|
Grognan posted:Also finding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics explains a lot of Jrod's particular debate style. "Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument." Ahahaha I just got around to reading this  is this like the Ontological Proof of Libertarianism?Conceive of an argument so circular its truth cannot be denied, this argument we call Libertarianism. Now obviously this argument can't be false because false arguments can be logically denied. And just as obviously, it is harder to deny a real true argument than a true argument that exists only in my imagination, so the only way I could conceive of this argument is if I am thinking of the real argument. Therefore, Libertarianism must be real and true. Eat poo poo, statists.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
In the beginning there was a coin of gold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha I just got around to reading this The part that always wows me about libertarians is how they reconcile this presupposition with literally all of human history. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Jrode please go back the minimum wage thing like you claimed to want to. Please. I need to see this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
quote:Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties. "Give me all your money or I'll kill you!" "By making a demand, you've already surrendered your right to kill me!" "gently caress!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Give me all your money or I'll kill you!" Loool holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
It's like libertarians live in some video game where you can turn your PvP flag off to prevent aggression. What if there's an overwhelming force out there (everyone who isn't a dumbass AnCap) who thinks your society's treatment of the lower classes is an abomination and wants to use aggression to stop it? You fuckers are going to start aggressing everyone to raise an army faster than I can say hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Give me all your money or I'll kill you!" Nevermind, I thought about it and just changed my mind on argumentation ethics. I now wholeheartedly support the idea of Libertarians telling the police and the courts that they cannot be reasoned with on whether laws are valid, and the state's only options to deal with Libertarians are complete surrender or killing them outright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Give me all your money or I'll kill you!" Let's roll our contracts into pill form, dip them in lead and handload them into brass cartridges. Have your people see my people *western music plays*
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Cemetary Gator I know this was a few pages back, but there's a third outcome to your famine/food merchant scenario you failed to list. I kill the food merchant and ration his food equally between myself and the local population! This happened during the French Revolution all the time! (except the merchants often didn't have any food themselves because you can't hoarde food if there's no food to hoarde)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is the most ridiculous example I've ever heard. The drug trade is so violent because no State monopolized police services will protect the property rights of those who are engaged in that market. In every example where drugs are legalized, you see this crime rate diminish rapidly as more legitimate businesses replace the black market. This is true, actually. You don't see a lot of crime happening in countries where law enforcement has been fully replaced by drug dealers and their security personnel. This is why Ciudad Juarez is such a peaceful, burgeoning market of free thinkers and entrepreneurs, especially lately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:This is true, actually. You don't see a lot of crime happening in countries where law enforcement has been fully replaced by drug dealers and their security personnel. This is why Ciudad Juarez is such a peaceful, burgeoning market of free thinkers and entrepreneurs, especially lately. Well if we give up the state and businesses take a page from the mafia and the drug lords and start extorting us all into doing business with them their way, then that's no different from a state so all it proves is that states are bad, duh.  But now that our horrible democracy isn't keeping the mafia in check through the US government's illegitimate monopoly on force, we have the chance to nonviolently convince them to accept the Non-Aggression Principle and t-- *perishes in a hail of stray bullets from a botched drive-by assassination*
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:So how about you use those arguments instead of the weaksauce that you've thrown at us. Two people have given pretty substantial rundowns just liked you'd asked for, how about you address those? Yay, recognition!  Seriously though JRod, this "I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this thread is too narrow to contain" bullshit needs to stop. If you have a pile of great arguments, don't just allude to them and expect us to be intimidated into dropping the subject. jrodefeld posted:This is the most ridiculous example I've ever heard. The drug trade is so violent because no State monopolized police services will protect the property rights of those who are engaged in that market. In every example where drugs are legalized, you see this crime rate diminish rapidly as more legitimate businesses replace the black market. Yes, I agree, bringing the drug trade into the realm of state oversight rather than a free (black) market absolutely does reduce the amount of violence associated with it. This is wonderful praise for the benefits of a well-run state! Also, as we've pointed out before, how will the law still exist and be unbiased in the free market? What would stop the powerful from co-opting the private justice system, or from building their own parallel system and forcing it on others? jrodefeld posted:And why would they not be incentivized to treat their customers well, pay a reasonable wage and so forth if others can continually enter the market and undercut their market share? Yes, not everyone will have the resources necessary to compete in every sector of the economy, but enough will that it would be very harmful to the bottom line of a company to continually abuse their customers, to pollute and harm people. Maybe individual workers don't have the resources to compete on their own, but they could pool their resources together and create alternatives for people who don't want to deal with large businesses. Because monopolies can exist without a state. Again, things like the East India Company prove this. And the whole idea of competitors popping up works fine for things without monumental start-up costs like being a carpenter or a hairdresser, but less for things that require a massive amount of infrastructure to get off the ground (like a railroad company or an ISP). It's not like my neighbors and I can pool our vacation money together into the couple billion dollars it would cost to build a new broadband network. In fact, those last two examples only came into existence through large scale state influence, and I contend that the next big infrastructure-heavy innovation will require the same. Do you have any counterexamples of something on those scales springing into existence without subsidy? I will admit I completely agree with that last sentence. The bad behavior of the rich really does hinge on the threat of coercion and violence. In fact, I'd say that it's tautological, and that that coercion and violence simply is the bad behavior of the rich. The problem is that this behavior will not be impeded in any way by getting rid of the state. jrodefeld posted:Yes, I suppose being a condescending rear end while refusing to actually refute my arguments or share any of your infinite wisdom in the area of ethics is one way to respond to my post, but it is hardly the most productive. If you want to engage with real arguments instead of people just being assholes, then maybe you should engage with Caros's arguments or my arguments or any number of other people's arguments instead! We put forth the effort to actually rebut your claims. If you really are interested in a meaningful debate, it's sitting right there waiting for you! If, instead, you decide to respond only to the troll posts and then retreat to a different topic entirely, please let us know! I have a number of points that I would love your opinion on, and none of them involve me dropping a dry thousand-word argument by someone else that assume their own conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:"Give me all your money or I'll kill you!" ... gently caress it, I have some time to kill, so I'll engage. Strangely, Hoppe isn't as out to lunch on his initial premise, at least, as it might appear ( though there is a glaring hole or two that I've spotted pretty much right off the bat, but I'll deal with that seperately ). Now, it has been a good, long while since I did introduction to philosophy, so I'm hoping more experienced and knowledgeable posters will correct me if or when I cock things up. First, let's dissect the summation Pope Guilty gave us a bit: quote:Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. Now, this is eminently reasonable as a basic premise. It's straightforward, clear, concise... and wrong. Hoppe leaves out at least one more process of resolving the conflict, which is mutual withdrawal without engaging in either argument or violence, that is, detente. But, for the sake of argument, I'll let it stand. quote:In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. And this is where Hoppe gets himself into real trouble. Choosing one form of conflict-resolution initially does not implicitly reject the other in any way. Violence is always an option. It is simply that it is an option of last resort for most people. Yet, an option it is and an option it remains. By electing to engage in a verbal argument, there is always the possibility that the argument will degenerate into physical violence or that one party will abandon argument in favour of violence. As such I would actually argue that contrary to what Hoppe is saying here, the option or threat of the use of violence is always implicit in any conflict-resolution whether between individuals, communities or nation-states. Choosing argument as conflict-resolution is, then, an alternative to violence but not a rejection of it. quote:He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties. And he concludes... erroneously. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
It also makes ethics weirdly contingent. The Kurgan from Highlander doesn't try to start debates with people, he just chops them up with his sword. Often without saying anything at all, but we still think he's a wrongdoer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
There is such a thing as risk and opportunity cost. Arguments are less likely to leave you dead or to have significant costs associated with them if you've misjudged the situation. Purely from a practical standpoint it's easy to understand why people don't escalate to violence right away, even absent moral arguments. It's also very hypocritical since Hoppe favors the use of force to exclude people from DROs. If you're trying to make the argument that people who favor talking things out implicitly reject violence, you probably shouldn't resort to it to protect your resist enclaves. This is what necessitates the whole idiotic concept of "initiatory violence" defined to include things like trespassing or taxes. Otherwise the argument reveals itself as "People shouldn't threaten me but I should be able to threaten social inferiors."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Double post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The part he really doesn't seem to get is that established powers can use their resources to undermine any new competition trying to establish itself, thus preserving their monopoly. This happens right now without any involvement of the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:It also makes ethics weirdly contingent. The Kurgan from Highlander doesn't try to start debates with people, he just chops them up with his sword. Often without saying anything at all, but we still think he's a wrongdoer. Not to mention that it leads to frankly monstrous end results, thus violating Kant's third formulation, if I'm recalling it correctly. After all, this: jrodefeld posted:[...] is clearly not treating sentient beings as an end unto themselves, or universally applicable as a moral law. In a bid to remain 'logically and ethically pure', JRodefeld is explicitly saying that the cost is to let people die. No more, no less. He values his own ideological purity over the lives of innocents who, through no fault of their own, are dying. ( Incidentally, I'm sorry for quoting that wall of text, but I felt that this was obscene enough, and makes the point clearly enough, to warrant repeating in as close to full context as JRods posting will let me. ) Political Whores posted:There is such a thing as risk and opportunity cost. Arguments are less likely to leave you dead or to have significant costs associated with them if you've misjudged the situation. Purely from a practical standpoint it's easy to understand why people don't escalate to violence right away, even absent moral arguments. Also, this. But, in the spirit of willing, I figured I'd engage with the argument as already stated. The fact that I could pick that big holes in it, despite having had my last history of philosophy class some 12 years ago really doesn't speak well for Hoppe's conclusions, or the methods he used to arrive at them. e: Added bolding to the most relevant part of JRod's post. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Jrod, is the state a social and historical mistake or aberration, or is it the case that we needed to develop the state to attain certain things which would be highly difficult or impossible to create without the state (the internet, etc) but now that we have, we can do away with it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And this is where Hoppe gets himself into real trouble. Choosing one form of conflict-resolution initially does not implicitly reject the other in any way. Violence is always an option. It is simply that it is an option of last resort for most people. Yet, an option it is and an option it remains. By electing to engage in a verbal argument, there is always the possibility that the argument will degenerate into physical violence or that one party will abandon argument in favour of violence. As such I would actually argue that contrary to what Hoppe is saying here, the option or threat of the use of violence is always implicit in any conflict-resolution whether between individuals, communities or nation-states. Choosing argument as conflict-resolution is, then, an alternative to violence but not a rejection of it. If I offer you chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and you pick chocolate, you have forever rejected the eating of vanilla as immoral. I don't want to hear your poo poo about how there's nothing wrong with eating vanilla sometimes too, liking vanilla while eating chocolate is a performative contradiction. You are now logically compelled to join my cause to rid the world of vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:e: Added bolding to the most relevant part of JRod's post. This is why libertarian society can never work the way they claim it will. No matter how much they think the desperate poor should do their duty to non-agression and just lay down and die, that ain't gonna happen. People are not wired to do that, fundamentally. And I would wager even money that most people who claim they would be okay with that if they were put in that situation only say so because they really have no concept of what it is like, and would do what almost every living organism does; whatever it takes to survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Let's say that I am a business owner that owns a number of grocery stores in a wide area, and they are the only places that sell food of any kind in the area, the closest store that isn't owned by me is 1000 miles away because of reasons. Now my prices are rather high because I enjoy making tons and tons of money but my customers don't always like paying my prices. So one person gets some produce from a local small farm and starts selling out of his home. I then send someone to buy both that persons home and the farm he got his produce from and turn them into another one of my stores. My monopoly remains intact and unchallenged. Then another person, a farmer himself, starts selling his produce directly. When I try to purchase his farm from him he refuses. I then hire six thugs to beat the poo poo out of him and then I buy his farm for 1/3rd of my original offer which he readily accepts for fear of what will happen if he doesn't. My monopoly remains intact and unchallenged. With enough money I can buyout or intimidate any potential competition and immediately put a stop to it before it can challenge me. What options are there in libertopia? People have to eat or they'll die, so they can't boycott me. They can't challenge me through law because I both own the courts and they can't use violence because I own a private militia that will shoot them in the face. And they can't leave because of the aforementioned army of face-shooters. And don't say that this is an impossible situation because Company Towns actually existed and operated almost exactly as I described.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:This is why libertarian society can never work the way they claim it will. No matter how much they think the desperate poor should do their duty to non-agression and just lay down and die, that ain't gonna happen. People are not wired to do that, fundamentally. Just wait until a piece of land they're using lies fallow for an arbitrary length of time (let's say a day or so), scuff the dirt with your foot and then shoot them in the head when they come around again for initiating violence against your property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I offer you chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and you pick chocolate, you have forever rejected the eating of vanilla as immoral. I don't want to hear your poo poo about how there's nothing wrong with eating vanilla sometimes too, liking vanilla while eating chocolate is a performative contradiction. Ah, but what about chocolate-vanilla swirl? Here, let me post a word-salad from a webpage full of cranks to bolster my point, to wit: [insert rambling mess here] edit: Ron Paul Atreides posted:This is why libertarian society can never work the way they claim it will. No matter how much they think the desperate poor should do their duty to non-agression and just lay down and die, that ain't gonna happen. People are not wired to do that, fundamentally. On the other hand, you'd eventually end up with revolutions that would make the French one look like a walk in the loving park on a midsummer's day. But, yes. Libertarians have fallen too much in love with their own logical constructs to either a) see the human suffering and consequences that would result of actually attempting implementation of their ideas in the real world and b) being built on an outright rejection of empiricism, they can't see what the inevitable endpoint of their society would be. It would be tragic if it wasn't such a horrifying vision of existence, and they weren't actually trying to convince People to implement it. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then another person, a farmer himself, starts selling his produce directly. When I try to purchase his farm from him he refuses. In another universe, you lower your prices enough that all neutral parties buy from you instead. You can afford these lower prices, because you're subsidizing them with the very high prices in your other markets, while this is the only place the farmer operates. He goes out of business because he can't make any overhead, and then you make him your 1/3 offer and raise your prices back to their previous levels. Plenty of national corporations use this tactic in local markets, Wal-Mart being the most famous example, and it in no way breaks the NAP, while also playing on people's short-term Rational Self Interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Let's say that I am a business owner that owns a number of grocery stores in a wide area, and they are the only places that sell food of any kind in the area, the closest store that isn't owned by me is 1000 miles away because of reasons. Now my prices are rather high because I enjoy making tons and tons of money but my customers don't always like paying my prices. But Who What Now, the society would be libertarian. It would be libertarian. What we're talking about is a libertarian society. So how can you say there would be coercion? Surely you agree that a society in which there was coercion would, by definition, excuse me my clockwork seems to have run down can you turn the giant key sticking out of my back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Caros said he is a utilitarian. All your arguments, whether you know it or not, are utilitarian. I have met resistance even talking about ethics and principles because you handwave them away simply saying "that society is impossible" or "look at these statistics about nationalized healthcare". Those arguments are utilitarian. Therefore you should have to defend that position. Did anyone else catch the bullshit in this post? This is jrodefeld's way of avoiding having to respond the data that shits all over his assertions about health care. Here was the original health care post, well over a week ago. jrodefeld posted:A few more points I want to raise about healthcare. Look at all of the immediate responses, pointing out everything that was hilariously wrong. bokkibear posted:Yes, because socialist, government-funded care is extremely efficient (for monopsony reasons mentioned earlier). Cemetry Gator posted:I've said this many times, but I'll say this again: QuarkJets posted:Here's a video from PBS where they discuss some of the findings: Caros posted:Just got done with a four hour drive... but this is pretty bite sized and I've got nothing else to do tonight so, eh, why not. jrodefeld didn't respond to a single one of these posts. He changed the topic to racism and ignored the plagiarism accusations for four days. I have repeatedly asked jrod to return to health care and defend his factually unsupported assertions against the data that would seem to show other wise. Instead of doing this, he changes the topic again - to a debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Except that he believes this is his answer to the debate about universal health care. Look at the first quoted post again. He thinks he's free to make up a bunch of bullshit about UHC and completely ignore any data to the contrary because that's just immoral utilitarian poo poo anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, JRod, have you considered that posting on hostile forums could be a crutch to your thinking, rather than an aid? As long as you've outnumbered, you can tell yourself "if I weren't so outnumbered, I'm sure other smart libertarians would have answers to these questions I can't deal with." It is an unlimited license to never change your mind, because you can always write off the argument as unfair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
What would HHH think of Cecil Rhodes? On one hand, natural elite. On the other hand, 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:jrodefeld didn't respond to a single one of these posts. He changed the topic to racism and ignored the plagiarism accusations for four days. I have repeatedly asked jrod to return to health care and defend his factually unsupported assertions against the data that would seem to show other wise. Instead of doing this, he changes the topic again - to a debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Except that he believes this is his answer to the debate about universal health care. Look at the first quoted post again. He thinks he's free to make up a bunch of bullshit about UHC and completely ignore any data to the contrary because that's just immoral utilitarian poo poo anyways. Well you can't expect to just handwave away the logically deduced effects of state-run health care using ironclad evidence showing the exact opposite. Relying on evidence is consequentialism, the ridiculous assertion that we should examine the actual effects of our theories to determine their truth. This is a logically untenable position: in effect you're saying we should reject theories we know to be true just because the world actually works the opposite way. If you're going to follow the Chesire Cat down that path to crazytown, you may as well just reject the logically unassailable Static Universe Model just because all the evidence shows there was a Big Bang 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But Who What Now, the society would be libertarian. It would be libertarian. What we're talking about is a libertarian society. So how can you say there would be coercion? Surely you agree that a society in which there was coercion would, by definition, excuse me my clockwork seems to have run down can you turn the giant key sticking out of my back? Aha! You show your weakness, SedanChair, in that you think businesses act according to a causal chain! But, in fact, through my theoretical research we can conclude that deontilogical ethics transcend both space and time which proves that- *shits pants*
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aha! You show your weakness, SedanChair, in that you think businesses act according to a causal chain! But, in fact, through my theoretical research we can conclude that deontilogical ethics transcend both space and time which proves that- Don't ask me for facts, silly liberal! Have faith in Mises and Rothbard! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't ask me for facts, silly liberal! Have faith in Mises and Rothbard! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGsFP1_kxiY [WhoWhatNow:] Oh my God. [SedanChair:] Ahh... What? [WWN:] Dude, the red phone is flashing. [SC:] Oh, yeah. [WWN:] Let me scoop that up. Hello? Two Kings. [SC:] Who is it? [WWN:] What?! No! No loving way! [SC:] What? [WWN:] Chair, there's a potato famine in Idaho, you gotta go down there! [SC:] Oh my God... what? [WWN:] Dude, I gotta stay here! [SC:] Why do I have to go? [WWN:] Please! Please! [SC:] Oh, God, okay. [WWN:] Awesome... is he gone? Alright, emergency meeting of Parliament. All right Parliament, I know this is hosed up, but Chair, he can't be King anymore. Dudes! He's encroaching on my decrees! Seriously, let's make him "Duke," a kick rear end "Duke." Or "leader formerly known as King," but-- uh-oh he's comin' back... [sung] [WWN:]We'll lead as Two Kings, oh yes [WWN:]we'll really lead as Two Kings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Can relationships be free of coercion. My mother gave birth to me, CHOOSING FOR ME the date of my existence. I stand against such aggression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Oh no, other ideologies have criticisms and problems so let's try to create the purest ideology possible with perfect logic since that will obviously solve the worlds problems. Wait a minute, that's incredibly loving stupid because the world is a complex place with complex problems that need complex solutions, not a stupid ideology completely divorced from reality. It seems like libertarians see the world and go "this is too hard to figure out" so they stick their heads up their asses and try to create an ideology so far from reality that it is completely useless. Or maybe that's the point and the libertarian answer to the worlds problems is just to give up and let social Darwinism sort things out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I want to pay a price of $5 for my entire internet bill and have 100MB/s download speed, but there's only two ISPs in town and neither will accept that rate. Isn't this coercion? I don't want to pay $50 for 40 MB/s, I want $5 for 100. In order to have internet service, I must pay a rate I don't want for a service that I feel is not worth the the money I am paying for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Can relationships be free of coercion. My mother gave birth to me, CHOOSING FOR ME the date of my existence. I stand against such aggression. Fortunately, there's at least one politician out there who's sympathetic to such libertarian sympathies generally, and that issue in particular. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I want to pay a price of $5 for my entire internet bill and have 100MB/s download speed, but there's only two ISPs in town and neither will accept that rate. Isn't this coercion? I don't want to pay $50 for 40 MB/s, I want $5 for 100. In order to have internet service, I must pay a rate I don't want for a service that I feel is not worth the the money I am paying for it. Call up the ISPs and negotiate. Obviously in Libertopia the ISPs will value each individual customer and as long as you are persuasive enough you will have $5 1TB/s down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Fortunately, there's at least one politician out there who's sympathetic to such libertarian sympathies generally, and that issue in particular. What does it say about lords of finance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:24
|
|
