|
SyHopeful posted:Typically North Slope workers work two weeks on, two weeks off, and the workers can live wherever they want and commute to work. They are only beholden to company stores half the time. and unless they get paid in scrip it's largely a company store out of necessity rather than exploitation. they have to subsidize a store where one would not naturally exist, so prices are gonna be a little higher, but it's all in USD, so if some worker wants to bring some luxuries or hard to get items and sell them on their own time nothing's stopping them most company towns in the us only had a company store, company church, company mess hall because if the town moves every five-ten years or only supports a permanent population of about 150 people then there's not likely to be enough market activity for a store to support itself
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:The study is very interesting, I'll have to look more closely at it. The idea of the GMI kind of comes from the increased automation the human race is seeing. Whether we like it or not we just flat out don't need everybody to be working. The idea of a GMI is that you are given just enough to meet your basic needs to not die but if you want more you have to go earn it so no people wouldn't just lay down and never work again. A lot of people are going to want more than just basic necessities and people have a strong desire for luxuries. They're asking "why should we feed everybody?" But the thing of it is America produces way more food than we need to feed everybody with a tiny sliver of the total workforce. At this point you could probably feed all Americans using nothing but volunteer labor. Which is kind of where lolbertarianism falls apart. The question now is rather "why should we not feed everybody?" The thing I like to use as a thought experiment is...well, let's say you had a machine that produced infinite food totally free. What reason is there to withhold food from everybody if such a machine exists? edit: Of course the other thing is that lolbertarians assume that things are only useful if money comes out the other end. The only reason to pay somebody a wage is because they make you more money. That's seriously all that matters to them. It's also dumb to assume that people on GMI would just sit around and do nothing. Who knows what they'll do? Hell why not make school free and be all like "hey all of you that we don't have work for, go study some poo poo! Hey go learn some science and you can go help scientists science better. Or take some art classes and help us decorate a park or something." Like there are things you can have people do that money doesn't necessarily come out of. Which is why lolbertarians baffle me. There are things that you put money into without expecting more money to come out because, I mean, something else good comes out. You don't dump money into a library to get money you dump money into a library to have a library. Those are useful things. Same with stuff like opera houses. Those tend to operate at a loss but people dump money into them because like...a lot of people like having an opera house around. Money goes in, music comes out. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The idea of the GMI kind of comes from the increased automation the human race is seeing. Whether we like it or not we just flat out don't need everybody to be working. The idea of a GMI is that you are given just enough to meet your basic needs to not die but if you want more you have to go earn it so no people wouldn't just lay down and never work again. A lot of people are going to want more than just basic necessities and people have a strong desire for luxuries. Oh, agreed. There simply aren't enough jobs for everyone now and society needs to accept that. Libertarians seem to think EVERYONE would just stop working and society would collapse from a lack of labour. Except for them and those like them, of course - the hardworking, struggling heroes in a world dominated by lazy welfare cheats. The idea that people would simply sit around and do nothing is just so goddamned dumb. Many would work for fulfilment (or the inevitably higher wages), other people could study or decorate like you said, or they'd volunteer. I think we'd see a spike in volunteer work, given all the people who wouldn't be beholden to slaving away at minimum wage. It would probably become easier to find work for those who wanted it too, given not only the people going with volunteering in place of paid work, but also the fact that people currently forced to work 2-4 jobs could quit in favour of 1, leaving more positions open. quote:Which is why lolbertarians baffle me. There are things that you put money into without expecting more money to come out because, I mean, something else good comes out. You don't dump money into a library to get money you dump money into a library to have a library. Those are useful things. Same with stuff like opera houses. Those tend to operate at a loss but people dump money into them because like...a lot of people like having an opera house around. Money goes in, music comes out. I'll be oversimplifying things here, but I think that the kind of personality that leads to someone following Libertarianism instead of laughing at it is not a personality that's very understanding of things like art. A lot of them are money-obsessed sociopaths. There's a reason libertarian comedy is... well... libertarian comedy. BreakAtmo fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:I'll be oversimplifying things here, but I think that the kind of personality that leads to someone following Libertarianism instead of laughing at it is not a personality that's very understanding of things like art. A lot of them are money-obsessed sociopaths. There's a reason libertarian comedy is... well... libertarian comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
if you need your fix: http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah one of the Soviet Union's biggest issues was that they were too far behind in computing to have been able to really integrate it into the planning setup the way it should have been. If they'd had something like the US commercial computing capacity of the mid 70s alone they'd have much more useful information and planning, to say nothing if they'd also had all the computing power the US government had access to. Yeah well computing helps like any technological innovation but it's not a silver bullet. Among other challenges the soviets had was that they were poor at disrupting existing industries. They thrived when the task was to initially capitalize industry but that stalled in the 70's. That's the time when the U.S. economy was systematically dismantling some of it's old heavy industry like steel and reorienting the economy with early computing and automation. So even if they had computing in the planning phase that's only half the equation, the other half is the willingness to deploy computing in the production side of the economy in sometimes disruptive ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:03
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah well computing helps like any technological innovation but it's not a silver bullet. Among other challenges the soviets had was that they were poor at disrupting existing industries. They thrived when the task was to initially capitalize industry but that stalled in the 70's. That's the time when the U.S. economy was systematically dismantling some of it's old heavy industry like steel and reorienting the economy with early computing and automation. So even if they had computing in the planning phase that's only half the equation, the other half is the willingness to deploy computing in the production side of the economy in sometimes disruptive ways. It's a much more complex story than that. You have to factor in changes and failures in particular eras of central leadership and things like the use of the Soviet intelligentsia for primarily strategic/military applications.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's a much more complex story than that. You have to factor in changes and failures in particular eras of central leadership and things like the use of the Soviet intelligentsia for primarily strategic/military applications. Overemphasis on the military might weigh down both production and growth but doesn't help explain the slowdown of ~1970. FYI that was informed by the following: Robert C. Allen posted:The real issue was the vision of Which, in case it might appear to be necesarily biased, is a paper that begins with this sentence: Robert C. Allen posted:Soviet economic performance is usually dismissed as a failure. In contrast, I argue, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/archive/noticeboard/bergson/allen.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Then he claimed that volunteering is a felony because it violates minimum wage laws, and I had to leave. There actually is a huge concern over particularly the non-profit sector paying out sizeable salaries to high-level managers while depending on the unpaid labor of volunteers, but that's not something libertarians are bothered by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
That story always reminds me of how my dad once told me that I hadn't ever benefited from any kind of government policy in my life ... while we were in a car on a public road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Man, what is it with baby boomers and just not noticing all of the institutions their parents and grandparents set up that gave them the highest standard of living of any American generation ever...and then voting to burn it all down for the next generation in exchange for a few percentage points knocked off their taxes (and a fuckton of percentage points knocked off the taxes of a few people who are richer than almost any voter will ever be). I had an argument with my dad over the 4th of July weekend about whether restaurant health codes were unnecessary government intrusion which would be better left up to free market solutions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:That story always reminds me of how my dad once told me that I hadn't ever benefited from any kind of government policy in my life ... while we were in a car on a public road. Conservatives used to distinguish between government (roads, schools, medicare, SS) and "government" (welfare), but it seems as time goes on, they're not bothering with any distinctions anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Man, what is it with baby boomers and just not noticing all of the institutions their parents and grandparents set up that gave them the highest standard of living of any American generation ever...and then voting to burn it all down for the next generation in exchange for a few percentage points knocked off their taxes (and a fuckton of percentage points knocked off the taxes of a few people who are richer than almost any voter will ever be). Alternatively, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XswHm514w
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That great standard of living is just the natural order of things. At least, that's how it probably felt to the boomers. Nothing we do would ever change that! Yeah, I've always figured that the Boomers were born into the safest, most prosperous society in the history of humanity and decided that it was just how the world works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Yeah, I've always figured that the Boomers were born into the safest, most prosperous society in the history of humanity and decided that it was just how the world works. this was a huge component of the counterculture at the time. If high standards of living are natural then it follows that institutions are holding you back. In fairness it was a legitimately new era the boundaries of which hadn't really been discovered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
I fear our muse has abandoned us friends
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I hope our muse has embraced full communism friends
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
i've tried cutting my limited supply of jrode with old kylejack posts but it just isn't the same
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Please shut up. Jrod will be back, he's just working on a masterpiece that will finally show us the light. Please come back Jrod Senpai.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
On the other hand, I haven't been this productive since 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Do I need to make another magic card?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Do I need to make another magic card? What does your heart tell you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Do not fear! JRod lives on in our hearts and our bowels. In fact, I can feel His spirit welling up in me. I... I... I would love to hear your thoughts on this article I read. This month in Mises.org! The Intellectual Intolerance Behind "Check Your Privilege" A decade ago, no one had ever been told to “check your privilege.” Now it commands an appreciable “market share” in academia and social justice rhetoric. But it does so despite sharply opposed interpretations of its meaning. In fact, its expanded footprint is partly because of its ambiguity. It Could Be an Invitation to Debate In a sense, “check your privilege” largely amounts to “check your premises” behind your views, and many are willing to recognize that such a reminder can be useful in advancing conversations about social issues. However, I question whether people are so bereft of concern for, or understanding of, one another that they need repetitive “check your privileges” reminders that imply they would believe more accurately and act more effectively if only they were more empathetic. I tend to agree with Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that: How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it ... we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others. Further, repeatedly sermonizing to fix people as a way of “uplifting” them becomes little more than nagging, and any insight it may add gets crowded out. In the same way, repeatedly invoking “check your privilege” tends to destroy its usefulness leaving increased irritation and disharmony. But the Phrase Could Simply Mean “Shut Up” And when does “check your privilege” become code for “be quiet” rather than “evaluate your premises”? “Check your privilege” is about shutting down discussion when the user is making the assertion that you are hopelessly confused in your understanding, and that your opinions amount to aggression (whether “micro-” or “macro-”). This position was wellarticulated decades ago by Robert Heinlein, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Where do you start explaining when a man’s words show there isn’t anything he understands about [a] subject, [but] instead is loaded with preconceptions that don’t fit facts and [he] doesn’t even know …? The assertion of your hopeless confusion then becomes the basis for claims that, unless you are a member of some accepted victimized class, you must be part of the oppressor class. Therefore, as Max Borders put it, Your rights and opinions are invalid and you have no real complaints or suffering because you belong to X group. Or, more to the point, you are obligated to pay because people who look like you in some ways did bad things at some point. In other words, others assert that they don’t need to listen to you, much less respect your arguments. The Ad Hominen Attack That leap involves several logical failings. Included in that list is the idea that any guilt for what was true of some members of an arbitrarily defined class or group (rather than treating people as the individuals they are) at some point in time passes on to every current and future member of that class or group. In addition, it incorporates the ad hominem fallacy that because you are judged as bad or part of an oppressor class, your argument is false, while conversely, their self-defined goodness and non-oppression means theirs must be true, both of which are unrelated to the logical validity of an argument. Given that “check your privileges” could mean either “remember to be empathetic, so we can better understand and help” or “we can disregard your beliefs and violate your rights,” how can we tell which one is intended? Where confusion reigns, to better understand and help requires the confusion to be replaced with clear, accurate understanding. That, in turn, requires a serious, ongoing “give and take” conversation. However, when “check your privilege” is used to preemptively cut off conversation by stopping those who disagree from any chance to be heard, much less to rebut their demonization and targeting, no improvement in either empathy or results can result. So the key to evaluating “check your privilege” is to ask what would be entailed if it was intended to advance such a serious conversation. How Real Dialogue Happens Importantly, any conversation would not stop at “watch your privileges.” It would only begin there. By itself, the phrase says you are wrong in your understanding or views, but it leaves how completely unspecified, beyond having something to do with membership in some allegedly dominant or privileged group. Stopping the conversation there leaves “check your privileges” as an insult, without any ability to clarify understanding or reduce disagreements or disharmony. Progress toward better understanding and results would require several more steps. It would start by precisely specifying what faulty premises, assumptions, or arguments someone supposedly holds, either included or excluded inappropriately. Then it would explain why it is inappropriate for the issue being considered. It would lay out the correct or appropriate premise that would take its place and articulate the reasons why. Building on that foundation, it would show how the “new and improved” premises would change one’s conclusions. Consequently, it would lay out the appropriate remedy based on the alternative analysis. In the process, it would have to explain how the proposed remedy cannot be explained solely on a narrowly self-interested “more for me” basis, completely apart from the argument offered, as part of laying out the new special privileges that would be created for those put forward as victims. It would also have to explain how others will be affected in order to address the asserted problem, including whether there would be coercive impositions on members of the supposedly dominant or victimizer class who had nothing to do with the “sins of the fathers.” When “check your privilege” means think more carefully about others circumstances, which may be far different than yours, and to be empathetic, it can be useful in advancing our potential for mutual understanding. But it has to be only the beginning of a much farther-reaching discussion to bear fruit — a discussion which, carefully and earnestly pursued, would lead us back to the self-ownership and voluntary arrangements of liberty. In contrast, when “check your privilege” is used as a magic phrase to peremptorily end “social justice” discussions, it is the assertion of a special privilege for some to be allowed to define themselves as white hats and those who disagree as black hats, without ever having to make a real argument. It also allows users to turn it into an epithet of social demonization to try to impose their “solutions,” always at the expense of the supposed black hats. In the process, it undermines social cooperation by undermining the rights upon which it is built. The Broken Window Fallacy and "Blessings" of Destruction in the Real World In the early nineteenth century, Bastiat posed the story of a young man who throws a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. We’re told that this may have a bright side — that the baker must now pay a glazier to fix the window, who will then use that income to spend elsewhere, creating a ripple effect that benefits many. Such thinking is reminiscent of what would later be used to justify the logic behind the Keynesian multiplier. Keynes would later write in the General Theory, “Pyramid building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth.” The Opportunity Cost of Fixing Things As many readers already know, such logic fails to take into account the opportunity cost of the broken window. Had the window not been broken, the baker wouldn’t have paid the glazier, but maybe he would’ve spent the money on a pair of shoes instead. The shoemaker would then have income to spend elsewhere, and the same multiplier would take place — but society would be better off by exactly one window. Before diving into the modern real-world evidence that substantiates Bastiat’s brilliant essays, it’s important to distinguish between income and wealth. Destruction may boost income in the short run, but reduce a society’s net amount of wealth (the purpose of production in the first place). To play off an interesting piece by Ryan Young in the American Spectator, Suppose we have a small island, whereas all wealth is in the value of homes, personal property, business properties, and infrastructure, with a value of $10 million. Now let’s say that economic growth is slow, many are unemployed, and aggregate wealth is projected to increase to $11 million next year. Next, a violent natural disaster occurs, destroying the nation’s entire stock of wealth. Since economic growth was slow and many were unemployed, everyone on the island directs their attention to rebuilding from the disaster, and within a year, everything is back to normal. In the statistics, GDP is boosted by $10 million — ten times higher than it would’ve otherwise risen, yet the wealth of society remains unchanged. Such a scenario is reflective of what occurs in the short run. In May of 2012, Paul Krugman highlighted Japan’s superior first quarter economic growth relative to other nations, attributing it to increased government spending following the tsunami in 2011. But as Young noted, this doesn’t take into effect that natural disasters have on a nation’s stock of wealth. The “Benefits” of Deadly Cyclones Now, onto the real-world evidence. Published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists Solomon M. Hsiang and Amir S. Jina looked at the long-run economic effects of environmental catastrophe, focusing on destruction from cyclones in particular. Nearly seven thousand cyclones that occurred from 1950–2008 were studied. The conclusions were that the worse the disaster, the worse long-run economic growth suffered. According to their data, “fifteen years after a strike, GDP is 0.38 percentage points lower for every 1 m/s of wind speed.” While I constructed an example earlier where destruction would have positive effects on income in the short run, such effects disappear when the short run becomes the long run. Their research also found that a disaster in the 90th percentile reduced incomes by 7.4 percent two decades after. This led the authors to reject the “creative destruction” hypothesis in regards to natural disasters. Defenders of the supposed blessings of destruction also have to take into account another variable: the value of human life. Following an earthquake in May of 2008 that killed 80,000 in the Sichuan Province, the Chinese government’s State Information Center found a silver lining: economic growth would be boosted by an additional 0.3 percent that year due to money spent on rebuilding the devastated region. Even assuming that this growth wasn’t offset by slower growth in the long run, it’s still not a viable plan. Economic growth in China was 18.1 percent in 2009, growing by nearly five trillion yuan from the year prior. Assuming that the Chinese government is correct and 0.3 percent of that was attributable to rebuilding from the disaster, this means that GDP was boosted by roughly 5,300,000 yuan for each death, or roughly $860,000. To put that in perspective, the Environmental Protection agency in the US sets the value of a human life at $9.1 million, while the Food and Drug Administration pegs that figure at $7.9 million. The purpose of Bastiat’s essay on the broken window was to illustrate the concept of opportunity cost at a minor level, focusing on a minor act of vandalism. As we’ve seen from real-world evidence, the opportunity cost of destruction is seldom society being worse off by only a single window, but much worse when we take into account the long-run effects it has on income and wealth, and human life. Jurassic World: Don't Blame it on the Market In the fourth and latest installment of the Jurassic Park franchise, a theme park containing cloned dinosaurs plays host to horrifying scenes as visitors are preyed upon by reptilian attractions that have eluded the confines of their cages. The chaos begins after the introduction of a new, ahistorical dinosaur, the Indominus Rex, a chimera cooked up by the park’s scientists. This monster, the film makes clear, is the product of capitalism run amok: simple de-extinction no longer impresses the park’s guests; to keep drawing in paying visitors the dinosaurs must keep getting bigger and meaner — a trend which quickly proves unsustainable. If we in the real world ever become capable of reincarnating dinosaurs, should we leave the technology in government hands for fear that the profit-driven would, just as in Jurassic World, create overly hazardous attractions? How Private Dinosaur Parks Would Work: Balancing Conflicting Values Private owners assess an operation’s profitability by subtracting their opportunity cost (e.g., what they could earn by selling up and putting the money at interest) from its capital value. Importantly, the capital value is based on the sum of expected future profits. So no private dinosaur park could afford to be shortsighted in its strategizing: to maximize profits, it must strike a sustainable balance between conflicting elements (risk, “wow-factor,” cost). Far from resembling the inexorable outcome of a profit-and-loss system, then, Jurassic World is an exemplary illustration of what not to do if you are concerned by your bottom line. Instead, private dinosaur parks would aim at two society-pleasing equilibria. The first equilibrium is the profit-maximizing balance between safety and wow-factor. Imagine a placid leaf eater behind an eight foot fence. If we were to substitute this herbivore for a more impressive carnivore, say, a T.Rex, we would quite obviously be doing so at the expense of some safety. Wow-factor and safety move in opposite directions, but consumers value both. Therefore the two must be balanced, an endeavor in which private dinosaur parks would be guided by profit-and-loss signals. They would increase wow-factor and drive down safety only so far as this increased the number of tickets sold, in the process achieving the “optimal” balance between wow-factor and safety (viz., that one which persuades the maximum number of people to voluntarily part with the entry fee). The second equilibrium relates to balance between cost and safety. Factors of production (fencing, girders, armed guards) would be employed by the park until the marginal value of their contribution fell equal to the price at which they could be bought. The first unit of fencing would provide enormous value: it would allow a basic partition to be erected, without which the park could not hope to attract any visitors. Girders would reinforce the fence, and make escape very unlikely; the park could then foster a favorable reputation in the long term, thereby increasing its capital value/profitability. Additionally, the presence of armed guards would provide further assurance, and encourage still more paying customers to attend. However, beyond a point, additional security resources would provide such little value as to make them unprofitable to buy. They would of course still provide some value, but the price mechanism forces private actors to take heed of the bigger picture; other causes in the economy require these finite resources more urgently. The private dinosaur park, then, would strive to buy only as much security as could be justified by market data. Get Government Off Our Brachiosaurs! Governments, on the other hand, don’t worry about profit — they get their revenue not by providing goods and services, but via taxation. And this is why, the argument goes, they should provide dinosaur-amusement-park services: they would not ratchet up risk for profit’s sake; they could run a thoroughly stolid park and never go out of business. But, as we have already seen, the balance between wow-factor and safety struck by private dinosaur parks would be the one that pleases the maximum number of people. Therefore, if the government were to outlaw the private ones in favor of its own, less-impressive parks, it would override the peoples’ demonstrated preference in the process. To be sure, no one wants to be eaten by a dinosaur, but that does not mean that no one wants to run the risk thereof. Many parallels exist in our daily lives, but to choose just one: nobody wishes to die in an airplane crash; and yet, people constantly get on airplanes — they accept the risk as a cost worth bearing. So, too, would some people accept the risk of being eaten if it came part and parcel with especially cool dinosaur parks. Unless we also accept bans on flying, driving, skydiving, swimming, eating fast food, etc., we should not in principle accept interference with individual choices regarding dinosaur-viewing. On the issue of security: should no expense be spared? Impervious to profit and loss, the government dinosaur park could continue hoovering up security resources even after the marginal value no longer justified the price; the result would, of course, be a slightly safer park. However, only someone with a very myopic view could conclude this to be unambiguously good, for in the process of armoring their reptile attraction the government would unwittingly deprive other, more urgent causes in the economy of those same resources. As we have seen a private dinosaur park would instead equate marginal value with price, thereby unconsciously factoring conditions of supply and demand into its decision; it would take a more appropriate quantity of resources, given the relative importance of its end within the context of the wider economy. Mistakes Happen We have argued that the incentive to make profit would impel private dinosaur parks to balance safety, wow-factor, and cost in the optimal manner described above. So how, then, do we account for the Indominus Rex of Jurassic World? After all, this monstrosity was concocted by a profit-motivated, private dinosaur park; does this mean that it was in some way optimal? It should be clear to anyone who watched the film that the Indominus Rex was a dinosaur too well endowed genetically: it presented a risk that was far greater than the majority of visitors would have tolerated ex ante. Therefore, Jurassic World’s operators made an “entrepreneurial error,” an attempt at profit-making gone awry. The balance between safety and wow-factor was ill-struck, and by no means profit-maximizing — Jurassic World will lose many, many prospective guests as a result of the Indominus Rex debacle. Importantly, the Indominus Rex must not be held against the market per se; we should assess the market not on the basis of individual case studies but rather by the equilibria it inspires. Non-optimal outcomes do occur on the market’s watch, but in spite of (and not because of) its carrot-and-stick regime. The market institutionalizes optimal outcomes; without profit and loss, optimal outcomes could come about only by a fluke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Admittedly I just skimmed over it but I think I just read a libertarian argument in favor of using science to create an apex predator that could eliminate the human race because the market will bear it? Without the free market who will build the professors doomsday machines??
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Leave it to libertarians to take an already lovely movie and make it even worse by failing to understand even the bluntest metaphors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
whoa holy poo poo what I started reading and it was just boilerplate 'nyanyanyanya' about white male privilege then it's about make believe dinosaurs? e: oh it's different articles, well that's marginally lessncrazy then Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Leave it to libertarians to take an already lovely movie and make it even worse by failing to understand even the bluntest metaphors. Which movie is this? I suffered a stupidity induced seizure half way through the article and couldn't finish reading all the idiotic 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Which movie is this? I suffered a stupidity induced seizure half way through the article and couldn't finish reading all the idiotic Why the cautionary tale of Jurassic world doesn't really say that the free market of genetically engineered murderbeasts needs regulation
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:whoa holy poo poo what It's three essays, the second of which is mildly interesting and pretty sensible. If the third one isn't at least a bit tongue in cheek I will be a bit horrified. "To be sure, no one wants to be eaten by a dinosaur, but"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Conservatives used to distinguish between government (roads, schools, medicare, SS) and "government" (welfare), but it seems as time goes on, they're not bothering with any distinctions anymore. People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Fresh meat! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. How do you feel about gold? Should I be hoarding it to sell in the postapocalyptic wasteland of 2018 America or should I sleep on it and defend it against adventurers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Slave-owners gave their slaves food and shelter. The government gives poor people food and shelter. Therefore poor people are slaves and the government owns them, QED
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Ahaha c'mere a minute while I explain to you entropy and the heat death of galts gulch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Slaves didn't get to vote for their owners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. I want to believe so very badly that this is real, but I have been burned too many times in the past.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Ah yes, the tyranny of giving people what they need and ask for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Plastics posted:People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know. Do you have any information you can share with me about the healing properties of colloidal silver that the FDA is preventing us from knowing about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
