|
Caros posted: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. Hell, I'll take a crack at how he'd square that circle: "While superficially providing subsidizes medical care for the elderly appears to be a human and benevolent State-solution, all it's doing is disincentivizing proper planning for the future when people are younger. Since they know the nanny state will take care of them, more people will fail to properly prepare for their own long-term care, which everyone knows there's a good chance they'll need some day. If they knew, earlier in life, that the State wouldn't be there, they'd wisely set aside funds and buy insurance when they were young and healthy from all that choosing-to-not-get-influenza they did during their productive years. All the while, the State is funding this via violent confiscation of earned wealth, which I've
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Haha you stupid liberals, as a rational actor why would I choose to become sick? If you would just stop and think for a second then you'd come to the realization that no one ever became sick until there were incentives like sick leave and government-subsidized healthcare, which is only possible with fiat currency. In other words, the fed causes cancer
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hell, I'll take a crack at how he'd square that circle: "While superficially providing subsidizes medical care for the elderly appears to be a human and benevolent State-solution, all it's doing is disincentivizing proper planning for the future when people are younger. Since they know the nanny state will take care of them, more people will fail to properly prepare for their own long-term care, which everyone knows there's a good chance they'll need some day. If they knew, earlier in life, that the State wouldn't be there, they'd wisely set aside funds and buy insurance when they were young and healthy from all that choosing-to-not-get-influenza they did during their productive years. And then I'd point to the fact that before the advent of Medicare less than 50% of our elderly had healthcare, and that without programs like social security 2/3rds of our elderly lived below the poverty line. Then you'd probably ignore it or repeat it back snarkily and talk about something else. SEE THAT JROD! WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:And then I'd point to the fact that before the advent of Medicare less than 50% of our elderly had healthcare, and that without programs like social security 2/3rds of our elderly lived below the poverty line. Then you'd probably ignore it or repeat it back snarkily and talk about something else. I...I really don't want to be the Jrod proxy as a thing. I read the Freep thread, I've got enough mind-wrenching awfulness in my life as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I just love the idea of people in countries with socialized medicine getting deliberately sick. It's just so stupid. It's like how when you were a little kid, getting sick meant you got a day off from school!  Of course, I do not remember a single time, literally a single time in my life, where I preferred being sick to having to go to school/work. edit: He seriously brought up the loving FLU(!!!) as an example of a disease people get by intentionally not taking care of themselves. Does he not know where bacteria or viruses actually are? Does he think this sort of thing occurs because people get possessed by demons or something? 
Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I...I really don't want to be the Jrod proxy as a thing. I read the Freep thread, I've got enough mind-wrenching awfulness in my life as it is. You've learned many forms, and sacrificed your humanity to gain them. Now look upon my final form. *becomes Peter Schiff* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OsuQ11rzxg
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Hey just checking in to see if jrod has apologized for plagiarizing mises articles because he's incapable of thinking for himself. No? Well alrighty then, I'll check back in tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You've learned many forms, and sacrificed your humanity to gain them. Now look upon my final form. *becomes Peter Schiff* We have stared too long into the abyss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Of course, I do not remember a single time, literally a single time in my life, where I preferred being sick to having to go to school/work. Maybe we're being unfair to JRod and he's a coal miner or something and if he had sick days he'd intentionally try harder to infect himself with black lung to take a week off? If that's the case JRod, you are going about this problem the complete loving wrong way! Even in the USA, if you hate your job that much, there are plenty of other jobs you could do that also suck but not nearly that badly! quote:edit: He seriously brought up the loving FLU(!!!) as an example of a disease people get by intentionally not taking care of themselves. Pfft, don't lie Mr Interweb, you claim that you have had Sickle Cell Anemia since birth but we know the truth, you got it when you gazed upon a true Captain of Industry, and for a moment your morals faltered and you felt the urge to steal from him via the state and use his money to pay for foodstamps. And that act of immorality cost you your healthy blood. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:It's like how when you were a little kid, getting sick meant you got a day off from school! I must conclude that you've never had pink-eye. Because seriously, that was the poo poo. Can't go to school for a few days, feel perfectly fine, and just need to get eye-drops? Alright!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Really the implication that people who get sick deserve to be sick is what worries me the most. Jrod talks a big game about charity and all that jazz, but who's going to donate money to help cure something that was clearly in their minds the victim's fault? People who get lung cancer obviously shouldn't have smoked so much. What's that? They never smoked even once? Well then obviously it was something else they did to deserve it! It's victim blaming cranked up to 11.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey just checking in to see if jrod has apologized for plagiarizing mises articles because he's incapable of thinking for himself. No? Well alrighty then, I'll check back in tomorrow. This is honestly the worst part of it for me. I couldn't have given two shits about Jrod's plagiarism, I only brought it up because it spoke to his understanding (or lack there of) on the subject that he would repost a critique of the loving CDC of all things without even bothering to fact check it. The plagiarism wasn't the bad part of it in my opinion, it was that it showed that he simply accepted mises.org as fact to the point that he'd just copy and paste them without thought. But since then? He's posted numerous times, had numerous people call him out on it and won't even address it? Seriously Jrod, just say "I wanted to get my points out quickly and you're right, I probably should have quoted it rather than try and pretend it was my own thoughts." You say that, or something like it and people would just totally move on. It utterly boggles my mind that you think you can just go on whistling Dixie and pretend that we're your mother that caught you jerking off, that we're just going to say nothing and pretend it never happened. Man the gently caress up and at least address it. Its not going to go away, and what little credibility you have is fading by the moment. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:
I'm not sure that being libertarian allows for any sort of credibility. In retrospect would you have given your old self the time of day? You argue admirably in good faith but short of your real life experiences, what could have even cracked your armor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Has a libertarian ever gone after another libertarian for plagiarism? I think they see it as sharing ideas in the cause of freedom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm not sure that being libertarian allows for any sort of credibility. In retrospect would you have given your old self the time of day? You argue admirably in good faith but short of your real life experiences, what could have even cracked your armor? Well when I say credibility I'm referring mostly to the fact that while he might be arguing poorly, I believe Jrodefeld is still arguing in good faith. He believes the things he believes, and he is very, very deeply indoctrinated, but he is at least trying to have an honest discussion. But if he can't admit an obvious wrongdoing then that puts that whole thing into question. This isn't something subjective, or a muddied issue where he can wave it off. He got caught using someone else's work as his own, and is refusing to address that fact. If he can't even admit he was in the wrong as far as that goes, then he is tacitly admitting that he is not arguing in good faith. He's not interested in having a discussion, he is interested in 'winning'. As far as what could have cracked my armor, probably nothing. One thing that is worth mentioning however is that part of the reason I 'recovered' is that as a guy who likes to argue a lot I'd been exposed to all the counter arguments. Once I started having doubts, I started rethinking old arguments that I'd had and that contributed greatly to it all coming down. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Has a libertarian ever gone after another libertarian for plagiarism? I think they see it as sharing ideas in the cause of freedom. Intellectual property is not a thing, SedanChair! Once my immaculate article has been unleashed onto society, it is everyone's burden and privilege to bear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Did you honestly just say that if I favored secession I MUST be a racist? Honestly? Yes. Secession and States' Rights in America has only ever been (explicit or coded) a tactic for racist state governments to resist and rebel against the federal government whenever it comes in and tells them they can't own/disenfranchise/lynch/discriminate against black people. You cannot remove secession from its historical context and talk about how the South has a "right" to secede but you disagree with the reasons. They don't. There's no moral right to secede so you can keep your slaves. They signed a contract, a contract called the Constitution of the loving United States of America and you don't get to just unilaterally dissolve a contract on your terms without the agreement of your counterparties, sorry. I can't even unilaterally leave my HOA and remove their easement from my deed if I don't like the neighborhood plants they're buying with my HOA dues, but you think the South should have been able to unilaterally dissolve the Constitution so they could keep their slaves? Shut the gently caress up. The tragedy of the Civil War is that we didn't hang every rebel slaveowner from the highest trees we could find for treason and crimes against humanity and redistribute their plantations to the people who worked them. 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? This is super dumb. When black people don't get invited to dinner at a private residence, that doesn't exclude them from an education, from a job, from a place to live, or from economic opportunity the way public discrimination does. Allowing discrimination meant black people couldn't get an equal education, they couldn't get good jobs, they couldn't even travel easily because they often couldn't get lodging. What you're essentially saying is that we should let minorities be excluded from quality education and industries (even though a bulk of the wealth to create them came from labor and land expropriated from black people and indigenous peoples respectively) and thus denied the economic clout they would need to create market incentives against discrimination. Even people who aren't privately racist still get pressured to discriminate in that situation, both actively because it's the South and the KKK will burn down your restaurant, but also by market pressure because which clientele would you rather have, the affluent racist whites with 90% of the money or the poor blacks and the few whites who won't boycott you for letting blackie eat at the next table from them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
If someone was extending an invitation for any white person to come to a dinner party, but excluded black people, then yes they would be racist and morally in the wrong, and it would absolutely be fine with me if someone brought a human rights complaint against them. A private residence excluding everyone else is not analogous to singling out a minority for exclusion while letting the rest of society in. Actually, here's a better example than your stupid hypothetical dinner party. What happens in a Libertarian society when a family disowns their gay child? Is it in their moral right to do so? After all, the house is as private as it gets. Without any social services whatsoever, where do these kids turn? Charity? Should the parents be forced to take care of their children? If so, how do you enforce it? If not (and I know Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty states that they don't, so I bet you believe this too) then your worldview is monstrous and evil, point blank. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Actually, here's a better example than your stupid hypothetical dinner party. What happens in a Libertarian society when a family disowns their gay child? Is it in their moral right to do so? Without any social services whatsoever, where do these kids turn? Charity? I don't agree with homophobia but it's a parent's right to stop feeding their child at any time for any reason and that includes homophobic reasons, because the leftist alternative is the government violently expropriating you at the point of a gun for privately deciding not to redistribute your hard-earned food to some mooching infant. Subsidizing infancy only prolongs it. Why would a child ever bother learning to walk or chew or use a can opener when the reward for laziness is mommy bringing you a bottle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Libertarian Thread: Subsidizing infancy only prolongs it
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Libertarian Thread: Subsidizing infancy only prolongs it Strangely apt in describing my feelings on libertarians using services only possible through the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
I dunno why JRod was so down on fascism by the way, Mises thought it was pretty legitLudwig von Mises' "Liberalism" posted:It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. I mean, our quasi-fascist healthcare system is just trying to preserve European-American culture, we're just trying to make it more fascist to make it even better!  I will be fair to Mises and point out he wrote this in 1927, before Hitler took power in Germany and fairly early into Mussolini's rule, but I just think it's kinda weird whenever alleged anarchists get boners for really authoritarian regimes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I will be fair to Mises and point out he wrote this in 1927, before Hitler took power in Germany and fairly early into Mussolini's rule, but I just think it's kinda weird whenever alleged anarchists get boners for really authoritarian regimes? Reminder that jrod has already told us he prefers an
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the only way to get something through a libertarian's head is with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Yet another example of how even having good insurance in the USA doesn't mean being saved from a $25,000 bill due to another's negligence, and a perfect example of the inelasticity-of-demand in healthcare that Jrode is continually denying/ignoring. In a libertarian market, I can only assume that this 29-year-old would have acted in her own rational best interest by not having a heart attack in the first place, instead of selfishly chosing to embark on a relaxing 10-day-long coma becasue she thought it would be covered by money stolen from righteous Captains of Industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
So I have a question unrelated to jrodefeld for once, specifically for anyone who supports the rights of the BSA to exclude membership to people. Does this right extend to charities such as, say, GoodWill or a soup kitchen from excluding black people from volunteering? What about excluding women from a potential paid position? If that isn't ok, why is GoodWill fundamentally different from the BSA? Both are 501(c)(3) nonprofits, with the BSA being the fifth largest in the nation in 2005. The BSA does have the scouts sell merchandise for fundraising, so as far as I'm concerned that makes them functionally volunteers. And they both operate in the public area rather than being wholly private such as a Country Club which does not (usually) have any operations outside of their own privately owned grounds. But I hear people defend the BSA's discriminatory practices all the time and I've never really bought into any of the usual arguments. If someone has a good explanation I'm open to hearing it, though.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yet another example of how even having good insurance in the USA doesn't mean being saved from a $25,000 bill due to another's negligence, and a perfect example of the inelasticity-of-demand in healthcare that Jrode is continually denying/ignoring. In a libertarian market, I can only assume that this 29-year-old would have acted in her own rational best interest by not having a heart attack in the first place, instead of selfishly chosing to embark on a relaxing 10-day-long coma becasue she thought it would be covered by money stolen from righteous Captains of Industry. Its also a good example of one of the myriad reasons why costs in the US are so much higher than in other countries. This woman was insured, but because she was taken to the wrong hospital, her insurance isn't going to pay the bill. Now she probably isn't going to be able to pay the bill either, which means that there is a roughly $50,000 worth of medical bills that are going to go unpaid once she declares bankruptcy. This in turn causes hospitals to charge more for services overall, because who the gently caress knows whether they are going to get paid for individual treatments. Not that Jrodefeld will ever admit that this is a thing. The government is the primary driver of medical insurance costs, as you can clearly see from this unlabeled Mises.org graph. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc! 
Caros fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reminder that jrod has already told us he prefers an Um excuse me statehead, it can't just be any old dictatorship, it has to be benevolent  . Then it's totally awesome because it's benevolent so why wouldn't it be?Caros posted:Now she probably isn't going to be able to pay the bill either, which means that there is a roughly $50,000 worth of medical bills that are going to go unpaid once she declares bankruptcy. In the Libertarian wold, this here is the biggest injustice. That she could make $50,000 disappear just by filing for bankruptcy. Despicable. What should happen is the hospital should take her to arbitration where we decide if she sells the hospital an arm or becomes a slave for the hospital for 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yet another example of how even having good insurance in the USA doesn't mean being saved from a $25,000 bill due to another's negligence, and a perfect example of the inelasticity-of-demand in healthcare that Jrode is continually denying/ignoring. In a libertarian market, I can only assume that this 29-year-old would have acted in her own rational best interest by not having a heart attack in the first place, instead of selfishly chosing to embark on a relaxing 10-day-long coma becasue she thought it would be covered by money stolen from righteous Captains of Industry. We here at DocWagon DRO would like to assure you that all our clients are fully covered and able to get the very best of care their individual accounts can buy. As such, we now have a discount campaign where we offer three free treatments per year if you sign up now! DrProsek posted:
Rather than slavery, DocWagon DRO are more than happy to claim fully a functioning kidney, liver, bone-marrow and/or other useable, transplantable organs at 75 % market value to pay for any uninsured emergency treatment. A bargain at half the price, I'm sure you'll agree. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:We here at DocWagon DRO would like to assure you that all our clients are fully covered and able to get the very best of care their individual accounts can buy. As such, we now have a discount campaign where we offer three free treatments per year if you sign up now! Aaaand we're back in Shadowrun again. Really interesting how we always end up here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:Aaaand we're back in Shadowrun again. Really interesting how we always end up here. We merely follow where the trail of logic leads us, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:Aaaand we're back in Shadowrun again. Really interesting how we always end up here. Who What Now posted:We merely follow where the trail of logic leads us, nothing more. Also, it's an excellent setting and quite fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
A shame about the Shadowrun Returns game. P&P RPGs tend to always be better than their video game conversions, but S:R just felt really underwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Also, it's an excellent setting and quite fun to play. Agreed, chummer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. Merely amused that Shadowrun is the end result of libertarian discussions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I liked Returns, but Dragonfall was amazing. Also surprisingly on-topic, considering you're based in a German free-city and half of your team are seriously committed anarchists. Where would they be in relation to this Libertarian thing, anyway? Like, as Shadowrunners, they're seriously dangerous people, all about initiating force at the drop of a credstick, but they're also basically patrons to their kiez, but not the bosses, because there are supposed to be no bosses, despite all the shady politicking going on in the background. The Shadowrun thread in TG seems to devolve into a screaming match every week or so, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I have a question unrelated to jrodefeld for once, specifically for anyone who supports the rights of the BSA to exclude membership to people. I don't understand why anyone has this right, personally. Like, would anyone support BSA if they banned black scoutmasters citing statistics on their homicide rates being 8 times as high as whites so the risk is unacceptable? No, right? Because discriminating against a whole class of people because of the actions of some individuals within that class is wrong, yeah? Well okay then!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I think you guys scared him off. You think it was the one-two punch of "everything you believe about healthcare is either ignorant or malicious," pointing out that every libertarian he's cited either is or openly supports avowed racists, or the overt plagiarism that he's completely unwilling to address?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I think you guys scared him off. You think it was the one-two punch of "everything you believe about healthcare is either ignorant or malicious," pointing out that every libertarian he's cited either is or openly supports avowed racists, or the overt plagiarism that he's completely unwilling to address? Nah, he isn't gone. I suspect he is taking a break to recharge because arguing nonstop can be pretty tiresome. He hasn't even been out of thread for 24 hours. If history is any indication (and we know that it is not via praexology) he will be gone anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months. Fortunately I have too much spare time and poor time preferences so I will be here to call him on the plagiarism when he returns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Let's get this thread back on track. Under what circumstances is it okay for a state to use force against innocent people and take their property from them at the barrel of a gun? I speak of course of the government using force to free my slaves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:22
|
|