|
jrodefeld posted:
Oh my god you're loving feces. You have the gall to call these "open-ended questions" you mook? Why don't you go back and read what people have written over the years in response to you; read it, all, don't just scan through it looking for buzzwords then call out "awk! the state" at random like a motherfucking parrot, bitch! You're positively evil in your disregard for what is said to you. Evil mendacious scum! I hope you catch measles.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hey guys, I heard libertarians want to round up and expel all gays, democrats, and Marxists from North America as soon as they get rid of the State. This is and always has been true, right? Don't be absurd! That's a horrible, mendacious falsehood!! ... The Hoppe-followers also want to get rid of the hispanics, jews, and black people, while Molyneux's crowd want to enslave women like cattle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:51
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Libertarians are very precise when we describe what a "State" is. Man, it's a treat to see libertarians gagging for gang violence instead of a court system. Usually there's some weak denials and arguments about the goodness of human nature, but here we come to the crux of Hoppe's issue- he can't gun someone down for looking at him funny.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
 Hey workers, why can't you see how much better you'll be paid if your company spends the entire budget on CEO bonuses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. After I respond to whatever pressing questions you pose, I expect some response to my question on foreign policy. Deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. Have you ever hosed a watermelon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. Nah go back and start from the beginning and work your way up. Why the gently caress should we take the time to do something like that for you after so many times of you running off and/or ignoring really detailed posts refuting your bullshit over and over again. It's not like you'll actually provide any satisfactory answers. You're such a disingenuous little poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Nah go back and start from the beginning and work your way up. Why the gently caress should we take the time to do something like that for you after so many times of you running off and/or ignoring really detailed posts refuting your bullshit over and over again. It's not like you'll actually provide any satisfactory answers. You're such a disingenuous little poo poo. This is the only question about which I'm interested in hearing an answer from jrod.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:29
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. I will give you a response to your question on foreign policy. There is no compatibility between the libertarian perspective and any other perspective whatsoever, since only the libertarian perspective assumes that the only way to interact politically with other nations is via "imperialist aggression".
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. Actually no wait, answer me this: why do you believe that privately-run professional societies are capable of self-regulation with no need for government oversight and no risk that money will corrupt them, but also believe that the privately-run American Dental Society is secretly poisoning Americans with mercury fillings and covering up science in the avaricious pursuit of sweet sweet gold? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Wow. A hundred new posts.jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. Hey Jrode, I have a 1. Considering that the demand for life-saving medical care is inelastic, what in a libertarian society is to prevent qualified medical professionals from forming a cartel and demanding life-ruining prices in exchange for life-saving care? 2. Considering that the functions of janitors, cooks, clerks, waiters, garbage collectors, and other unskilled service jobs are essential to comfortable living, and society could not function without these jobs, why in libertarian society will they be doomed to make far below a living wage while their employers drown in profits? Is there a utilitarian reason to prefer this to a socialist society in which a clerk can afford a vacation, but a CEO can only afford two, not seven, luxury yachts? e: Hell, here's a few other things I know you haven't responded to and the thread is clamoring for. In short form: 3. By what evidence do you suppose that mutual aid societies will be sufficient to cover health care, considering their objective and abject failure in the past? 4. In what way does a libertarian society deal with pollution? For example, if you live three hundred miles downstream of a chemical company dumping waste in the river, but that company only sells goods on another, unaffected continent, what actions can be taken to save my water supply and the lives of your community? 5. If the same company is putting carcinogens in its clothing products, how will anyone know until it is far too late and thousands are dying of skin cancer? What action can be taken? Is there a utilitarian reason why these outcomes are preferable to federal certification or inspection agencies? 6. How will a libertarian society deal with the formation of company towns? If a rich sociopath buys up all of the land around your town, prevents anyone from leaving over it, and also purchases all the grocery stores in the town and quadruples all prices, what action can the townsfolk take to regain your freedom? 7. Similar to bullet 2, how will basic research be paid for in a libertarian society? 8. How does intellectual property work in libertarian society? If the inventor has absolute ownership for a period, then how can they enforce that? And if they do not have absolute ownership, then what incentive is there for anyone to invent anything? This was very interesting, thanks for posting it. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:1. Considering that the demand for life-saving medical care is inelastic, what in a libertarian society is to prevent qualified medical professionals from forming a cartel and demanding life-ruining prices in exchange for life-saving care? A rising tide lifts all scrotes, then asks you to turn your head and cough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I have had something crystalize in my mind recently something that is relevant to the libertarian interpretation of the world and I think the thread might do a reasonable job of entertaining my musings now that its atomic freedom drive has returned to power it through the cosmos. As many of you are aware, I'm an unabashed statist. I believe in the functional and sincere efforts to do good works for the public good and the virtue of such behavior. The quandary I find myself in however is that I am both a citizen and a public servant where I work. Theoretically this makes me one of the most devoted and politically involved citizens in my community, I have literally turned my desire to improve society, on a scale I can actually make a difference and actually keep appraised and involved in my community. The problem is I have no voice and its not the states fault, its people like jrod and their free market ilk who repress me. How? For example, my city has half a dozen facebook groups with various intents. These groups are roughly equivalent to SA in their political activity except their causes are things like "we need a better community center" rather than "eviscerate the proletariat". On a regular basis however people get basic facts wrong, like who owns or is responsible for maintenance of a road. People like me who know and could answer in earnest and resolve the confusion can't because we run the risk of causing a political issue by being a member of the government telling people whats true and not. Even the local government I work for which has less staff per citizen capita, has removed director positions in an attempt to be as fiscally responsible as possible and thus is about as flat an organization as is possible has to deal with the free market popular idea that we're all trying to pull a fast one, somehow, on the citizens we serve. Now let me be clear, for sure not everyone in my org sees service in the goverment as a spirtual fulfillment as I do. Probably half the staff see it as a 9 to 5 that they're just doing a job and don't think about it when they're off the clock. They're not going to try to change the system or see themselves as defending basic road and other infrastructure functionality from short sighted bridge burning. However those of us that do care are forcefully mute not because of policy that forbids our participation but because our resources are already limited and any time we spend defending our necessity to exist is tax payer money wasted. We would love if you would just call us with the intent of a 5 minute conversation when we have the time but the majority of people not in the government approach us with the intent that we're mindless emotionless monsters that will only be foiled, and our agents if you submit a public records request and somehow trick us into revealing our secret plot to reallocate traffic impact fees to somewhere other than road improvement projects. (This happened literally last week) So my point in all this is the people who are literally experts in the goings on in your local government, arguably the most capable of being responsive cant be because there is a free market popular idea that the government is dastardly and tryimg to screw you. This means in the very best case scenario that the public is acting without perfect knowledge and cant thus be making fully rational and informed decisions. I recently for my own amusement took one of the more recent versions of those political compass tests and was told I am infact a liberal libertarian. So I guess by that convention this is my thread too. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. Why do you accuse us of wanting to use violence against you when you personally advocate for mob justice and lunch mobs you loving mouth-breathing hypocrite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing Ok, we joked about this in your absence but I really want you to settle a bet for me: Does Daesh qualify as a state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
JRod, I'm disappointed in you. You wen to a dentist to get As for questions you'll finally answer, here's one: if my human rights stem from my ownership of myself, can I sell myself and thereby forfeit my human rights? The Romans came up with the idea of self-ownership, and they sure as hell thought you could. If the answer is no, why not? Who the gently caress are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my property? Also this: jrodefeld posted:I am honestly getting sick of refuting this Hoppe quote. Hoppe never said that people who promote anti-libertarian ideas need to be coercively removed from the country. What he was saying is that a private property collective, created through contract and homesteading, could expel someone from their private property if they openly advocated ideas that constituted a threat to their way of life. We are talking about small communities of which there would be thousands in a libertarian society, many of which would be perfectly tolerating of someone who held any sort of views. So am I going crazy here, or did JRod straight-up endorse sundown towns as a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
I'm not sure why USA-DRO is prohibited from entering into mutual support contracts with, for example, Poland-DRO or Kurdistan-DRO. Surely the sovereign corporation to which we pay membership dues is allowed to protect Kurdistan-DRO against the unlawful aggression of Valhalla DRO, Iraq Franchise?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I never claimed that anyone is capable of "self-regulation". This is a straw-man argument usually put forward by leftists who don't really comprehend the libertarian position. I believe that consumers, courts, laws against property rights abuses, consumer advocate and watchdog groups, competition from competing businesses and class action lawsuits on behalf of injured parties will combine to regulate private industry as best as can be done. The problem with government regulation is that it is easily corrupted and once private business interests captures the levers of power and influence, then these other methods of regulation become ineffective when business has the legal protection of the State. You might counter that powerful and wealthy individuals will be able to corrupt any system even in the absence of government, but to my mind it is more likely that regulation through the market could limit bad business practices and punish bad economic actors than if we rely on the State to police business. I don't think that the American Dental Society is secretly poisoning everyone. I think the detrimental health effects of Mercury fillings, where they exist, are subtle and most people probably won't notice any issues. With that said, given the advances in composite fillings, there is no longer any need to use mercury fillings so we shouldn't use them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm not sure why USA-DRO is prohibited from entering into mutual support contracts with, for example, Poland-DRO or Kurdistan-DRO. Surely the sovereign corporation to which we pay membership dues is allowed to protect Kurdistan-DRO against the unlawful aggression of Valhalla DRO, Iraq Franchise? The USA far too violent to be considered a DRO. DROs wouldn't have IRS audits and fee schedules and other guns against your head, they would simply issue a writ of outlawry against you by cancelling your membership if you were a day late or a penny short, condemning you to starvation and violent death. This is known as Freedom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Truly we can't trust government courts to protect consumers because judges might be bought, let's solve this by auctioning off justice to the highest bidder directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Jrod what is the mechanism of action of mercury on the brain. Describe the actual physiological processes involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I never claimed that anyone is capable of "self-regulation". This is a straw-man argument usually put forward by leftists who don't really comprehend the libertarian position. I believe that consumers, courts, laws against property rights abuses, consumer advocate and watchdog groups, competition from competing businesses and class action lawsuits on behalf of injured parties will combine to regulate private industry as best as can be done. Why do you believe this when it is wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a straw-man argument usually put forward by leftists who don't really comprehend the libertarian position. Perhaps, in this case, you could refer your energies to any of the several substantive questions in my post above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Like many others who have been reading this thread, I've been assuming that Jrod is a high school student or an undergrad because it is too painful to believe anything else, but I'd like to point out that a few pages ago he said he was barely old enough to vote in 2004, which would make him almost 30. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay. Since so many of you seem to be throwing a fit about how I didn't answer all the questions you wanted me to answer, then pick out the top ones that you want me to respond to and I will. What I won't do is comb through all 220 pages of this thread and answer every critique that has been lobbed against me. It is ridiculous to expect me to do such a thing. Fine, I posted these two things and you completely failed to respond to them. quote:Democracy starts with "here is a list of poo poo you can't do" and spreads power out. Oligarchs and monarchs tend to have way more power to skirt the list of "poo poo you can't do" than do presidents and senators. No, democracy is not perfect, but it's preferable to literally every other option available. Majority opinion matters because outside of the list of "poo poo you can't do" we need to come to some sort of agreement on what we can do. Majority opinion matters simply because that's literally how society functions. Most of us believe that stealing is wrong so we make it illegal. Part of the social contract is "don't steal from each other." If you don't enforce that then suddenly theft becomes totally acceptable behavior. You need some sort of system to enforce that which means you need some sort of state. No state, no enforcement. No enforcement, literally everything is now legal. quote:Prosperity and wealth for whom, exactly? If you're talking about prosperity and wealth for common folks it comes by twisting the arms of the wealthy and forcing them to not horde all the wealth. Don't just say "freedom will lead to more prosperity and wealth." Explain to me exactly how. What mechanism will removing this boogeyman of a state cause to increase prosperity and freedom? Tell me about how removing state-level protection will make everybody richer and not lead to oligarchy and exploitation. History has a poo poo load of examples of fewer rules leading directly to the strong exploiting the weak. How do you prevent billionaires from exploiting the hell out of workers if there is no state to prevent that from happening? More importantly how do you have government without a state, exactly? If anybody can opt out of the government any time they want then how the gently caress does that government actually enforce anything, ever? I'm not talking about things like taxation or whatever I'm talking about things like, you know, murder, theft, and corruption, the things you argue would magically vanish if the state were removed in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I never claimed that anyone is capable of "self-regulation". This is a straw-man argument usually put forward by leftists who don't really comprehend the libertarian position. I believe that consumers, courts, laws against property rights abuses, consumer advocate and watchdog groups, competition from competing businesses and class action lawsuits on behalf of injured parties will combine to regulate private industry as best as can be done. The problem with government regulation is that it is easily corrupted and once private business interests captures the levers of power and influence, then these other methods of regulation become ineffective when business has the legal protection of the State. Who would've found that smoking causes lung cancer in libertopia? Who would've stopped Thalidmode from still being on the market today? What stops large corporations from silencing (or simply drowning out) people who point out flaws in their product?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
quote:You might counter that powerful and wealthy individuals will be able to corrupt any system even in the absence of government, but to my mind it is more likely that regulation through the market could limit bad business practices and punish bad economic actors than if we rely on the State to police business. Oh you believe. Whew I'm relieved. I was worried that wealthy individuals would corrupt any system in the absence of government based on centuries of historical evidence... but you believe this to be the case. Clearly your belief, based as it is on logical rationality and not at all knee jerk 'gently caress you dad' hatred of authority, is far more knowledgeable than decade upon decade of economic study that shows that markets cannot and will not self regulate. Certainly a load off my mind. quote:I don't think that the American Dental Society is secretly poisoning everyone. I think the detrimental health effects of Mercury fillings, where they exist, are subtle and most people probably won't notice any issues. With that said, given the advances in composite fillings, there is no longer any need to use mercury fillings so we shouldn't use them. Did you not read the point in my post that talks about the actual real concerns with modern composite fillings, such as the fact that they break more easily and mimic female sex hormones in a way that could actually be dangerous. I'm guessing not but who knows with you. Moreover, here is a not even comprehensive list of groups that say the fillings are perfectly safe: quote:These include the Mayo clinic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Autism Society of America, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New England Journal of Medicine, International Journal of Dentistry, National Council Against Health Fraud, The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research NIDCR, American Cancer Society, Lupus Foundation of America, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, Consumer Reports Prevention Magazine, and WebMD. Now here is the list of groups that say they are worrisome: quote:The International Academy of Oral Toxicology (IAOMT) and the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) The first is a group of dentists who formed solely because they believe, in contravention of all medical evidence, that trace amounts of mercury in fillings cause problems. The latter is a naturopathic group which should say everything you need to know (they are quacks).. All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and evidence. They are essentially voodoo medicine and should be treated as such. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Why do you believe this when it is wrong? I didn't think every response to every post jrodefeld post in this thread could be distilled down to one sentence, but I think you've done it  Hey jrode here's a question: is the reason you don't bring up Rothbard's burgeoning free child market because you don't believe in the merit of it anymore, or is it because you realize such an idea isn't acceptable anywhere outside of the most hardcore libertarian circles and you think finding common ground with leftists on things like foreign interventionism and police brutality will win more converts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I believe that consumers, courts, jrodefeld posted:I believe that jrodefeld posted:I believe that courts, and consumer advocate and watchdog groups will combine to regulate private industry as best as can be done. But this long-term interest applies only to the organization as a whole. Agents of the court (e.g. judges, evidence clerks, paralegals and secretaries) can still be bribed. Researchers and editors at the watchdog group can be offered lucrative future employment contracts, in exchange for favourable reviews (or smearing and character-assassination of competitors). I suppose that you could salvage this idea by proposing something akin to a meta-watchdog group which investigates watchdog-agent defections and then puts out an assassination contract against the defector. It would be pretty difficult to justify such activities under the NAP though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I didn't think every response to every post jrodefeld post in this thread could be distilled down to one sentence, but I think you've done it Not for nothing is the time-honored favorite burn of this thread and its predecessors: "On the other hand, all of recorded history."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
he seems to have moved on but it bears repeating that no, the left and libertarians do not share foreign policy goals. Libertarians are isolationist shits who want to pretend that the US has no responsibility to the rest of the world (after deriving all the advantages of hegemonic domination), leaving the rest of the global population to suffer, while the left wants the US to leverage it's power into improving conditions for people around the world. For instance, the left largerly supports opposing Daesh, because we oppose authoritarians and fascists, no matter how they dress up their regimes. the only, only way libertarians and the left intersect here is we are both against the military, ideological adventurism in service to the MI complex. However, libertarians oppose it on the principle of isolation, the left opposes it because a) it causes suffering for many, many people and b) the US in recent conflicts has had a huge tendency to royally gently caress it up, largely because they base their policies understanding of what will happen in the wake of the fighting on ideology (like you do for everything) rather than reality. See Debathification for details. Also I don't know if anyone has refuted your bullshit about Hitler being democratically elected but he emphatically was not. The election of 1932 saw the reappointment of Von Hindenburg to the presidency, with the Nazis losing seats in the Reichstag to the Social Democrats and the German Communists. Despite this, Von Hindenburg, bowing to preassure from the moneyed interests opposing communism in Germany and hoping that Hitler would be controllable, appointed Hitler to the chancellor's seat. Using this new position, Hitler and the Nazis embarked on a brutal campaign of suppression to crush communist and soc/dem support, and in less than 2 months called a new federal election, where the Nazis swept a large portion of the seats, allying with the GNP (the German nationalist conservatives) to take a majority. It was an election for the veneer of legitimacy, using vote suppression to distort the results. Which is why the left is so incensed about current Republican vote suppression efforts; there is a difference in the parties, despite libertarians being to simple to process that, and the left supports the democrats over the republicans while continuing to push for even more change. We leverage the power we have to try and change things for the better, understanding the limitations of what we can accomplish, instead of pretending that if we all just ignore the system it will magically fix itself, like libertarians do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Actually, I have a very important question I want Jrod to answer. jrodefeld do you still stand by your statement you made that there are (primarily black) women who do nothing but have multiple endless children in order to pull down government paychecks A.K.A. welfare queens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually, I have a very important question I want Jrod to answer. I can't remember when he said this... do you have the quote so he can't back out on it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:As for questions you'll finally answer, here's one: if my human rights stem from my ownership of myself, can I sell myself and thereby forfeit my human rights? The Romans came up with the idea of self-ownership, and they sure as hell thought you could. If the answer is no, why not? Who the gently caress are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my property?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Actually jrode I have a few more questions based on a few concepts I want to know if you understand. Do you understand the phrase "Magical Thinking?" It's one of the problems with religion and why you sound like a street preacher to many. If you pray for something and you don't get it or it doesn't happen a lot of people will say "well just pray harder" or "God decided you didn't need it" or some such. Literally anything that happens after praying is handwaved away with stuff like that. This is what you sound like. You're saying "well we need to freedom harder" and if the results aren't what you want it's just "well you didn't freedom hard enough or freedom the right way." That or "the market decided this is the way it should be." It's magical thinking. Like seriously. You're literally using magical thinking only instead of some deity or magic it's the market and freedom. You also say believe a lot but why do you believe? It's often "X dude wrote Y." Do you also understand the phrase "Worthy Victims?" This is one of the problems with charity. A government assistance program is geared to give to whoever needs it. That's the point of state-run social safety nets. You don't let somebody dictate who gets help and who does not. Private charity gives more control. The reason this is considered racist is because charities tend to favor who those that donate to them does and guess how that will affect black people in America. Think about it for a bit. Non-white people in America tend to have less wealth than white people. If white people give to charities guess who is going to benefit from them most? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with "right people." Private charity is also a massive tool for groups that want to sway opinions. Attend X church or you don't get your food this week. Believe Y thing or go look elsewhere for charity. Support Z group or welp I guess you get to starve! This is how you get things like workhouses on top of it all. The poor and desperate would have little choice but to get arrested for vagrancy or go to the work house and get paid almost nothing to make somebody else richer with little hope of getting a better life. Private charity tends to have conditions attached to it. Private giving also tends to have the assistance going to only specific kinds of people. For example if a single upper middle class white woman goes missing it's a horrible tragedy that needs to be investigated with all we have. When police are literally murdering black men at the slightest provocation it's "lol stupid darkies think they're people." In America white people, especially attractive young women, are Worthy Victims while minorities are the poor are not. How would libertopia deal with that problem? ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:
Might makes right. Sell your daughter's virginity for a free leg cast. quote:2. Considering that the functions of janitors, cooks, clerks, waiters, garbage collectors, and other unskilled service jobs are essential to comfortable living, and society could not function without these jobs, why in libertarian society will they be doomed to make far below a living wage while their employers drown in profits? Is there a utilitarian reason to prefer this to a socialist society in which a clerk can afford a vacation, but a CEO can only afford two, not seven, luxury yachts? Might makes right. Bow to your master when he walks by or get the lash. quote:3. By what evidence do you suppose that mutual aid societies will be sufficient to cover health care, considering their objective and abject failure in the past? Might makes right. No sick blacks or women in our fraternity. quote:4. In what way does a libertarian society deal with pollution? For example, if you live three hundred miles downstream of a chemical company dumping waste in the river, but that company only sells goods on another, unaffected continent, what actions can be taken to save my water supply and the lives of your community? Might makes right. You will be compelled into indentured servitude for stealing the master's river. quote:5. If the same company is putting carcinogens in its clothing products, how will anyone know until it is far too late and thousands are dying of skin cancer? What action can be taken? Is there a utilitarian reason why these outcomes are preferable to federal certification or inspection agencies? Might makes right. That's a feature, not a bug. Anyways you're still getting rape murdered for walking around around town after sunset, shirt or no shirt and large bulbous cancer sores or no cancer sores. quote:6. How will a libertarian society deal with the formation of company towns? If a rich sociopath buys up all of the land around your town, prevents anyone from leaving over it, and also purchases all the grocery stores in the town and quadruples all prices, what action can the townsfolk take to regain your freedom?/quote] Might makes right. How many lashes can the skin of a delinquent debtor's child withstand before sloughing off? One. A two. Three.. quote:8. How does intellectual property work in libertarian society? If the inventor has absolute ownership for a period, then how can they enforce that? And if they do not have absolute ownership, then what incentive is there for anyone to invent anything? Might makes right. *shotgun blast followed by the snatching of a briefcase*
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
So many things to respond to! It's like Christmas all over again.jrodefeld posted:If you come to the conclusion that centralized authority is very dangerous and that power corrupts, wouldn't you prefer we preemptively determine what rights the citizens have and which functions the State ought to have and make every attempt to limit the State to only those functions? Why should a majority opinion matter? It's been demonstrated thoroughly that aggregate decisions are generally better than individual decisions. Additionally, it naturally makes the system very slow to change: in order to create a significant change, one has to convince half the society. This is a good thing in most circumstances, while it can be very frustrating and slow, since it helps prevent stuff like Hitler, who as already pointed out is what happens when elections are NOT fair. Also we have a constitution which does limit government and guarantee rights (I don't agree with all of those limitations/rights, though. The obvious solution is to rewrite the constitution to match MY beliefs, thus presentation an excellent example of why we have a democracy and not a dictatorship, where my every whim would be instantly codified into law.) jrodefeld posted:I have another open ended question that I am curious to know the answer to. It is generally believed that foreign policy is one area where libertarians and the radical left share common ground. However, I am wondering how much that is true. Certainly we both oppose the Iraq War, but I am wondering if you all are anti war and anti interventionist? I have no particularly well defined view on this. However, I do think that there's a moral imperitive to use our military to uphold humanitarian views worldwide. We have the power, therefore there is a responsibility. I am not yet learned enough to actually define when this responsibility becomes paramount. On the other hand, I am very much anti-war, except for limited and well-defined self-defense purposes. jrodefeld posted:Libertarians are very precise when we describe what a "State" is. The US government doesn't have a monopoly on resolving disputes. Have you heard of arbitration, that little thing that companies love forcing consumers into because they're far more likely to win on account of them directly paying the arbitrator's salary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Karia posted:
But imagine if we all* could be a petty little dictator in toto on our own piece of land? Then we could do all the petty little dictator poo poo we want that we can't currently do (which is abuse children and spouses, own slaves, and pester/poison/pulverize our neighbors). *We all explicitly defined as landed white males.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Reminder for all those bringing up health care arguments: Jrod has in this very thread claimed that universal health care incentivizes people getting sick/injured since they know they'll get taken care of, while free market insurance raises standards of living by creating penalties for getting sick/illness (thus people choose not to do so).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Karia posted:
Arbitration agencies will go out of business in the long run if they
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:50
|
|