|
jrodefeld posted:As opposed to who, politicians?! These paragons of virtue and moral integrity, the politician and the bureaucrat. As an advocate of State power, those are the people your system is run by. The wealthy, like most groups, are comprised of good people and bad. But the distinction is that they have limited ability to run the lives of others. They have the ability to offer a product or service to consumers and a job to workers, both of which can be refused. Your system, the ancap libertarian system, converts wealthy people into politicians with lifetime appointments. I don't know why you have so much trouble grasping this concept, but it's the reason why your entire ancap libertarian philosophy is a failure. Ancap libertarians basically want a feudal society. They might refuse to admit that, but it's what would come of their disastrous desires.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Ancap libertarians basically want a feudal society. They might refuse to admit that, but it's what would come of their disastrous desires. The nobles will treat their peasant farmers well, because it's in their rational self-interest to keep them happy so they don't go to another landlord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Ancap libertarians basically want a feudal society. They might refuse to admit that, but it's what would come of their disastrous desires. Well either that, or they have a thing for classic muscle cars, black leather, and football gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Jrodfeld I have a question. Bruning's deflationary response to the great depression in Germany was one of the great contributing factors to the rise of Hitler and fascism in Germany and you are really loving dumb to cite it in a discussion about how great deflationary policies are. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:Actually... Well here, I'll let the quotes speak for themselves: Good thing they'll all end up dead in the first wave of mob violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Hey, jrod, respond to this argument by someone who is as much of a lunatic as you but who somehow maintains a capacity for critical thought:quote:Now, Hoppe’s theory of crime is as wrong as his whole methodology. As a starting point let us deal with his main assertion that the state is dangerous because it is a constant threat to individual property rights. Of course, this statement is true because indeed the state often violates the individuals’ rights to the enjoyment of their property. But the statement is only true if you understand it correctly. The state as such cannot violate any right simply because it does not exist. Yes, you heard it right: It does not exist. The state is – like all legal entities – only a legal fiction, and legal fictions do not and cannot act. Acting is something that only natural persons – people – can do, and therefore if the state seems to act it only does so through its agents. This should not surprise an advocate of methodological individualism like Hoppe. But human beings are ambivalent creatures, capable to do good and evil. Why should human beings lose their capability to do evil just because the legal fiction of the state disappears? This alone would not affect human nature. Of course, Hoppe is right when he points out that the state can be abused by some people to do evil and if there was no state there could not be such a kind of abuse. But to believe that this would make the world a more peaceful place is doubtful for two reasons: Firstly, crime and violence that currently exist outside of the state would continue to exist for who should effectively fight them after we have abolished criminal law and reduced it to some kind of compensation mechanism? Secondly, and more dangerously, there would be new ways of abusing power in Hoppe’s world, namely in the form of insurance companies. How would Hoppe guarantee that insurance companies would not degenerate and become mafia-like structures that begin to threaten other individuals and extort protection money? Why should someone who abuses his power as Prime Minister, Chancellor or President not abuse his power when he becomes the CEO of an insurance company? On the first point, Hoppe does not seem to have an answer at all. On the second point, he would probably say that such things could not happen as there would be competing insurance companies and that would guarantee that they would not degenerate. After all, customers could just change the insurance company they are with. But how would that make any difference? Imagine the following case: The restaurant owner X is threatened by his insurance company A. He now turns to insurance company B to seek help. But what should B do? If it has an armed force – like company A – it could attack A with the result of a small civil war. If it does not have an armed force or if its armed forces are weaker than A’s troops, it could only advise X to move to a faraway country, i.e. if company A lets him go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also gently caress you and the horse you rode in on if you think the wealthy have less ability to run the lives of others. The VC who purchases a company so he can sell it off for parts will gently caress up thousands of lives. Even my boss dictates my day to day life by setting a work schedule. But he's really a prisoner of the people's opinions. He's constantly beholden to their power to organize and shut him out of the market, through the power of knitting circles and people talking to each other in bars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Good thing they'll all end up dead in the first wave of mob violence. That's what mercenaries are for. Pullman wasn't on the front lines battling strikers in hand-to-hand combat. Czar Nicholas wasn't manning a guard tower in Petersburg. The mob actually getting ahold of the ultrarich aristocracy and beheading or shooting them was so rare and shocking it usually touched off invasions by neighboring countries. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Once again, letting others do your thinking for you. On the one hand, if I just give off my opinions and my views you criticize me for not having any sources to back up my assertions but when I do cite sources of people who back up what I am saying and have done research in this area,. I am criticized for "letting others do my thinking for me". Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
You're confusing "sources of evidence for your claims with "long screeds of similar unsupported opinions but pulled out of someone else's rear end instead of your own"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:On the one hand, if I just give off my opinions and my views you criticize me for not having any sources to back up my assertions but when I do cite sources of people who back up what I am saying and have done research in this area,. I am criticized for "letting others do my thinking for me". Blind assertions are not improved by mises links. We object to your declarations of how the world is without any evidence. You're essentially an intelligent designer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
So jrod, how do you reconcile your belief that people are too stupid to ever be allowed to vote, but not so stupid that they would ever be duped by predatory contracts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:On the one hand, if I just give off my opinions and my views you criticize me for not having any sources to back up my assertions but when I do cite sources of people who back up what I am saying and have done research in this area,. I am criticized for "letting others do my thinking for me". The people you cite don't back up what you say beyond merely asserting the same, and haven't done any real research on anything because to a man they're ideologically blind idiots. Not that we needed further explanation as to why you found them compelling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is not just libertarians who have articulated the flaws in democracy. Why would you assume that a majority opinion matters in regards to the morality or wisdom of public policy? Instead of defending a majority opinion, why don't you logically and intellectually determine what rights you think the citizens of a society have and what role, if any, there is for the State and for law? If your arguments have merit and can stand up to scrutiny, then why not endeavour to limit the State to those functions that you feel are legitimate while protecting the rights of the people? Yeah it is called a "constitution". Anything else? As others have already argued the Nazi thing is ahistorical garbage, but nice try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, Elaborate please. How is Walter Williams a "fake" academic? What, are you fretting that you can't use the handy "racist" smear to discredit people because Williams is a black man, so you have to resort to some other childish tactic to somehow invalidate his arguments? From Wikipedia: quote:In 1959 he was drafted into the military, and served as a Private in the United States Army.[4][6] While stationed in the south, he "waged a one man battle against Jim Crow from inside the army. He challenged the racial order with provocative statements to his fellow soldiers. This resulted in an overseeing officer filing a court-martial proceeding against Williams. Williams argued his own case, and was found not guilty.[4] While considering filing countercharges against the officer that had brought him up for court martial, Williams found himself transferred to Korea. Upon arriving there, Williams marked "Caucasian" for race on his personnel form. When challenged on this, Williams replied wryly if he had marked "Black", he would end up getting all the worst jobs. From Korea Williams wrote a letter to President John F. Kennedy denouncing the pervasive racism in the American government and military, and questioning the actions black Americans should take given the state of affairs, writing: Walter Williams is a very educated man with a Master's Degree and a PhD n economics. He was outspoken and articulate in his condemnation of white racism and Jim Crow and fought with others in the march towards civil rights for black Americans. After viewing the evidence, he became a libertarian and understood that the well intentioned policies promoted by white progressives were actually hurting the black community. He has done a great deal of work on this subject and his credentials should lead you to take seriously his arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's what mercenaries are for. The U.S. rich don't have mercenaries because they have the state. They don't know the first thing about armed defence either. Even the people critical of Ancap ideology don't seem to fully grasp its implications. It's not "small government". It's none. Everything currently dependent on government (also known as everything), including existing social hierarchies are gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The U.S. rich don't have mercenaries because they have the state. They don't know the first thing about armed defence either. No, but the second the State disappears you can bet your rear end they'll be tripping all over each other to hire PMCs and defense experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
I'm begining to think Jrod put me on his ignore list. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, but the second the State disappears you can bet your rear end they'll be tripping all over each other to hire PMCs and defense experts. Mark Zuckerberg: Ancap warlord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Elaborate please. How is Walter Williams a "fake" academic? What, are you fretting that you can't use the handy "racist" smear to discredit people because Williams is a black man, so you have to resort to some other childish tactic to somehow invalidate his arguments? Walter Williams is a useful idiot who is chair of the only Economics department that lets in dyed-in-the-wool stark raving libertarians. It's a joke program at a jumped-up community college. And don't worry, Walter WIlliams is definitely a racist. He managed to turn himself into a racist. jrodefeld posted:Walter Williams is a very educated man with a Master's Degree and a PhD n economics. He was outspoken and articulate in his condemnation of white racism and Jim Crow and fought with others in the march towards civil rights for black Americans. Suddenly you're resorting to "educated," "articulate" and citing degrees in defense of a person's ideas? How much are those characteristics worth to you when they are exhibited by a statist? Nothing: you will praise any cornpone huckster from a bible college who espouses ancapism, and condemn any eminent economist who believes there should be a government. So why are you suddenly praising somebody because they're educated and articulate?  x1000
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Walter Williams is a very educated man with a Master's Degree and a PhD n economics. He was outspoken and articulate in his condemnation of white racism and Jim Crow and fought with others in the march towards civil rights for black Americans. If I can find two people with PhD's that disagree with Williams does that mean I win the argument and you will change your mind?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:Okay, I had a much more eloquent version of this post written up before I found out that command + Q on my mac does not add quotations but is in fact the quit command, even though command + B is the bold command, so I'm going to make this short and sweet. One of the reasons that I react so strongly against the insinuation that I am a racist (which I acknowledge that you are NOT doing) is that the plight of black Americans and minorities in general has been a major concern for me, it is something that I care deeply about. I was as angry and outraged at the events in Ferguson and the murder of Eric Garner as anyone else, I feel like it demonstrates how little the lives of poor blacks seem to matter to police. I don't even necessarily think that the motivations for these cops were racial, but rather I think that it becomes policy to target any vulnerable community with harsher punishment than they would afford a more affluent community. I think the lack of male involvement in the raising of black children has caused a great deal of tragic and lifelong problems for these kids as they grow up. I don't think this is natural at all. To assume that it is somehow natural that black people are more irresponsible parents than other races or that blacks need special advantages just to compete with other races is in fact horribly racist. It represents the soft bigotry of low expectations. Black illegitimacy was actually lower than white illegitimacy in the 1940s and early 1950s. Vicious white racism did not destroy the black family. Something changed in the last forty years that has had an adverse effect on black progress. I don't need to go into this here as I have done so in a previous post, but this concerns me a great deal. And the majority of the libertarian and anarchist commentators that I listen to spend a large amount of time speaking about the injustice of the criminal justice system in its treatment of blacks and many of these same issues. That is why it is so frustrating when I hear the insinuation that libertarians advocate for the free market "just so we can tell black people to get out of our neighborhoods". With that said, you clearly misunderstood what I was saying. But let me ask you a question first: Do you think that all opposition to free and open immigration is motivated by racism? Mass immigration can and does cause a lot of problems for infrastructure, social services, communities and the logistics of it can be complex depending on the volume of the immigration. All I am saying is that if you have a welfare State and public infrastructure that is overused and people are hugely inconvenienced, job opportunities are lost and State budgets are strained due to massive new immigration, this can be seen as a rights violation against private property owners whose tax dollars are being redistributed to benefit the newcomers into the community. This is not a racial thing. It is merely a logistics issue related to the volume of people moving through an area. I have no idea why you jumped to the conclusion that this is racial. If people are just moving and they are getting jobs and working on improving their own lives, there is no problem whatsoever. But you cannot be forced to invite these people over to your house for dinner, or have your money taken to benefit others, and so forth. Just as with anyone else. Maybe some people are xenophobic and really don't want to associate with a different race. As vile as that might be, they have the right not to associate with them on their own property. Caros posted:
I don't speak for Hoppe or anyone else. But to be fair, people don't have the right to expel people from "towns, cities or states". They have the right to not allow people on their personal property. That is it. They have no right to throw someone out of their home who lives next door. They can move if they want but they have no jurisdiction over another person's property. The segregation of the South, Jim Crow and other vile racist institutions have nothing to do with the right to free association. This was a situation of State-sanctioned and enforced segregation, not just on private businesses but in public places, schools, and places like that. The Civil Rights movement rightly overturned this State enforced segregation. A principled libertarian could offer the case that the pendulum swung too far in the other direction, such that affirmative action mandates, racial set asides and special treatment, racial quotas for hiring and things like that have been ill advised and counterproductive. A libertarian doesn't argue that a private business owner has the theoretical right to not permit some minority to enter their property because we support such a measure, but that we are concerned about the principle which is undermined. We are concerned with private property being seized through eminent domain. If we concede that the State can force a person to associate with someone on his private property for the "common good" then you have conceded the entire principle and now the State can use this as a precedent for future property rights violations. Caros posted:You've been really good about avoiding support for some of the vile stuff that your idols say, and I think you really need to take another look at forced integration before you go around spewing it, because by calling for it you are calling for a return to the segregation of the 1960's. That is hosed up beyond any and all belief. I think you are confused if you think libertarian property rights have anything to do with a "return" to segregation of the 1960s. The fact that this was State MANDATED segregation is kind of critical. As is the fact that some private business entrepreneurs had wanted to open up stores and businesses that served black people for decades prior but were prevented from doing so by law. The market has a way of breaking up segregation. The State had to enforce slavery, Jim Crow and segregation because it is not economically viable in the long run to rely on slave labor or to refuse black paying customers while your competitor serves all comers. But do me a favor in the future. Be real careful about when you use the label "racist" to describe somebody. Don't be so hypersensitive to supposed "code" language and interpret racial intent into an argument that may or may not exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The U.S. rich don't have mercenaries because they have the state. They don't know the first thing about armed defence either. Eh, George Pullman was American as apple pie and he seemed pretty well-informed about both how to run a police state. Getting rid of the modern centralized state doesn't destroy the existing social hierarchy. It just sets us back to feudalism where money buys power. For starters, on Libertopria Oh-dark-thirty there's suddenly be millions of armed and trained former police and military who need a job. I'm pretty sure Charles Koch can plan out how to contract Blackwater and have it all set up in advance unless we take him by surprise by abolishing democracy in the middle of the night and immediately marching on the Hamptons. But anyway even if every rich person in America is incompetent and is lynched on day one, we'll eventually end up with the usual crop of warlords ruling our stateless society, even if it's not the exact same people who are on top today. jrodefeld posted:In the first place, many of the great thinkers of libertarianism have indeed spent a great deal of time answering such criticisms at length. What I don't understand is how left progressives think that the masses of the people can be educated enough to vote in a responsible way to ensure wise State policy to effectively police private economic power but these same people can't effectively use boycotts, lawsuits, free competition and the like to punish bad economic actors in a free market. Okay so enough people are perfectly informed and act in their long-term self interest that they will boycott exploitative businesses: the people aren't overwhelmed by too much information, or too busy surviving to be informed on every issue, they're savvy enough to demand transparency from all entities so they don't have to wonder if a restaurant is violating sanitary practices, they can't be swayed by well-funded advertising campaigns, etc. So, uh, why is money buying Goldman any influence then, why aren't the perfectly-informed self-interested populace voting against privileges for bankers right now? Why are the big banks not being boycotted for their financial crimes right now? Why are politicians promising to investigate and punish them not sweeping the elections? Is everyone just waiting until the State withers away to begin their well-informed rationally self-interested boycotts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The U.S. rich don't have mercenaries because they have the state. They don't know the first thing about armed defence either. This is a good point. In the absence of the present state the newly triumphant business elite would be compelled to establish a new government with the same use of violence as its underlying binding force. I do not believe for a second that intelligent libertarians (read: not useful idiots like jrode) and especially those who are also part of this business elite or have connections to it do not realize this. In a way, I think that libertarians do not seek a true dissolution of government so much as its reconfiguration into a manner that no longer benefits or is responsive to the needs of the population. This is the true and realistic conclusion of the philosophy. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:This is a good point. In the absence of the present state the newly triumphant business elite would be compelled to establish a new government with the same underlying use of violence as its underlying binding force. I do not believe for a second that intelligent libertarians (read: not useful idiots like jrode) and especially those who are also part of this business elite or have connections to it do not realize this. In a way, I think that libertarians do not seek a true dissolution of government so much as its reconfiguration into a manner that no longer benefits or is responsive to the needs of the population. This is the true and realistic conclusion of the philosophy. As we see this is exactly what happens. Just check 2008 when it turned out the Captains of Industry funding 50 years of anti-government propaganda alove it when the rubes vote to cut food stamps and taxes, because that just sends more money their way that they can use to influence the government to cut them a few trillion in corporate welfare. But at least we shaved a few billion off the TANF budget! VVVVVV Murray Rothbard posted:For Malcolm was indeed unique among black leadership, past and present. He did no shuckin’ and jivin’...He carried himself with great pride and dignity; his speaking style was incisive and sparkled with intelligence and sardonic wit. In short, his attraction for blacks was and is that he acted white. It is a ridiculous liberal clich that blacks are just like whites but with a different skin color; but in Malcolm’s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, see the talking African, Eighth Wonder of the World! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Real quick, but has the word "articulate" when used to describe a black man suddenly stopped being a dogwhistle? Because when I see that I imagine the speaker as an olde timey gentleman marveling at the colored man that speaks as if he were a real person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-suffragettes exist therefore the vote is bad for women and restricting the franchise to men is not misogynist at all because see a woman supports it too! That is not even a remotely good analogy. it would be accurate if I supported welfare for whites and opposed it for blacks. Welfare is bad for everyone. The same negative effects can be witnessed among white populations on State welfare as well. Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and many of the radical black figures of today and yesterday have been vehemently opposed to blacks getting on welfare for the same reasons that I have articulated. I am not saying he is a reliable source because he is nuttier than a fruitcake (on many things) but Minister Louis Farrakhan preaches against blacks going on welfare. His message to other blacks is actually quite conservative and very positive. I don't personally blame anyone who goes on welfare because people who are desperate will do whatever they can to survive. What I am saying is that the incentive structure for these State benefits is perverse. There are cases where generations become locked into poverty, women get divorced or have more children, just to stay on or increase their welfare payments. And this has nothing to do with race as the phenomenon affects all races in much the same way. The difference is that, do to historic discrimination, the black community can less afford to be plagued by the unintended consequences of this system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:women get divorced or have more children, just to stay on or increase their welfare payments Post evidence of a widespread phenomenon of women having more children just to get more welfare benefits, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But do me a favor in the future. Be real careful about when you use the label "racist" to describe somebody. Don't be so hypersensitive to supposed "code" language and interpret racial intent into an argument that may or may not exist. I don't think you understand: They ARE racists. This is not us handwaving their abilities, they endorse and say very racist things. You portray the state as the tools of racism, but the one thing you forget time and again is that the state is PEOPLE. Its made, run, and controlled by people. Even without the state, racism would endure. You are kidding yourself if you don't think racism will thrive in a libertarian society. jrodefeld posted:That is not even a remotely good analogy. it would be accurate if I supported welfare for whites and opposed it for blacks. Welfare is bad for everyone. The same negative effects can be witnessed among white populations on State welfare as well. Holy gently caress, the welfare queen myth? Man, inot only do you endorse racists, you endorse misogynistic economic ideals too?!?!?! CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is not even a remotely good analogy. it would be accurate if I supported welfare for whites and opposed it for blacks. Welfare is bad for everyone. The same negative effects can be witnessed among white populations on State welfare as well. You are making conflicting statements. If welfare is equally bad then you would not observe an effect among one poor demographic that is not also reflected among another. Yet that is the premise of Walter Williams' work. You are directly contradicting yourself and the work of an "educated" and "articulate" (black) man. Edit: You keep focusing on the US. Have you ever thought that the US has a lovely welfare policy that is racist in nature, which might be why you observe these results? You keep pretending that the blame lies with the nebulous concept of "welfare" rather than the implementation. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
I am legit curious what your solution to that is. Cut them off welfare and then ?????????.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
As a professional beurocrat I take offense to the implication that I am in any way related to policians. We really have very little to do with each other than we're both funded by tax payers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I am legit curious what your solution to that is. They won't be poor anymore! Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:noted leftist, affirmative action policy, the war on drugs I just want to make note of the difference in tone between us. You may argue that I come off as condescending and arrogant at times, but I never just throw around vitriol like this. As I mentioned in a post nearly a month ago, we are anonymous internet users who are debating complex political and economic issues in a forum where people cavalierly spew obscenities and hatred that they wouldn't dare use in a face to face encounter. What if I responded to a post Caros made with "Suck a dick Caros you worthless poo poo for brains piece of human excrement"? I wouldn't do that because I like Caros, he has at least been pretty honest and open in his debate tactics. I have many friends with views very similar to his. But I wouldn't use language like that but so many of you feel comfortable expressing yourself in vitriol and hate. As an aside, I've noticed such outbursts far more commonly among left progressives than among right conservatives who, despite their many flaws, tend to keep things more civil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I just want to make note of the difference in tone between us. You may argue that I come off as condescending and arrogant at times, but I never just throw around vitriol like this. As I mentioned in a post nearly a month ago, we are anonymous internet users who are debating complex political and economic issues in a forum where people cavalierly spew obscenities and hatred that they wouldn't dare use in a face to face encounter. Jrod don't talk about tone when you denigrate me and my profession in almost every post you make. I endure it quietly while you say highly offensive things and pretend that I selected the evil alignment class at character creation. You're very violent in you rhetoric toward people like me saying we must be destroyed in order for humanity to be free. Look me in the eye Jrod!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
I assume if someone on Mises knew who Caros was then you would have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In other words, it's okay to take away a person's rights so long as it's done with a contract that both parties "willingly" sign. That's a pretty loving awful position to take, dude I don't know what you are talking about here. Any legal contract stipulates that the two parties agree to act in a certain way. If they don't act in the way specified the contract is broken and a penalty forthcoming, their reputation will be affected and people will be unwilling to sign contracts with them in the future. We don't say that my "rights are being taken away" because I agree to do something or not to do something else. If what I said was "a loving awful position to take", then you are disagreeing with the entire concept of a legal contract. How would any society prosper if people couldn't enter into legally binding contracts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But I wouldn't use language like that but so many of you feel comfortable expressing yourself in vitriol and hate. As an aside, I've noticed such outbursts far more commonly among left progressives than among right conservatives who, despite their many flaws, tend to keep things more civil. Haha, what? I have lost count the number of times I have been told that I deserve theft, rape, or death for my opposition to right wing positions. Where is that image of guy screaming at Hitler for wanting to kill all the Jews while he mildly responds with a tone argument?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
How dare you use this tone with me. Now, let me tell you about my plan to feed welfare queens to sand worms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I just want to make note of the difference in tone between us. You may argue that I come off as condescending and arrogant at times, but I never just throw around vitriol like this. As I mentioned in a post nearly a month ago, we are anonymous internet users who are debating complex political and economic issues in a forum where people cavalierly spew obscenities and hatred that they wouldn't dare use in a face to face encounter. Maybe if you weren't such a disingenuous shithead with horribly racist opinions, we would be more willing to extend you conversational goodwill. At this point I think I would find it easier to talk civilly with fascists than I would with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:33
|
|
