Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Political Whores posted:

Take the view of Tilly (mentioned earlier) that the state forms initially as a strongman group extorting a subdued and coerced populace, and only later evolves away from that. What libertarians want is not an escape from this contraction, but a return to its original form. Hell just look at Jrod.

The best thing about it is that they still don't regard this as an experiment that has already been run.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:05

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Disinterested posted:

The best thing about it is that they still don't regard this as an experiment that has already been run.

No you see they just didn't free market hard enough. We need to take that situation and make it even freer and marketer!

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:24

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

And that is exactly why Marx said that a revolution was basically mandatory to break out of capitalism. The problem with capitalism is that as individual workers can produce more and more they end up getting less and less for their class overall simply because fewer of them become needed to do anything. You can see this now with increased automation. The moneyed classes (i.e., the people that own everything already) are less inclined to give to the non-moneyed classes because there is no need to. As the production capacity per worker increases the supply of labor surpasses demand and you end up with decreasing wages and increasing poverty. That of course leads to unrest and the wealthy aren't inclined to share. It's possible to transition to increased socialism peacefully but there are some people that will resist that tooth and nail because there is profit to be made keeping capitalism going.

In the magic food machine example even if it is infinite if there is only one there will be people trying to fight for exclusive control of it as that's the control of the food supply. If a person can control the machine they can control the world using the threat of starvation. Nobody can produce food more cheaply than free so they can undercut everybody else and be the only source. That's a problem inherent in capitalism that we're seeing now; you need land to produce food but so many people don't own land they have no hope of producing their own food and must rely on those with money to pay them to do things. The super rich control an obscene portion of the money supply and thus have an extreme amount of control over the working class. Things like income assistance, welfare, subsidized housing, and food stamps go a long way to reducing these issues but notice that lolbertarians and the right hate these more than anything. The end result of removing these is handing the food machine to the rich. With no social safety net and no alternate way to survive other than selling your time to somebody wealthier than you the wealthy can dictate the price of the time. The extremely wealthy can just say "well you'll make me wealthier or you will starve to death. Choose wisely."

People don't like being told that's the only choice they have in life and become unruly. In that case the question is how long can the wealthy hold on to control of the infinite food machine. If they choose "gently caress you, do what I want or starve" you increase the likelihood of revolution. I'm also begging the question of "why should we not feed everybody" simply because it's an important thing to think about. If you're saying "we should not feed everybody if we are able" what you are saying is that whoever controls the food controls the poor.

Automation competing with labor in the marketplace to drive down wages isn't Marx either.

You're inconsistently jumbling Marxist and non-Marxist ideas into one messy rambling pile. Marx had a very specific take on all these things which you're glossing over.

Its quite possible to recongize the problems automation and foreign competition pose to first world workers (as well as the concentration of power) without being a Marxist.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:30

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

You're inconsistently jumbling Marxist and non-Marxist ideas into one messy rambling pile. Marx had a very specific take on all these things which you're glossing over.

Its quite possible to recongize the problems automation and foreign competition pose to first world workers (as well as the concentration of power) without being a Marxist.

When he's right, he's right.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:32

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

asdf32 posted:

Automation competing with labor in the marketplace to drive down wages isn't Marx either.

You're inconsistently jumbling Marxist and non-Marxist ideas into one messy rambling pile. Marx had a very specific take on all these things which you're glossing over.

Its quite possible to recongize the problems automation and foreign competition pose to first world workers (as well as the concentration of power) without being a Marxist.

I'm not using Marxist ideas alone and I never do. I'm also thinking about the Wealth of Nations and other theories as well as the progression of how the stuff comes about. Adam Smith argued that capitalism was the end game. Marx argued that something came after. One of Smith's points was that capitalism was actually the end of some worse systems that had to exist before hand and the natural progression was increased automation and people making more stuff for less effort. The effort required continually goes down.

Marxism does not exist in a vacuum.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:35

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

asdf32 posted:

Automation competing with labor in the marketplace to drive down wages isn't Marx either.

You're inconsistently jumbling Marxist and non-Marxist ideas into one messy rambling pile. Marx had a very specific take on all these things which you're glossing over.

Its quite possible to recongize the problems automation and foreign competition pose to first world workers (as well as the concentration of power) without being a Marxist.

All hail General Ludd

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:41

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

OwlBot 2000 posted:

When you read that study you experienced that study and experienced the words on the page.

You're using such a vague definition of "experience" that your argument is essentially worthless. Furthermore, I don't need to "experience" measurements in order for measurements to be made and understood

# ? Feb 24, 2015 19:14

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

QuarkJets posted:

You're using such a vague definition of "experience" that your argument is essentially worthless. Furthermore, I don't need to "experience" measurements in order for measurements to be made and understood

He just means that all experiments are phenomena, that is to say, things that are experienced, with all of the philosophical difficulty implied in that. This is not a very constructive argument, though, and certainly doesn't push you towards praxeology.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 19:31

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

But hey man�what if even my thoughts, my sacred reason, is just an illusion? What if I'm not even thinking these thoughts at all, I just THINK I'm thinking them!?

# ? Feb 24, 2015 19:33

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Disinterested posted:

He just means that all experiments are phenomena, that is to say, things that are experienced, with all of the philosophical difficulty implied in that. This is not a very constructive argument, though, and certainly doesn't push you towards praxeology.

It can also be turned around really easily

# ? Feb 24, 2015 19:34

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Scepticism About Intuition

David Sosa posted:

Because perception seems to be our only means to assess its own reliability, we appear to be caught in a kind of epistemic circle: how can we rationally trust a faculty whose trustworthiness can be known only in part through its own use? And so we face the philosophical threat of scepticism. But scepticism about our knowledge of the external physical world is not to be embraced: the threat is philosophical, even academic. Even when we are puzzled and philosophically threatened, we justly do not yield.
...
Since intuition seems to be our only means to assess its own reliability, we appear to be caught in a kind of epistemic circle. And so we face the threat of scepticism about our knowledge of this sort. Curiously, here many do adopt a sceptical posture. Scepticism about intuition is orthodoxy. Contemporary philosophy�s antipathy to intuition can, however, come to seem baffling. There is inadequate reason to move away from the intuitively attractive view that we have a faculty of intuition, in many ways akin to our faculties of perception and memory and introspection, that gives us reason for belief, and with it, often enough, gives us knowledge. The purpose here is to consider whether scepticism about intuition is more reasonable than a corresponding scepticism about other epistemic faculties. I am sceptical that it is.

One possible line of resistance to intuition derives from the alleged fact of widespread and ineliminable conflict of intuition. There are of course serious issues about there being such variation in intuition. And in any case compare the degree of variation one encounters in, for example, eyewitness reports: we certainly do not think the fact that eyewitnesses vary systematically, and often quite dramatically, in reporting their experience shows that perception and memory are not reliable guides to external reality, are not faculties that provide reason for belief and ground knowledge. Now although there are conditions and circumstances under which perceptions and memories appear to vary systematically (e.g., in the stressful circumstance of witnessing a crime), there are also conditions and circumstances under which there appears to be systematic agreement: given time to inspect an item carefully in good light, subjects will agree on many of its perceptible features. The question is whether the situation is analogous with respect to intuition. But given the widespread agreement we do in fact find (alongside the widespread disagreement, to be sure), there is reason to suppose that relative to certain conditions and circumstances, there is systematic agreement with intuition too, just as with perception and memory.

When you say that praxeology is wrong, all you are saying is that observed evidence seems to disagree with intuitive evidence. When praxeologists say that observed evidence is wrong, all they are saying is that intuitive evidence seems to disagree with observed evidence. Which evidence you prefer is ultimately arbitrary and the matter cannot be settled.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 24, 2015

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:08

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Scepticism About Intuition

When you say that praxeology is wrong, all you are saying is that observed evidence seems to disagree with intuitive evidence. When praxeologists say that observed evidence is wrong, all they are saying is that intuitive evidence seems to disagree with observed evidence. Which evidence you prefer is ultimately arbitrary and the matter cannot be settled.

It's not arbitrary, because we do not live in a world free of the consequences of our actions.

Sure, it's possible, just barely possible, that everything is an elaborate, undetectable illusion and nothing is real, but even if that were the case, how would that materially change the day to day, if the illusion cannot be avoided or affected or dealt with in anyway? Functionally, the illusion might as well be real.

Besides which, Intuition is learned. The problem with most intuition is people lack the information and experience for their intuition to be reliable. Intuition varies from person to person; statistical trends exist regardless of who is learning about them. (That's not to say their aren't biases in research, but seriously gently caress you)

Wank philosophic all you want, reality is not something you can opt out of, no matter how much it contradicts your 'intuition'.

But I also know your posting history so w/e keep pretending to be dense I guess

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:33

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

JRodefeld has disappeared so SOMEONE has to take his place, right?

"Functionally, the illusion might as well be real. "

Here you acknowledge that you lack absolute certainty (as we all do) that reality exists, but you choose to treat it as real because it gives you results you personally consider beneficial. Choosing to treat Libertarianism as true, despite our inability to truly KNOW whether it is true, likewise yields results that some people consider beneficial. In either case, we know that we don't know and have to make assumptions. At the end of the day, you can't say that I'm wrong and you're right, only that your subjective preferences are better served by empiricism than they are by moral intuition.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:39

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

OwlBot 2000 posted:

JRodefeld has disappeared so SOMEONE has to take his place, right?

"Functionally, the illusion might as well be real. "

Here you acknowledge that you lack absolute certainty (as we all do) that reality exists, but you choose to treat it as real because it gives you results you personally consider beneficial. Choosing to treat Libertarianism as true, despite our inability to truly KNOW whether it is true, likewise yields results that some people consider beneficial. In either case, we know that we don't know and have to make assumptions. At the end of the day, you can't say that I'm wrong and you're right, only that your subjective preferences are better served by empiricism than they are by moral intuition.

The thing about observational evidence is that it's concrete while intuitive evidence is not. Let's say you have a barrel with a bunch of apples in it. Before counting them you go "well my gut tells me there are probably about 100 apples in the barrel." That's intuitive evidence. You make a guess based on what you know but you cannot intuit the exact number of apples in the barrel. If your intuition says "well the barrel SAYS apples and there is a layer of apples on top but I think it has 6 apples and then 10,000 crabs" then you're a loving idiot and your intuition is flawed. If the barrel is labelled "apples" and then you open it up and there is a layer of apples on top you can intuit that it's probably a barrel full of apples. You can't be certain of course but that's where observational evidence comes in. If you take everything out of the barrel and the only thing it had in it was a crap load of apples then you can say "yes that barrel was full of apples." Same with counting them; if you count all the apples in the barrel then put them back in you could say exactly how many apples it had with absolute certainty because you sat down and counted them.

The problem here is that a lot of libertarians are going "I think the apple barrel is actually full of space ships" and then refusing to believe observational data when somebody dumps out all the apples and then counts them. Many libertarians are looking at the empty barrel and the apples then saying "well I still think it's full of spaceships" or going "well now we have an empty barrel and a bunch of apples on the ground so you're still wrong." :smug:

edit: And when it comes to Randists and those that swear by praxeology and nothing else if you ask "how many apples are in that barrel?" they're responding with nonsense answers like "well who owns the apples?" or "some people like apples so the apples have value." A lot of information relating to apples is frequently irrelevant to the question asked. Similarly if we're asking "should we eat the apples or not?" the Randists are going to be totally OK with it if whoever owns them goes "nah, I don't care if people are hungry, let them rot."

ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 24, 2015

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:44

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

"You make a guess based on what you know but you cannot intuit the exact number of apples in the barrel. If your intuition says "well the barrel SAYS apples and there is a layer of apples on top but I think it has 6 apples and then 10,000 crabs" then you're a loving idiot and your intuition is flawed."

Have you seriously never heard of a crabapple? The arrogance of Statists never ceases to amaze.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:46

Alien Arcana: Feb 14, 2012; You're related to soup, Admiral.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

When you say that praxeology is wrong, all you are saying is that observed evidence seems to disagree with intuitive evidence. When praxeologists say that observed evidence is wrong, all they are saying is that intuitive evidence seems to disagree with observed evidence. Which evidence you prefer is ultimately arbitrary and the matter cannot be settled.

From where I'm standing, praxeology is at odds with both observation and intuition.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:47

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

Don't limit it only to Praxeology, because that's just one method you can use to arrive at the conclusion of Libertarianism. Ayn Rand, for example, started from first principles and used logic to conclude that man is a rational actor who should be free from force. Nozick did likewise. Why should we disagree with any of these arguments just because what we "observe" about the world contradicts them? Our observations can be flawed, as can intuition, so there's no reason to privilege either.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:51

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

OwlBot 2000 posted:

JRodefeld has disappeared so SOMEONE has to take his place, right?

He'll reappear sooner or later. As with all religious zealots, he cannot resist proselytizing to the masses.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 21:52

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Don't limit it only to Praxeology, because that's just one method you can use to arrive at the conclusion of Libertarianism. Ayn Rand, for example, started from first principles and used logic to conclude that man is a rational actor who should be free from force. Nozick did likewise. Why should we disagree with any of these arguments just because what we "observe" about the world contradicts them? Our observations can be flawed, as can intuition, so there's no reason to privilege either.

Objectivism is not Libertarianism. Rand had no issue with initiating violence, just so long as you were the one initiating it and not the one being initiated on.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 22:02

Ron Paul Atreides: Apr 19, 2012; Uyghurs situation in Xinjiang? Just a police action, do not fret. Not ongoing genocide like in EVIL Canada.

I am definitely not a tankie.

Actually n/m Owlbot you keep doing your thing I forgot how entertaining it can be

# ? Feb 24, 2015 22:03

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Rand also had a really bizarre view of just what "initiating violence" was. She hailed John Galt as a hero for literally destroying society and leaving everybody but him and his buddies to starve and suffer. The Galtian Revolution was nothing more than deliberately ruining the lives of the majority of the human race because "gently caress you I'm smart."

# ? Feb 24, 2015 22:03

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

I'm not using Marxist ideas alone and I never do. I'm also thinking about the Wealth of Nations and other theories as well as the progression of how the stuff comes about. Adam Smith argued that capitalism was the end game. Marx argued that something came after. One of Smith's points was that capitalism was actually the end of some worse systems that had to exist before hand and the natural progression was increased automation and people making more stuff for less effort. The effort required continually goes down.

Marxism does not exist in a vacuum.

Yeah why? Again Marx was specific about both cause and effect. If you're not buying into both of them, IE TRPF->crisis, then it's not Marx, its some other theory and if you're attaching Marx to that its either ignorance or obfuscation.

For example we don't throw around "Lamarkian" along side evolution by natural selection because they're just not the same thing. Likewise with any non-Marxist critique of capitalism and Maxism.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

JRodefeld has disappeared so SOMEONE has to take his place, right?

"Functionally, the illusion might as well be real. "

Here you acknowledge that you lack absolute certainty (as we all do) that reality exists, but you choose to treat it as real because it gives you results you personally consider beneficial. Choosing to treat Libertarianism as true, despite our inability to truly KNOW whether it is true, likewise yields results that some people consider beneficial. In either case, we know that we don't know and have to make assumptions. At the end of the day, you can't say that I'm wrong and you're right, only that your subjective preferences are better served by empiricism than they are by moral intuition.

Which drug are you on or which crappy ideology did you just realize is invalidated by reality?

Pure philosophy is just so incredibly useless.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 22:21

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

OwlBot 2000 I want you to put the loving gun down just for a second! Just put the loving gun down and realize that reality is real. Also I'm smarter and more moral than you.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 23:05

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Here have a bunch of Mises.org articles spouting stupid bullshit i've just decided is important and true.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 23:06

isildur: May 31, 2000; BattleDroids: Flashpoint OH NO! Dekker! IS DOWN! THIS IS Glitch! Taking Command! THIS IS Glich! Taking command! OH NO! Glitch! IS DOWN! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! OH NO! Medusa IS DOWN!

Soon to be part of the Battletech Universe canon.

Disinterested posted:

He just means that all experiments are phenomena, that is to say, things that are experienced, with all of the philosophical difficulty implied in that. This is not a very constructive argument, though, and certainly doesn't push you towards praxeology.

My (Kantian) ethics prof used to say, when confronted with freshman arguments like this: "That's a nice argument, but it doesn't do any work."

# ? Feb 24, 2015 23:09

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

asdf32 posted:

Which drug are you on

Colloidal silver, pure-strain.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 23:13

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Don't limit it only to Praxeology, because that's just one method you can use to arrive at the conclusion of Libertarianism. Ayn Rand, for example, started from first principles and used logic to conclude that man is a rational actor who should be free from force. Nozick did likewise. Why should we disagree with any of these arguments just because what we "observe" about the world contradicts them? Our observations can be flawed, as can intuition, so there's no reason to privilege either.

Morality is ultimately beyond the realm of observational reality to defend. That's why my proposed solution to the conflict is initiatory violence, which thankfully my gut intuition tells me is ok. The ideological quandary we find ourselves in will be resolved when there are no more libertarians, following what I assume will be some hilariously one-sided war when New Hampshire finally reaches the critical mass to declare itself Randistan and is promptly crushed by the US government. It's a Revelations sort of thing.

# ? Feb 25, 2015 02:34

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

*drinks clean, filtered water* DROP THE GUN DROP THE GUN

# ? Feb 25, 2015 02:45

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

~~LAWN DARTS~~ BOUNCE HOUSES

ABC News posted:

2 Boys Hospitalized After Bounce House Flies 50 Feet Into the Air

Two boys remained hospitalized in Upstate New York today after a bounce house they were playing in was swept off the ground during a windstorm.

The inflatable playhouse had been staked to a front yard Monday in South Glens Falls, while the boys and a girl played inside.

Witnesses said a gust of wind upward of 25 mph, lifted the house approximately 50 feet � more than two stories high � and carried it over a stretch of woods before dropping it on a two-story schoolhouse.

�It was like a horror movie,� resident Taylor Seymour told ABC News. �That poor, little kid came flying, just came flying out of nowhere.�
All three children survived. The girl, 10, fell out just after liftoff and suffered scrapes. The boys, 5 and 6, suffered injuries ranging from two broken arms to a serious head injury after one was dropped onto the street below and the other, onto a car.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates the number of injured because of inflatable playhouses to be in the thousands each year.

Little Tikes, the manufacturer of the playhouse, said it was looking into the accident.

�Providing safe and wholesome outdoor play experiences is of utmost important to Little Tikes,� a statement read. �Our thoughts and prayers are with the children and their families.�

What are you gonna do though, outlaw all roofed structures, flimsy structures, and elastic objects? No way! Checkmate, statists!

# ? Feb 26, 2015 22:48

TheArmorOfContempt: Nov 29, 2012; Did I ever tell you my favorite color was blue?

Von Mises Institute is against something everyone thinks is good. Anyone care to savage this thing?

# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:09

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Uroboros posted:

Von Mises Institute is against something everyone thinks is good. Anyone care to savage this thing?

The first line is "Yet again, the government wants to fix a problem that doesn�t exist." which implies they don't understand that this is actually bringing things back to the status quo (roughly), which means the author is very stupid.

# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:23

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

Muscle Tracer posted:

~~LAWN DARTS~~ BOUNCE HOUSES

What are you gonna do though, outlaw all roofed structures, flimsy structures, and elastic objects? No way! Checkmate, statists!

Not trying to be a contrarian here but bouncy houses are really loving fun and I feel my childhood would have been lesser without them. It'll take a lot more than thousands of children getting maimed each year to outweigh the benefits.

# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:45

TheArmorOfContempt: Nov 29, 2012; Did I ever tell you my favorite color was blue?

isn't the solution to simply tie town the bouncy house?

# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:56

Bob James: Nov 15, 2005; by Lowtax; Ultra Carp

Uroboros posted:

isn't the solution to simply tie town the bouncy house?

They should have gotten fatter kids.

# ? Feb 27, 2015 00:00

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Uroboros posted:

isn't the solution USING MY PILLAGED EARNINGS to HIRE MEN WITH GUNS to simply FORCE INNOCENT PARENTS to tie town the bouncy house AT GUNPOINT?

# ? Feb 27, 2015 00:21

Antares: Jan 13, 2006

Muscle Tracer posted:

~~LAWN DARTS~~ BOUNCE HOUSES

What are you gonna do though, outlaw all roofed structures, flimsy structures, and elastic objects? No way! Checkmate, statists!

The castle was clearly labeled as bouncy and no reasonable parent would have been blind to the dangers. loving kids had it coming.

# ? Feb 27, 2015 00:45

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Uh yeah I kinda always thought those things were supposed to be staked down so that they didn't accidentally tip over or something.

# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:09

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

Uroboros posted:

Von Mises Institute is against something everyone thinks is good. Anyone care to savage this thing?

I don't know how well the actual FCC policy lives up to it, but the fundamental idea of net neutrality is that ISPs shouldn't get to artificially charge sites to be able to provide customers with full-speed access. Companies like Netflix and Google have the financial power that they would probably be fine without net neutrality, but it could potentially hamstring whoever wants to create the next Netflix or YouTube. This isn't just a hypothetical either; the likes of Comcast were lobbying hard against net neutrality and getting the technology necessary to make it happen.

The author of the Mises article... doesn't seem to quite be cognizant of what net neutrality is actually supposed to be. There's a bunch of nonsensical analogies to other kinds of products that are nothing like internet service, and a big wad of "REGULATION BAD!"

# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:15

DarklyDreaming: Apr 4, 2009; Fun scary

Lemming posted:

The first line is "Yet again, the government wants to fix a problem that doesn�t exist." which implies they don't understand that this is actually bringing things back to the status quo (roughly), which means the author is very stupid.

Well yeah Comcast putting its boot on my throat and telling me that I can't view certain parts of the internet isn't really a problem in Libertopia, it's the selling point.

DarklyDreaming fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Feb 27, 2015

# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:05

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

You really only need to read the first sentence; yeah, the problem that net neutrality prevents doesn't exist, because net neutrality has been the norm since forever and therefore the problem has not occurred. Moron.

# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »