|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Wasn't the other side of that the fact that the state said "recant everything you said or die" and he just grabbed the cup and said "gently caress you I'm right." Well, my recollection is that in ancient Athenian trials, the accused has the right to propose their own punishment. The jury expected Socrates to offer banishment, which they were prepared to accept. But instead his proposal was that he should receive a stipend and have free meals for life. So they sentenced him to death instead, and even then basically opened the gates of the prison and looked the other way should he change his mind and decide to leave, which he did not. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Mar 23, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, what will happen as consumer subscriptions and memberships fall is the rating agencies will start marketing themselves to the manufacturers, who are the only ones who will be willing to pay for an S&P or Moody's AAA safety rating because having that sticker will give them a competitive advantage. Consumer review agencies will have to practically promise a good rating at the outset in order to preserve access. Happened to game review outlets, if you'll forgive this very  example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Consumer review agencies will have to practically promise a good rating at the outset in order to preserve access. It's about ethics in produce lethality journalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Consumer review agencies will have to practically promise a good rating at the outset in order to preserve access. That didn't "happen" to them, it's straight up how they started.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Jrod, I want to hammer you on fraternal insurance organizations since you really got off scott free with your assertion that they worked better than national social programs and that it was solely the government that shut them down. Let's just take a tiny sample of your assertion regarding the Mobile Act. Fraternal organizations, long before running into the great depression, were facing an uphill demographic issue regarding aging members and flat payment systems despite playing a rousing game of adverse selection (people over 45 were rarely permited to join) coupled with competitive pricing against the more regulated traditional insurance market by holding down reserves. The problem of fraternal organizations lacking reserves compelled fraternal organizations to create the Fraternal National Congress in 1887 with a major point of concern being reserves and forthright actuarial tables. [quote=Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 70, Modern Insurance Problems (Mar., 1917)] The first practical legislation, aimed at their regulation, was adopted by the states of Massachusetts and New York in 1888 upon the initiation of representatives of the societies themselves. The Fraternal Congress, representing the best class of these societies, soon after framed a uniform bill for their regulation, which after several years of discussion was adopted by several of the states in 1893. From this time until 1910 there was friction between the Congress and the insurance commissioners over amendments to the bill which lacked the elements necessary properly to safeguard the business. The efforts of the Congress, imperfect as they were, to place it on a securer foundation, were resisted by a confederation of the weaker societies, known as the Associated Fraternities, who opposed any governmental interference. Because of this opposition no successful effort to improve the societies' uniform bill could be made and at last the commissioners determined to draft their own measure which resulted, as has been said, in their framing the Mobile Bill as a joint measure whose passage they could recommend to their several states. Meanwhile since 1895 the societies' bill has been adopted by some twenty states. ... In 1896 the societies forming the national Fraternal Congress, which included the great body of the true fraternal orders in the country but excluded the mere assessment orders which maintained no genuine lodge system, had a combined membership of over a million and a half and benefit certificates in force of over three billion dollars. They had paid out in benefits more than twenty-eight million dollars during that single year, and over two hundred and thirty millions during the previous ten years. Nineteen years later the strictly fraternal orders doing business in New York which embraced the principal societies of this country reported a membership of over five millions and certificates in force of over six billion dollars. But as against their enormous future payments promised in their certificates they held assets of only about one hundred and forty-six millions, or little more than one dollar in fifty. [/quote] http://www.jstor.org/stable/1013596?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents The Mobile Law, passed with help from the National Fraternal Congress working with national insurance commissionars, was created in response to this obvious threat to reserve ratios. You can read the National Fraternal Order celebrating the passage of the Mobile Act along with supporting stricter guidelines with the Richmond Bill that followed, in the Fraternal Monitor published in January 1922. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=hoLnAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1 And why would fraternal organizations try to push the Mobile Act? Because English fraternal organizations faced the same problems in the mid 1800s and did little. Friendly organizations got rocked, many went bust, and the British government finally passed the forerunner to the Mobile act in 1876. In the short term, fraternal organization enrollment and balance sheets both improved but eventually fell to employer/traditional insurance systems. The Ancient Order of United Workmen put out this document in 1919 discussing why they support the Mobile Act, pointing explicitly to the events in Great Britain that transpired. https://archive.org/stream/historyoperation00basyrich/historyoperation00basyrich_djvu.txt Basically, you could take away the Mobile and Richmond bills and allow the fraternities to have their competitive edge against the traditional insurance market and experience an incoming wave of fraternities going bust as happened in Great Britain during the mid 1800s. Or you could pass the bills and lose your competitive pricing edge against the traditional insurance market as ultimately happened in the US and England. And keep in mind that when your fraternal organization went bust, you. were. hosed. Capital F. Some more reading you're going to ignore because you're a brain dead illiterate moron that can only decipher reguritated mises pap. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27887/1/WP135.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.1129&rep=rep1&type=pdf President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Consumer review agencies will have to practically promise a good rating at the outset in order to preserve access. Oh well yes of course we all end up with shirt cancer in libertopia, that's indisputable. But the rating agencies don't go bankrupt. They make out handsomely by selling good ratings to the only people willing to pay for ratings, and then when we sue them for their false endorsements, their lawyers just have to argue that "guaranteed" and "trustworthy" were just advertising puffery, their ratings are advisory, any reasonable consumer should not rely on third parties but do his own research, and well you can't prove that we were actually selling good ratings and that we're all just not really really loving incompetent at our jobs which isn't a tort for the aforementioned reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
It's got a gold seal of approval right on the box, how can it be bad?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:In the end I just don't get you. I get why a mother might spread "Vaccine causes autism" bullshit. When something bad happens to you, you want someone to blame, and if it isn't vaccines or something else, then many people would blame themselves. No one wants to tell themselves that their child is autistic because of them, even if it is something like genetics that is fully beyond their control. You on the other hand seem to be against it simply because the government and public is for it, which is just baffling to me. I think it's more ideological than that, actually. One of the major failings of libertarian market ideology is that it assumes perfect information and rationality in the part of actors. In practice we know that people are not perfectly rational and do not always have access to all the data they need to make informed decisions. Anti-vaccination hysteria is a perfect example of irrational market behavior. Large numbers of people refused safe, beneficial medication and introduced massive unnecessary risk to the entire system, making irrational decisions on the basis of obviously faulty information. His refusal to believe in herd immunity is also ideological. Here you have a clear cut case where mere inaction causes harm to other people, provided that a certain critical mass opts of out of vaccinations to make vectors for the spread of epidemic disease. We're not even talking here about company towns or pollution, where to some extent the result is planned or results from a particular action. Simply by refusing to take a (safe, beneficial) substance into your body you put everyone around you at increased risk. I don't think I'm the first in here to note that herd immunity makes a hash of the NAP. He has to die on that hill because it gets at the basis of his worldview in at least two major places. It kind of reminds me of that old Penn and Teller TV show, Bullshit, which presented itself mostly as a skeptical show but had a strong libertarian bent. They did an insane episode basically arguing that secondhand smoke was a myth, which they had to retract and apologize for pretty much immediately because, well, duh. I bring it up because what had obviously occurred was the hosts had an ideological objection to the idea that their choice to smoke could harm, or aggress against, people around them. Despite presenting themselves as skeptics--believing themselves to be skeptics, in fact--they perfectly willing to buy into obvious junk science and embarrass themselves publicly, if it served that agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Did he just quote Socrates to champion willful ignorance? Yes Yes, He loving did. That quote means exactly the opposite of what you just said it means, Jrod. Being thicker then a bag of molasses, of course, you likely don't get the irony. e; fb but still jesus christ Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Card and Krueger studies have been roundly criticized as lacking empirical rigor and being unrepeatable. An article I recently read on the subject:  Shine on, you crazy diamond. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That didn't "happen" to them, it's straight up how they started. That reinforces my point even further then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
One thing that kills me about ancaps, and something I witness time and time again, is this general occurrence where they just cannot bring themselves to cite anything what so ever that isn't already pre-approved, pre-screened, and hosted on an explicit libertarian website. It's like a pathological fear deep inside people like Jrod restrains and cripples their ability to even acknowledge sources exist outside the control of libertarian think tanks. If Jrod were a scientologist I'd just chalk it up to his religious leader making clear he could be excommunicated from the covenant for the blasphemous act of reading non libertarian approved literature. But he's not and he's ostensibly someone who prides himself on being a free thinker. A wonderful paradox of a free thinker too intimidated to read non mises approved literature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:That reinforces my point even further then! Yea, just wanted to make it clear. Especially because a lot of people out there try to tell it like the people writing when they were kids were legit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Human decency for one thing. Most doctors are not sociopathic monsters who will artificially inflate the cost of medical treatment just to take advantage of desperately sick patients. Even if this is true, the magic of the Free Market means that doctors with human decency will be out-competed in the marketplace by doctors without human decency, because taking advantage of sick people is highly profitable (otherwise no-one would bother). Thus the beauty of competition and the free market suggests that sociopathic monster doctors will eventually dominate the industry. You can't have it both ways - if the free market is great at rooting out inefficient and unprofitable practice, then human decency, with all its attendant costs, should disappear pretty rapidly. Unless you're asserting that human decency is an in-built and immutable characteristic of all humans, in which case, uh, lol?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I think it's more ideological than that, actually. One of the major failings of libertarian market ideology is that it assumes perfect information and rationality in the part of actors. In practice we know that people are not perfectly rational and do not always have access to all the data they need to make informed decisions. This is really, really important and bears repeating. Most Econ 101 classes will tell you "for the duration of this course [and most elementary economics courses], we're going to assume people are rational actors". Libertarianism/AnCapitalism is just this assumption dogmatically subscribed to, and it's no wonder libertarianism overwhelmingly attracts straight white men, the most Very Serious and Perfectly Rational demographic there is. I've studied history for a very long time and take it very seriously as a discipline. I really don't like to bring up "general lessons" from the discipline of history, and I think historians are in general pretty averse to it. But if I had to come up with a list of "most generally applicable lessons from history",  people aren't rational would be right at the loving top of the list. Maybe there'd be an asterisk clarifying that "rationality isn't easily defined or delineated" as a big part of this axiom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Card and Krueger studies have been roundly criticized as lacking empirical rigor and being unrepeatable. An article I recently read on the subject: This post is beautiful. It encapsulates everything wrong with libertarians and their ideology, especially with the article disproving all of these being posted right before it. Edit: I also can't get over the fact that he cited an article from loving 1946 and thought it would be relevant to modern economics at all. Although I guess when you are blindly plagiarizing other people's work you don't bother to review what you are posting. Seriously has Jrod made one original argument in this thread? Cnidaria fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4627_en.htmquote:The European Commission published new figures today, showing that in 2014, nearly 2500 products, ranging from toys to motor vehicles, were either stopped before they entered the EU or removed from markets because they were dangerous for EU consumers. For 12 years, the European Commission and EU Member States have been working together to ensure that consumer goods placed on the European markets are safe. For this purpose, they use the Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products. I`d just like to say that, as a European, I am completely disgusted by these Men With Guns violently restricting the free market and forcing entrepreneurs to comply with such deplorable schemes as "making sure toys and clothing don't harm or kill people". I can't wait for glorious libertopia, where I'd have to navigate a dozen different private ratings agencies and read Amazon reviews to find out which ones are (possibly) safe for me to buy. And if that doesn't work, I can easily sue the specific manufacturer whose product gave me cancer, which is obviously much simpler and preferable to the hellish statist nightmare I live in. Useful Distraction fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But the rating agencies don't go bankrupt. They make out handsomely by selling good ratings to the only people willing to pay for ratings, and then when we sue them for their false endorsements, their lawyers just have to argue that "guaranteed" and "trustworthy" were just advertising puffery, their ratings are advisory, any reasonable consumer should not rely on third parties but do his own research, and well you can't prove that we were actually selling good ratings and that we're all just not really really loving incompetent at our jobs which isn't a tort for the aforementioned reasons. I think it's even worse than that: the agencies go bankrupt, screwing the working-class employees, while the capitalist owners are still fine. When it turns out that all of the VitalSigns Safety Ratings Agency was actually accepting huge bribes from everyone it purported to inspect, the Muscle Tracer Consumer Protection Committee (which purely coincidentally shares almost 100% of its shareholders with the VSRA) can decry the collapsing VSRA and gain consumer trust themselves. The MTCPC('s shareholders) immediately begins taking bribes, while the same shareholders start up the Caros Product Investigation Venture to take up the reins once MTCPC's cover blows. Investors can bounce from agency to agency without any real repercussions for anyone—that's literally how Mitt Romney makes his money, after all. The companies themselves might not last in the long run, but no individual investor cares about organizational longevity if she can make out like a bandit in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:This post is beautiful. It encapsulates everything wrong with libertarians and their ideology, especially with the article disproving all of these being posted right before it. He didn't even read those citations. He copy-pasted them directly from mises.org and just assumed that they were a thorough criticism of Card and Krueger He barely even read the post to which he was replying, he saw "Card and Krueger" and missed the part where the paper that was actually being linked to wasn't written by Card and Krueger at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I think it's even worse than that: the agencies go bankrupt, screwing the working-class employees, while the capitalist owners are still fine. When it turns out that all of the VitalSigns Safety Ratings Agency was actually accepting huge bribes from everyone it purported to inspect, the Muscle Tracer Consumer Protection Committee (which purely coincidentally shares almost 100% of its shareholders with the VSRA) can decry the collapsing VSRA and gain consumer trust themselves. The MTCPC('s shareholders) immediately begins taking bribes, while the same shareholders start up the Caros Product Investigation Venture to take up the reins once MTCPC's cover blows. Eh, to be fair to jrod, in his version of libertopia I'm pretty sure the LLC goes away. Somewhere in this thread he's argued that the legal fiction of corporate personhood is a state invention and thus has no place in his fantastical world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He didn't even read those citations. He copy-pasted them directly from mises.org and just assumed that they were a thorough criticism of Card and Krueger And then he stopped posting. Presumably because he got 'busy' and not at all because he just got loving embarassed at being caught quoting that list verbatim from Mises.org as if he'd actually read anything in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Eh, to be fair to jrod, in his version of libertopia I'm pretty sure the LLC goes away. Somewhere in this thread he's argued that the legal fiction of corporate personhood is a state invention and thus has no place in his fantastical world. Never responded to any questions asked about how that actually works, though, and I'm not interested in excuses that boil down to "because I said so." It's another manifestation of the "how does anything get enforced" and "where do people get their information" problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
How do contracts get enforced without the existence of a state by the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:How do contracts get enforced without the existence of a state by the way. The damage to my good name that refusing to honor a contract will cause. Because fly-by-night operations don't exist and if they do they only exist because of the state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:How do contracts get enforced without the existence of a state by the way. Men with guns, but not those men with guns because you voluntarily joined that DRO (which would have declared you an unperson and actively hunted you down had you not) so this is clearly much more freedom-preserving than that tyrannical old state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:How do contracts get enforced without the existence of a state by the way. Binding arbitration, where the arbiters are provided by companies that also have their own militias. This is very different from the status quo, where the illegitimate statist goons enforce contracts at gunpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:How do contracts get enforced without the existence of a state by the way. Apparently, according to Jrode, by a judiciary and police officers, but with
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Apparently, according to Jrode, by a judiciary and police officers, but with There is also the Walter Block version. You and I have a dispute so we each try to go to our own courts, if they don't agree (they won't) then we go to a third court. If one of us disagrees with that court we go to another court for some reason, and so on and so forth. Its courts all the way down. If I ultimately don't abide by the final ruling, thein my 'court' which is in fact also an armed force, is justified (by whom) into using violence to enforce the ruling. Now you might ask "But wouldn't that just mean whoever has the largest army wins anyways, because you can just ignore court rulings against you?" to that I said *sound a wet fart makes*.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Caros posted:And then he stopped posting. Presumably because he got 'busy' and not at all because he just got loving embarassed at being caught quoting that list verbatim from Mises.org as if he'd actually read anything in it. I've noticed you taking a more upset/aggressive tone with Jrod lately, Caors, but you still give him so, so much more credit than he deserves simply by assuming he's capable of feeling embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I've noticed you taking a more upset/aggressive tone with Jrod lately, Caors, but you still give him so, so much more credit than he deserves simply by assuming he's capable of feeling embarrassed. Well I believe he is still human, and capable of realizing when he stepped in the poo poo. Benefit of the doubt I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
It's really eerie how closely that little aside about minimum wage mirrored a Facebook debate I had a year ago, right down to the willful ignorance about the meta study and what its implications were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well I believe he is still human, and capable of realizing when he stepped in the poo poo. Benefit of the doubt I suppose. Libertarians frequently fail to realize that they are, in fact, standing in poo poo. You know how you get accustomed to bad smells if you're around them long enough? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Human decency for one thing. Most doctors are not sociopathic monsters who will artificially inflate the cost of medical treatment just to take advantage of desperately sick patients. See, Jrod. This is what happens when you talk. You say a bunch of immature poo poo like this that just showcases how ignorant you really are. You don't know how doctors work (for example, hospital administrators set the price of services rendered in the hospital, not the doctors), your philosophy is based on human decency, which is laughable if you watch the evening news or read anything from history or listened to a libertarian speak, and you talk like an idiot. Here's the fact. It is very difficult to shop around for healthcare because unlike most things, I have no real idea of knowing what the final cost will be on the outset. I have a disease. I get treatment. I have a complication. I need further treatment. Am I going to shop around at every step? I'm in pain and I want to feel better. Aside from regular check-ups, many people are seeing a doctor because something is wrong. quote:There is absolutely no reason for you to assume that such people would be "doomed" to make far below a so-called "living"-wage. If a worker is vastly more productive than the wage they are being offered, other companies have every incentive to bid them away from their current employment. If I am an unskilled worker who generates $10 of value per hour to my employer yet they are only paying me $5 an hour, another company might offer me $7 an hour and another might offer $8. After all, making two or three dollars profit per hour is a pretty good deal. Businesses need good workers. Hey Jrod, have you ever actually like... ran a business. Or talk to actual people who actually run businesses. It's very difficult to determine the value of a worker. In most modern day jobs, you can't really say "This person brings in X amount of cash, so I can pay them 66% of X and still make money." There's a lot of things that determine the wage that workers get, but the big one is the bare minimum you can afford to pay someone and still get something for it. Sure, there are some jobs where it is easier to determine what a worker brings in, but in those cases, those jobs tend to be very unstable. But at a store. How can you say that a guy who stock the shelves only makes the store 10 bucks an hour? Or how about in other jobs? For example, take a software developer in a large corporation. How can you say "Hey, your development on this piece of software made us X amount of money per year?" Or even a janitor. I mean, things need to be cleaned. But you can't really say "This janitor makes us 10 dollars an hour!" When you talk like this, you sound like an idiot to everyone who knows what they are talking about. And it's even worse than just being wrong, it's ignorant. After all, most stores aren't making 2 to 3 dollars an hour from their employees. I don't know where you got such a ridiculous notion from. Certainly not from me, because I explained it time and time again. But you're too ignorant to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. And that's what you are. Ignorant. quote:You can't arbitrarily mandate wage rates without economic repercussions. Well, it's a good thing it isn't arbitrary, and rather can be based off of an assessment of what a person would need to be able to afford to live in an area. It's amazing what a little research can do. But you're too ignorant to know that. quote:If a worker has low skills that by necessity means that his economic options are few. All minimum wage laws do is to artificially restrict the economic opportunities of those who have few options to begin with. I'm going to stop you right here. This is where you make a claim and you fail to back it up with ANYTHING. Let's face it, how are we restricting these people's opportunities? After all, bathrooms need to be cleaned. Fruit needs to be picked. It's not like I'm going to say "Hey, the bathroom's covered in poo poo, but I don't care. I'm not paying for a janitor!" quote:Competition for good workers means that wages rise up close to the marginal productivity of the worker. If a worker is being underpaid, a competitor has every incentive to offer him a higher wage, to lure him away from his current employment. Great. A platitude. What is the point of this statement? It's self-evident, and it's pointless. It doesn't make you sound like an expert on economic thought. It makes you sound like an ignorant teenager who read a few books and jacked off to Ron Paul one too many times and now thinks he's a titan of industry who really understand how the world works. Guess what, there is competition for good workers. However, that's not the case for all jobs. Like a fast-food worker? You know why? Because it's a reasonably unskilled job. Even in a libertarian paradise, there's not going to be too much competition except for the best of the best! Which, as someone who used to help run a business, I can tell you actually happens today. Managers will give their business cards to the best of the best they encounter in the real world. quote:There are many ways that the poor gain access to the economic ladder into the middle class. Many people have to take jobs that are distasteful as a stepping stone to better opportunities. Work experience is important, so are human connections and social skills. Another platitude. Once again, why are you saying any of this. Are you trying to tell me that one day, the janitor could be a CEO? Not all work experience is worth the same. I'm sorry. But if you're a janitor, you're not likely demonstrating skills that will make you an amazing executive. Unless determining which cleanser to use shows that you can make high quality decisions. quote:Lets suppose a poor person earns $8 an hour at their main jobs, but wants to take an additional part time job for $5? This is entirely illegal. What jobs are you talking about? You are speaking in such great generalities that it is actually impossible to argue against you because I have no idea what you are really talking about. Which makes two of us, because I don't think you have any idea what you're actually talking about. quote:Only economic illiterates can possibly favor something so destructive as minimum wage laws. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Did... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry. I'll try to keep a straight... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Did Jrodefeld just call someone an "economic illiterate." Man, that's the pot calling the kettle black. quote:Contrary to what you seam to think, people are not infantile children who would be flailing around directionless and without purpose in the absence of government coercion. People far smarter than I will be innovating and finding ways to deliver healthcare to those that need it. Why aren't they? Also, it's redundant to say "people far smarter than I." You can just say "other people." We already know they're far smarter than you are. quote:Pollution is a property rights violation. People will naturally choose to tolerate some degree of pollution for the benefits of industry, pollution that causes harm can and should be against the law. Injured parties should be able to force the polluter to pay restitution and cease their rights violating behavior. Why do you insist on making the same arguments again and again. You know what. SHUT THE gently caress UP ABOUT EVERYTHING AND PICK A TOPIC AND STICK TO IT. quote:I am going to hold off on addressing intellectual property for a minute. This is a complex subject and I have a lot to say on it but I want to give it the attention it deserves. Hey Jrod, As someone who actually studied stuff relating to IP in college, please, shut the gently caress up about IP. You talked about IP before and got thoroughly schooled. You have no understanding of the topic. Like most things in general, you're good at aping the poo poo that other people say, but you don't really demonstrate any understanding. Your views are very superficial. You would do well to just not bring the subject up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Look, if I want to buy (can only afford) chicken that is 50% brine, that should be my own choice, not the FDA's!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:See, Jrod. This is what happens when you talk. You say a bunch of immature poo poo like this that just showcases how ignorant you really are. You don't know how doctors work (for example, hospital administrators set the price of services rendered in the hospital, not the doctors), your philosophy is based on human decency, which is laughable if you watch the evening news or read anything from history or listened to a libertarian speak, and you talk like an idiot. This is the part that gets me the most. How exactly did our horrible men with guns system form if human decency is so infallible. So infallible in fact, that it compels people to act outside of the moral framework libertarians set up as governing literally everything. So why count on it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:This is the part that gets me the most. How exactly did our horrible men with guns system form if human decency is so infallible. So infallible in fact, that it compels people to act outside of the moral framework libertarians set up as governing literally everything. So why count on it? Because Humans Act, duh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's not even that; it's a pot calling a rainforest scene black, and then demanding it be expelled from the covenant community as a result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Too tired to phrase this artfully: Jrodefeld, do you believe in anthropocentric (not anthropogenic, learned my lesson last time) global warming? Judging by your full throated defense of things like anti-vaxx nonsense I am honestly curious. Every time someone has brought up global warming you switch the topic to pollution in general despite the fact that global warming is an example of pollution that causes general harm with no specific bad actors. I'm willing to bet you believe it is fake since the majority of people who know what they are talking about believe in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, do you believe that Neil Armstrong truly set foot on the moon, or was it an elaborate sound stage designed by Stanley Kubrick? Jrodefeld, what is your opinion on the melting point of steel compared to the maximum temperature of burning jet fuel? Jrodefeld, what are those white streaks left in the sky after jet liners pass overhead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Jrodefeld, do you believe that Neil Armstrong truly set foot on the moon, or was it an elaborate sound stage designed by Stanley Kubrick? Clearly jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but I don't want to talk about this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:44
|
|