TALK ABOUT RACE ANYMORE"Sorry bro, you aren't going to get far unless you prove Libertarianism isn't basically built on dog whistles, and I don't think I saw a good proof for that in your last post about how evil and racist Lincoln was because the CSA declared war on the USA!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Wait hold up here a minute, jrodefeld is still posting? He's been at it for months now Years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No we ARE talking about the legal right. If I say that the Boy Scouts have the right to not hire a gay scoutmaster, what I am saying is that it is not morally defensible to use force against them to deny their right to freedom of association. Like all of your ideas, you have this backwards: the leaders of the Boy Scouts are denying a scout troop's right to freely associate with specific scoutmasters. The leaders of the Boy Scouts wouldn't be forced to associate with anyone
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't want to get sucked into the "is this quote from libertarian x racist or not?" game. It's been done to death. Agreed, it is already self-evident and thoroughly proven through logical deduction that all of your libertarian heroes are extremely, extremely racist. There is no point in going through that song and dance again QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Someone mentioned child labor a few pages ago, and now I'm curious about where child labor falls into the libertarian ideology. Is it just one of those things that'll be solved by the free market, like hunger and poverty?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:Someone mentioned child labor a few pages ago, and now I'm curious about where child labor falls into the libertarian ideology. Is it just one of those things that'll be solved by the free market, like hunger and poverty? Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Child labor was totally on the way out and the government just took credit for it. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Child labor was totally on the way out and the government just took credit for it. Duh. Alternatively you'll get a few who admit that child labor will happen, except they'll insist that it's actually a good thing for ~reasons~.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:A vacation? Dude, it's hard work sitting in a basement
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, getting cancer should be disincentive enough. 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. Oh, Ignatius J(rodefeld) Reilly, what is wrong with you? This is so incredibly stupid that I need to break down how stupid you are for saying it. I know that sounds like an insult. But dude, it's a fact. I mean, how can you say this? So, let's put a few facts together. 1. The flu is deadly. According to the CDC, in 2011, 1500 people died from the flu. It can be debilitating, and it can require hospitalizations. The flu can cause pneumonia, which I can tell you is no fun treat. There have been flu pandemics that have killed millions of people. 2. The flu is a very contagious disease, and can be easily transmitted. 3. People are not able to avoid getting viruses as well as you'd like. Yes, I can try to avoid sick people, but the thing about viruses is that they can get onto doorknobs, faucets, or anything that people touch. I mean, you just need proximity and you can get sick. It's not like we have a marker for people who have the flu to wear, or we have special sinks and doors for people with the flu. They are EVERYWHERE! 4. Being sick sucks, in general. It's not a week of vacation. You're miserable. You're tired. You're throwing up. You're taking medications and having trouble functioning. 5. Some people can't afford to see the doctor. And some people can't afford to take off from work when they are sick. See, some people have to make decisions about whether to pay for food, medicine, or the rent. So what do you end up with? You end up with sick people coming into work because they can't afford not to. Which makes other people sick. Which means some of these people will die. People will die because of your views, Ignatius Jrodefeld Reilly (which I really hope everyone calls you). And you tell us the state is violent because of taxes? You're just as violent! You're arguing to let people die of a terrible disease to disincentivize it. See, normal people recognize that people just get sick. And they can't always control it. And we'll let them do what they need to do to get better. 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. Look, Ignatius Jrodefeld Reilly, there's a lot of factors at play. For example, poorer people often don't have access to healthy food options. Nor do they have the means to afford things like gym membership. I read a story on CNN about a minimum wage worker who was out the door at 5 in the morning, and worked basically until 11 at night. Did she have the means to exercise and take good care of her health? When you're very wealthy, you just have much more access to the things that help keep a person healthy. They are more likely to have better education, have time to cook (or have people to cook for them), and be able to afford better quality food. It's not some big game where they are healthy because they don't want to pay for a doctor. Do you even understand how people work. Also, please acknowledged that you plagiarized a post, Ignatius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
I just love the idea of people in countries with socialized medicine getting deliberately sick. It's just so stupid. Fevers and vomiting? Looks like a three-day weekend for me! Food poisoning? Sorry boss, I'm not gonna be coming in this week  Leukemia? Hellooo summer vacation!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I just love the idea of people in countries with socialized medicine getting deliberately sick. It's just so stupid. Like, the best part is that the US is closer to free market than most European nations and has the harshest penalties for missing work due to illness, yet Americans aren't healthier in any way than their European counterparts. JRod, like I get that the US is not a perfect free market, but at some point you have to recognize that none of your positions improve when conditions are closer to your proposed system. Do you literally believe that Libertarian ideals cannot operate in a continuum?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:People will die because of your views, Ignatius Jrodefeld Reilly (which I really hope everyone calls you). And you tell us the state is violent because of taxes? You're just as violent! You're arguing to let people die of a terrible disease to disincentivize it. Hey, they don't have to die to send the message  . They could just go into crushing poverty, maybe even selling themselves into slavery, in order to pay their medical bills. Seeing your friend, once full of life and joy, begging in the streets, wailing and gnashing their teeth, pleading for whatever mercy perfect strangers can offer them might even offer more incentive to not get sick than just having a closed casket funeral.I am seriously concerned that JRod thinks disease is caused by poor character and germs/microorganisms have nothing to do with it. If you understand what microorganisms are, you understand that you can't just go "welp I work out and eat right, now I don't have to worry about being sick ever!" If you can take every precaution to avoid being sick and still get sick, then your solution to healthcare needs to allow for the poorest person to be able to get treatment for any disease because any person can at any time get any disease. And then we're back to "so can the Freest Market guarantee everyone can get anything treated regardless of their income?" burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Look if you just have a mild flu you should just go for the higher time preference, immunodeficient co-workers be damned, or else you're literally hitter for taking a sick day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I just love the idea of people in countries with socialized medicine getting deliberately sick. It's just so stupid. Conversation at the cannabis reggaeton collectivism disco in Brussels: *pounding music* "I have bird flu!" "What?" "I have bird flu!" "WHAT?" "I HAVE BIRD FLU!" "Oh my god can I lick you? My boss is really getting on my nerves but I can't catch a virus to save my life"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Hey, they don't have to die to send the message The thing is, he has an incredibly simplistic worldview. Thats why he can make claims like "If you subsudize something you get more of it" without batting an eyelash, even though there are thousands and thousands of examples where that is not the case. Just look at medicare. If you subsudize medical care for the elderly you... get more elderly? You get more sick elderly? How does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Does the continued existence of jrod in D&D disprove jrod's ideas? If someone engages in intellectual dishonesty or argues in bad faith within a community, surely jrod would say that ostracism is the solution. I expect that to him this probably suggests the contrapositive: we haven't ostracized him, so he can't be guilty of any bad behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:35
|
|