|
QuarkJets posted:Hey Plastics, here's a hypothetical for you to consider. I'd really appreciate it if you could answer my post directly. Once the first million or so people who use Quarkacin end up dying, the average consumer (whoever happens to be still alive) will take their business elsewhere. It's like how people stopped buying oil from BP after they destroyed our ocean. 
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Plastics posted:No you guys are not understanding what I mean! I do not mean that people trust the FDA 100% and nothing else because the government created it what I mean is that it Damages people's abilities to think for themselves. They are not given any choice in it they just have to like it. When I said Thalodomite I meant that some countries said it was a good idea and some said it was a bad idea to ban it. They could not all be right and they ended up finding out because a lot of people suffered from it! But in my system once it is working properly it would be different, because it would mean that REPUTATIONS matter more than these silly appeals to authority! Private FDAs would have to earn their respect by showing they deserved it. Sometimes they would make mistakes and yes people do not have perfect information but the bigger the mistake, the more likely it is more people would care more. 1. ask the expert if this mushroom is safe 2. eat the mushroom and find out Because I assume you're at least aware that mushrooms can be deadly poisonous, you ask the expert. Now, when you ask the expert, does this diminish your ability to think for yourself? Now, if you think it does, I'm just gonna say you have absolutely zero idea how the world works, and suggest you at least graduate high school before you assume you have it all figured out. But, really, you do this kind of delegation all the time. If you don't know anything about cars, you have to trust that the repair shop knows what they're doing (and are not ripping you off). If you're out birding, you probably take a book to check what kinds of birds you see. You pull out a calculator to do calculations. And so on. Delegation of this sort doesn't make you stupid, it makes you smart. Why should I have to become an expert in everything? I don't have that kind of time or energy, and neither do you. This is a well-studied empirical phenomenon. We know that people who have to use intellectual energy for some tasks have less intellectual energy for other tasks, and that some tasks have a higher cognitive load than others. Reliance on testimonial evidence from experts is one of the ways we conserve intellectual energy. This sort of testimonial is absolutely ubiquitous and we all rely on it far more than we think. Why do I know that Albany is the capital of New York? Someone put it on a map and I learned it in school. I've never been there; I've never seen the government of New York with my eyes. That's how ubiquitous this is--virtually everything you know is from testimonial evidence. Now, you claim that the FDA gains their power merely by authority, and that there's nothing backing it. Well, they have regulatory power because the state grants them it, but that doesn't mean that the regulations the FDA implements are just done "because we say so." No, the FDA has processes that you can look up. They have evaluation procedures you can research. These processes and procedures are chosen because they make us safer, and we have evidence that they make us safer. In the case of drugs, we know that the high standards of testing the FDA implements aren't infallible, but they're pretty loving good at making sure the drugs we take are effective and safe. If you want, you can argue that the very implementation of these standards by the government is bad, somehow. Is it that there's only one safety board? What does it matter that there's no competitor to the FDA? This doesn't reduce the safety of my food and drugs. Is it that it keeps innovators out of the market, or deprives consumers of choice? Well, nobody should want companies that produce products that harm people in the market, and there's no straightforward reason (without buying a lot of ideology) to not just keep them out of the market. As for choice...if someone wants to take untested drugs or eat unsafe foods, they're idiots. And while you might believe that idiots should be allowed to do whatever they want, I'm not sure we should write policies to make life enormously hard for the non-idiot and extremely easy for the idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Also some people are children and completely dependent on their parents for their welfare, so it's bad for public health and safety to let children die because their parents are idiots, or even just because they're poor and the off-brand cough syrup certified by a rating agency they're not familiar with is a few bucks cheaper (because the untraceable glycerine from China used therein is really ethylene glycol)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No you guys are not understanding what I mean! I do not mean that people trust the FDA 100% and nothing else because the government created it what I mean is that it Damages people's abilities to think for themselves. They are not given any choice in it they just have to like it. When I said Thalodomite I meant that some countries said it was a good idea and some said it was a bad idea to ban it. They could not all be right and they ended up finding out because a lot of people suffered from it! But in my system once it is working properly it would be different, because it would mean that REPUTATIONS matter more than these silly appeals to authority! Private FDAs would have to earn their respect by showing they deserved it. Sometimes they would make mistakes and yes people do not have perfect information but the bigger the mistake, the more likely it is more people would care more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TMOMTtAMBI I think the above link sums up my opinion on your argument. You are saying "Once it is working properly it would be different" and honestly, I don't think it would be different at all. Do you believe that people wouldn't react negatively if they found out that the FDA wasn't doing its job? Do you think the REPUTATION of the FDA doesn't matter, because this may shock you, it actually does. If you are the head of the FDA and you gently caress up, your career is still ruined. The FDA has an amazing reputation owing to things like Thalidomide where we have told unsafe drug companies to go gently caress themselves. The FDA has a 60% approval rating, which is amazing when you factor in the nutjobs who believe in vaccinations and the number of people who return an answer of "No Opinion". Also your suggestion that the FDA is an appeal to authority is an incorrect usage of the fallacy. An appeal to authority works like this: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject Y. Person A makes claim D about subject Y. Therefore, D is true. That isn't what happens with the FDA. No one is saying the FDA is correct because they are the government, they're saying that the FDA conducts rigorous scientific testing with the intention of the public good. While they can certainly gently caress up (which is only human) it is not an appeal to authority to suggest that the FDA is capable of doing their job. quote:So it would be a project with several steps. Just so we're clear, you are aware that many, many people would die while we are making the steps to your more "ethical" system right? I just want to make sure you understand that before I go any further. quote:1_ Private food standards people are set up By who? Who pays for all of this? Do individuals send money to private food standards ratings companies? Does the industry pay for the ratings to be done themselves? If its the latter are you aware of the fact that every time this has been tried in modern america we have seen a dramatic fall in food safety. quote:2_ They all start to check food and stuff to make sure it contains what it says it contains and does not contain things it does not say it contains Assuming that many of the companies are funded by the industries they do this at record high speeds with a fraction of the investigators we currently require by law. And no I don't mean they do it more efficently, I mean they cut the number of investigators and overall inspection while producing product in the same way. quote:3_ Then this would start having real effects in the world where some groups succeed and some do not and the ones who do not are left to fail. Are you aware of Moody's, S&P, and Fitch? These are the credit rating agencies that were at the heart of the 2008 financial collapse. The groups are notable for having their ratings system gamed by banks. In many cases they were left with the choice of "Rate this as AAA" or watch some other ratings agency take the business from them. In thousands of instances these companies took squared CDO's, that is, CDO's made up of fractions of other CDO's and rated them as AAA even though they themselves had previously rated every component part of the new financial product as B rated securities? I ask because I'm curious if you know what happened to the big three after the collapse? The answer is nothing. When threatened with legal action for putting out junk ratings, Moody's even went so far as to say that their ratings should only be considered opinions and should not in any way be relied upon. Yet these three rating agencies are still the largest three agencies in the world, despite the fact that we now know for unambiguous fact that their ratings are little more than random opinions based on nothing more than subjective opinion. And you think reputation matters? Why? That is the thing that really gets in my craw about libertarians. You take this on faith that REPUTATION will matter in spite of thousands of recorded instances in markets of all shapes and sizes that it really doesn't. For just one more example look at the West Fertilizer Company explosion in Texas. The company knew the plant was bad, but fixing it simply cost more than praying everything would go well. And after the plant did explode what did they do? Did they go out of business? Change their ways? gently caress no, they had the texas AG change the open records laws so you couldn't find out if similar plants were in the neighborhood to where you planned to move in. Reputation doesn't mean gently caress all for the vast majority of businesses. Edit: I don't usually recommend it, but you might want to listen to a piece that This American Life did in the wake of the financial collapse. I've queued up the specific section that talks about the regulators and how corrupt that the whole system can be, even with government regulation. quote:4_ BUT THEN this means that in the future the ones who succeeded are trusted because they are worth trusting not because the Govenrment says "you have to do what we say". This would be more Ethical. And they would also be at risk of losing their prestigious positions without keeping their standards high enough. Free society would choose what those standards are by Virtue of the Trust placed in these institutions. Do you really think that people trust the FDA because "the government says" rather than its proven track record of excellence dating back a century? The FDA might have made mistakes, but you really can't honestly tell me that they don't do a tremendous job of keeping the american people safe in the manner in which they were intended. They could do better, certainly but lets not pretend that people only like the FDA because Kim Jong Obama says we have to. Also, I know most people might want me to drop it, but I'm going to hammer it home anyways. Why is it more Ethical? You're stating this again as fact despite providing no evidence other than your own subjective opinion that it would be more ethical. I personally think having multiple competing businesses, many of which are engaged in widespread manipulation and fraud to be a hell of a lot less Ethical than one central institute who's whole goal is to do the job, plain and clear. I've already covered why the idea of them losing their status is silly (feel free to rebut it) but I'd actually like to suggest one other peril you might not have considered. These companies are presumably bought and paid for by the drug/food industry, which of course means they have a hilarious conflict of interest between providing good information and where their money is coming from. One negative side effect of this is that the LiberFDA would actually be inclined to deny certification to perfectly effective and legal drugs that compete with ones they already have under their purview. Lets say I develop a new heart medication. It works way better than anything out on the market, but I am a relatively small business. Maybe I am a single inventor who figured out the penicillin of heart disease. Large medical industries could use their wealth and leverage to force a buy out of my creation by simply telling the ratings industries (whom they provide most or all of the funding for) to not certify my idea, or to even declare it unsafe despite that being factually untrue. Yes I might eventually be able to find some sort of work around, but would your average person trust me if I said "No really, this cures heart disease" even as the major FDA groups say that it has X, Y and Z problems? This issue is not at all present in our current FDA. The FDA isn't paid by the drug companies to approve their drugs, so there is no disgusting symbiosis where the ratings can be influenced by cash. I mean I suppose you could bribe FDA regulators, but by and large that is a bug in the FDA (one that often gets squashed) while it would be a feature of your proposed system. quote:5_ So then people COULD choose to buy something that has not been rated if they want to but if they were paying attention they would know which companies are reliable and which are not. Then it would be easy to choose food that is safe. And if they aren't paying attention? Or if they are mislead by advertisement? That is yet another aspect I haven't even touched on. The FDA doesn't advertise or market because it doesn't have to. People know the FDA does its job because that is its whole raison d'etre. In liberland you'd have multiple competing FDA organizations, many of which would be putting out advertisements like "RandFDA says that Drug X will cure your erectile dysfunction, but tests at ValhallaFDA have shown that in five years your dick will fall off. Can you trust RandFDA?" Your system requires everyone to be significantly informed about the day to day business of possibly dozens of self-regulating agencies that are being paid by the very companies that they are rating, agencies which are spending not insignificant sums to convince people that they are trustworthy and to squelch stories or reports that contradict this. And you think this is somehow more ethical and preferable to having a single, non-biased agency who has no financial incentive to do anything other than provide the facts. I must say, that is a bold loving position if nothing else. quote:But also if people do not blindly support the Government and use their own judgement like you say that only proves that people are capable of doing making these decisions for themselves which they should be doing? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. I can change the wiring in my house because I did wiring work like... ten years ago. Should I? Is that safe or efficient? I CAN deep fry my shirt, but should I? Everyone could test their food to make sure it is perfectly safe, or we could have one agency that does it for us. Why on earth should we duplicate the same work thousands if not millions of times rather than delegate it to one agency who does it, and does it well I might add. quote:Buried Alive you say that I have not answered the question about people thinking for themselves but I am clearly saying it is okay to put your trust in someone else to Think for you. The difference is that YOU should choose who you trust and what you trust them with! It should not be imposed on us from a bunch of people we never met or voted for or whose credentials or records we never even got to see! I can go and see some of those things now but so what does that matter because I can not change their Position or role? I'd argue that people have chosen. You just don't like the answer. As other posters have pointed out, the FDA didn't just appear out of nowhere. There was vast public desire for the agency to be formed, and apart from wingnuts of the libertarian variety and a few sad cases of people who think the FDA has screwed them by preventing them from receiving experimental treatment (which often won't work), there are very few people who actively dislike the FDA. The libertarian obsession with selfish desire has annoyed me since I stopped being a libertarian, but I do understand it. You think you're self made because you fail to see all of the ways that society has impacted your life. I can't really help you with that other than to shoot down your arguments and hope that eventually you reach some sort of turning point where you become aware that the entire universe doesn't revolve around you. quote:And NO I've never had sex with a watermelon and I do not know why you all keep asking me that!! Nothing against you, just a running joke. If it makes you feel any better you are the first libertarian to actually answer no. 
Caros fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:a few sad cases of people who think the FDA has screwed them by preventing them from receiving experimental treatment (which often won't work), there are very few people who actively dislike the FDA. Of course there must be some evidence that the treatment is at least as effective as already available treatments, but that's just a basic requirement on treatments and research anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Actually, the compassionate use exemption lets patients in particular circumstances use exploratory and investigational treatments, and while the exemptions are tightly controlled, its a successful program for investigators, doctors, and patients. That experimental treatment that is a long way from market is probably being used for some patients for whom other treatments are unsuccessful and the condition is suitably serious. So the complaint that a treatment is being held back by the FDA is usually bogus, especially since the FDA started promoting the exemption and making doctors and researchers aware of it. Yeah, I was aware of this but I didn't want to get hugely off track mid-line. Mostly I'm referring to a different sort of kook who wants some 'experimental' unapproved drug that is unapproved because it doesn't work but who will ultimately blame the FDA for not letting them kill themselves with bleach or whatever. Thanks for the clarification tho!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, I was aware of this but I didn't want to get hugely off track mid-line. Mostly I'm referring to a different sort of kook who wants some 'experimental' unapproved drug that is unapproved because it doesn't work but who will ultimately blame the FDA for not letting them kill themselves with bleach or whatever. Look just because the statist commie fucks at the FDA say Latrile doesn't cure cancer is no reason for it to be off the market! What if my private agency wanted to say that it adds on average two years to a terminal cancer patient's lifespan? I think people would prefer to hear that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
I was just coming in to see if self-proclaimed "Proud Libertarian" Plastics had made an enterance. Yup. As bad as expected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No you guys are not understanding what I mean! I do not mean that people trust the FDA 100% and nothing else because the government created it what I mean is that it Damages people's abilities to think for themselves. They are not given any choice in it they just have to like it. When I said Thalodomite I meant that some countries said it was a good idea and some said it was a bad idea to ban it. They could not all be right and they ended up finding out because a lot of people suffered from it! But in my system once it is working properly it would be different, because it would mean that REPUTATIONS matter more than these silly appeals to authority! Private FDAs would have to earn their respect by showing they deserved it. Sometimes they would make mistakes and yes people do not have perfect information but the bigger the mistake, the more likely it is more people would care more. Could you explain the difference between the bolded words and their non-capitalized versions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
The capitalized nouns are German heritage, the capitalized adjectives are...uhm......Latin?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Reading some rand today: "It must be either reason or faith. I am against God for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason.” Soviet Commubot posted:Could you explain the difference between the bolded words and their non-capitalized versions? With the exclusion of "Damages" his capitalization is consistent for someone who believes in an absolute moral law (and he does based on earlier posts). I'm stretching with "Position", but I think a hierarchy is implied. His source material probably capitalizes the words. That's why I capitalize a lot of words that piss some of you off. The source material does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was just coming in to see if self-proclaimed "Proud Libertarian" Plastics had made an enterance. Where else has he been posting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No you guys are not understanding what I mean! I do not mean that people trust the FDA 100% and nothing else because the government created it what I mean is that it Damages people's abilities to think for themselves. They are not given any choice in it they just have to like it. You know, you're right. I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say here. People aren't given any choice in whether to like the FDA? Plenty of people dislike it. Namely antivax nuts, raw milk wholesalers, "natural remedy" advocates, and the like, but them being a gaggle of idiots and con men doesn't disqualify them from having an opinion. They can even participate in our democracy to try to eliminate it, so it's not like they don't have a choice on whether or not it exists. It's just that the rest of us have that choice too, and they've been consistently and resoundingly overruled. Are you saying that people don't have a choice on whether or not to trust it? Because, again, anti-GMO advocates don't trust the FDA saying it's safe, and have faced zero repercussions for doing so publicly. As for your assertion that "it Damages people's abilities to think for themselves," I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get across. You really need to unpack that. Explain the end result, and explain the mechanism you see bringing it to that point. I am utterly fascinated by your idea of what constitutes a choice though. Mugging victims and slaves get to have choices re: suffer or die, but the FDA existing stops people from having a choice to (???). Are you talking about companies being legally required to submit to the FDA for testing? Because they can defy the government the same way a slave can defy the foreman. It won't work out well for them, but they made the choice nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where else has he been posting? He made a standard right-wing post in the police thread that really doesn't seem libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was just coming in to see if self-proclaimed "Proud Libertarian" Plastics had made an enterance. Hey be fair: unlike Jrod, at least Plastics has found the courage to take a definitive stand on watermelon loving, a subject on which most libertarians become curiously evasive when pressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hey be fair: unlike Jrod, at least Plastics has found the courage to take a definitive stand on watermelon loving, a subject on which most libertarians become curiously evasive when pressed. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say watermelon loving now, watermelon loving tomorrow, watermelon loving forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're wrong. Countries that lacked the equivalent of an FDA continued selling Thalidomide for decades after it was known that Thalidomide caused birth defects. The company producing Thalidomide didn't give a poo poo, and they continued to pull in profits from selling Thalidomide to pregnant women who weren't aware of the side effects due to their lack of perfect information. Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! quote:Why is forcing people to investigate the safety of their food preferable to ensuring that all food sold for consumption is already safe? You keep dodging this question, saying that it's preferable without giving a reason. Okay so I think the problem is that you are looking at this from the perspective of Consequences instead of the position of Principles. The reason I think that it is better my way is because the Government is not involved but the fact that I think it would lead (in the long term!) to a more efficient system is also a good bonus and sometimes that kind of thing persuades people. But I see that on this forum a lot of people do not agree that it would be more efficient! quote:If you privatize the FDA and create a bunch of competing agencies, you're not going to ever meet or vote for or see the credentials or records of the raters under these private organizations, either. All that you're doing is creating a more inefficient system because you worship the Free Market. Okay that is just incorrect because all I would have to do to see which competing FDA were reliable is either think back to my previous experiences with them and think "Ah yes QuarkJets Certification has always been reliable" or "Oh, QuarkJets stuff does not seem very effective, I will use Caros Certifcation instead" OR if it is something I do not have previous experience in I can talk to friends and family or look it up online. I know what you say next! "But not everyone has internet access!" Yes that is very true though it seems to be changing but more importantly I was not using that as the single Factual Solution it was just an example of the kind of place we can find information. If that makes the internet a more important thing for people to get well so what? The world is always changing and what is important and not important (except for the most basics of life!) is always changing as well. QuarkJets posted:Hey Plastics, here's a hypothetical for you to consider. I'd really appreciate it if you could answer my post directly. Okay so you and some other people all gave these similar hypothetical questions about my system. I think they are a bit silly because why would someone sell something they knew caused brain cancer? You would just say "Oh wow this causes brain cancer? Destroy it all!" if you were doing medical research at all. If you wanted to trick people you would not DO medical research in the first place you would just give them sugar pills. But okay lets go with it it for the sake of argument. The thing is that if you have lied to someone when you sell them something that makes you an aggressor against them and that means in turn that they can get Justice. That could be by using a mechanism for suing people if that exists in my system and it probably would because people would want a convenient way to resolve disputes instead of the exact kind of thing the Government today does. Or it could be by just taking Revenge and taking something of theirs (but which they lost the rights to by their deceits) or harming them physically. They harmed you physically so doing the same to them is the most Just response. And as a bonus if you knew that selling brain cancer pills would get someone to come and make YOU take those same pills not very many people would sell brain cancer pills! VitalSigns posted:As far as the FDA making people stupid, does it make you stupid? When you go out to eat, or when you're on a roadtrip stopping at a roadside diner, or when you're buying groceries, do you research the entire supply chain of each product you buy and each restaurant you patronize, and ask them for a tour of the kitchen, do you inspect the facilities? No? Why not? Isn't it dangerous to rely on statists to do all your thinking for you, how are you still alive? I do try to research places and foods before I go there yes (and I am not perfect but the difference is I would admit it was my own fault if I got sick because I did not research my food) BUT! There is something you have overlooked here. ALthough the Government does exist and exert its power that does not mean that NO other factors can be in play. If I go to a diner I can know that it is probably safe because a lot of other people have gone there and enjoyed their food and not been sick or dead from it. And I only need to go the first time to do research or when they change policies. In an anarchist system that would be exactly the same by the way.. Buried alive posted:You still haven't answered my criticism. I'll put the question another way. Have you considered that the FDA and the general democractic government (or any other government, for that matter) is a result of this five step process you've outlined above? Again, the reason we have an FDA is because food and drugs were so, I'll just say corrupted as a general term, that people no longer trusted the reputation of the people providing them. They wanted an alternative. They wound up with the FDA. We didn't have to wind up with this three-branched representative democracy/republic style of government. We could have all gotten together and said "Hey, let's make this guy king for eternity," or, "Hey, let's have an absolutely pure, majority-rules democracy," or even, "Hey, let's just not have any regulations at all." Like, libertarianism has always been on the table, and is kind of the default situation any time anything new comes along. You can't regulate something until it exists, and once it comes into existence it will spend some time being unregulated. That has proven to be a bad state of affairs for many things. In other words, going entirely in the direction of maximizing freedom for everyone often results in situations that are either inefficient, lay waste to human lives, or both. Going that direction has a bad reputation. So we regulate. That is absolutely not how the Government came into exstience. It goes all the way back to the first tribes when the caveman with the biggest club and thickest skull would say "ME IN CHARGE!" and would beat up anyone who said something else. Today we have a much more sophisticated way of doing that but it is the same basic principle. There has never been a time when Rulership has not had the force of arms backing it up. Mr Interweb posted:Once the first million or so people who use Quarkacin end up dying, the average consumer (whoever happens to be still alive) will take their business elsewhere. It's like how people stopped buying oil from BP after they destroyed our ocean. This is a really good point but not how you meant it. See here is the thing. Because Government exists, people assume that when something bad happens like the BP spill they will do something about it. "Oh they polluted the coastline and it cost $41,000,000,000 to clean it up? Well the government will make them pay for that." So even if that does happen people feel that the price has been paid and are perfectly happy to carry on without doing anything more about it. In an anarchist system there would be no Government to do this so it would be up to people themselves to do something about it. That would mean that people might actually stop buying oil from BP and if they did not then they must rate their access to BP's oil more higherly than they rate the environmental damage that was done. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:You're off in the woods mushroom hunting with an expert mushroom hunter. You encounter a mushroom that you don't know. Do you Okay you keep acting like I have said delegating your Thinking to other people is bad but I never said anything of the sort. In your example here is the important difference: I can Choose whether to ask my mushroom friend or not. I can choose who to ask and who to listen to and I can deal with the consequences of doing or not doing that. With the government I can try to disobey but they are pretty ubiquitous so it would be costly in a way that it should not be. I can still make that Choice as I have said but just how a Slave can Choose to obey or not, that does not mean the Consequences of those Choices are not significant! I never said otherwise though so I do not understand why everyone is acting like they have caught me in some big gotcha? Caros posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TMOMTtAMBI The system can be effective without being Good though. That happens plenty of times throughout history. The Nazis got very very good at killing Jews and gay people and Russians and plenty of others, but nobody would say that is Good in itself even if it was efficient! The context and circumstances of something actually matter a whole lot and just because people have been convinced that something is effective does not mean it is a morally defensible thing. quote:Just so we're clear, you are aware that many, many people would die while we are making the steps to your more "ethical" system right? I just want to make sure you understand that before I go any further. I do not think it would be that bad but yes I accept that it is possible. Just as you accept that governments kill people around the world every day. quote:By who? Who pays for all of this? Do individuals send money to private food standards ratings companies? Does the industry pay for the ratings to be done themselves? If its the latter are you aware of the fact that every time this has been tried in modern america we have seen a dramatic fall in food safety. Whoever wants to could pay! Okay so I definitely think that the most effective ones will be paid for by private individuals who set up their own agencies because they will be answerable directly to those people and yes I can see where the risk of corruption comes in from the industry rating itself. quote:Are you aware of Moody's, S&P, and Fitch? These are the credit rating agencies that were at the heart of the 2008 financial collapse. The groups are notable for having their ratings system gamed by banks. In many cases they were left with the choice of "Rate this as AAA" or watch some other ratings agency take the business from them. In thousands of instances these companies took squared CDO's, that is, CDO's made up of fractions of other CDO's and rated them as AAA even though they themselves had previously rated every component part of the new financial product as B rated securities? But this is at the whole argument of what we are saying. I am saying that currently reputation does NOT matter because people will just assume the government will fix everything when we all know that is totally a lie. Just like you said these big financial organizations did not get into any real trouble. People assumed their benevolent masters in Washington would do something about it because "Something must be done!" and did not take actions THEMSELVES. Reputation becomes a lot lot less important in any system where someone else is saying "Do not worry about it, we will take care of you, we will make sure you are safe". Everything you just said here is an argument in support of anarchist libertarianism not against it! Everything you have said here shows that government is easily bought and sold, which is admittedly true of many Institutions but the difference is that the government has the unique ability to proclaim itself to be fixing problems and be believed/or force people to go along with it and then write laws that favor bad business practices. These things all work together to make a system where people do not believe they should CARE about reputation! quote:Do you really think that people trust the FDA because "the government says" rather than its proven track record of excellence dating back a century? The FDA might have made mistakes, but you really can't honestly tell me that they don't do a tremendous job of keeping the american people safe in the manner in which they were intended. They could do better, certainly but lets not pretend that people only like the FDA because Kim Jong Obama says we have to. They do a really good job for the most part and if the option were given I would probably choose to donate to them as my ratings agency of choice. But that is a choice we should all HAVE. quote:Also, I know most people might want me to drop it, but I'm going to hammer it home anyways. Why is it more Ethical? You're stating this again as fact despite providing no evidence other than your own subjective opinion that it would be more ethical. I personally think having multiple competing businesses, many of which are engaged in widespread manipulation and fraud to be a hell of a lot less Ethical than one central institute who's whole goal is to do the job, plain and clear. It is more Ethical because coercion is evil. quote:I'd argue that people have chosen. You just don't like the answer. As other posters have pointed out, the FDA didn't just appear out of nowhere. There was vast public desire for the agency to be formed, and apart from wingnuts of the libertarian variety and a few sad cases of people who think the FDA has screwed them by preventing them from receiving experimental treatment (which often won't work), there are very few people who actively dislike the FDA. People choosing it does not really matter though does it? A hundred and fifty years ago a huge chunk of America broke off because the people there had chosen and believed they were justified in choosing to own other people. We do not live in an absolute democracy where anything people say goes, that is not a system in either of our countries or any other one that I know of. We have constitutional limits on powers that make "the people chose it" a very limited defense of something. Again for the record I do not dislike the FDA itself and I think they do a good job. I broadly trust them at the current time to get things right enough often enough that they are worth listening to. I just do not think they should be the ONLY ones allowed to do it and they should not have the backing of the Government. quote:The libertarian obsession with selfish desire has annoyed me since I stopped being a libertarian, but I do understand it. You think you're self made because you fail to see all of the ways that society has impacted your life. I can't really help you with that other than to shoot down your arguments and hope that eventually you reach some sort of turning point where you become aware that the entire universe doesn't revolve around you. I do not think I am self made though? I mean yes to some extent I am because no matter what I had to do some work to get my grades in college and my parents are not rich enough that I could coast on their wealth alone (but we were not too squeezed either I admit) but I know I have been shaped and influenced by my experiences and upbringing and all of that stuff. But even if we put aside how much the government takes from us to give to big businesses who do not need the help the Ability of a System to influence society is not the only measure of its Ethical value?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Oh, so you're just evil. Well at least you admit it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Ok, Plastics, I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that we live in an anarchist society like you want and BP spills oil everywhere. What, exactly and specifically, can people do to get recompense from BP for the damages they have caused? Storm their Headquarters with torches and pitchforks? That's nothing but mob rule, which is another form of rule by force, which you are against. Boycott BP products? That's hard to do if they're the only sellers in town and we depend on oil for so much. So what, then, can people do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! People who are smarter and work harder already do better than those who don't, depending of course on their starting position and inherent priviliges. Your proposed system would just make life worse for the vast majority of people, who are pretty stupid. That's petty and cruel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so you and some other people all gave these similar hypothetical questions about my system. I think they are a bit silly because why would someone sell something they knew caused brain cancer? You would just say "Oh wow this causes brain cancer? Destroy it all!" if you were doing medical research at all. If you wanted to trick people you would not DO medical research in the first place you would just give them sugar pills. But okay lets go with it it for the sake of argument. The thing is that if you have lied to someone when you sell them something that makes you an aggressor against them and that means in turn that they can get Justice. That could be by using a mechanism for suing people if that exists in my system and it probably would because people would want a convenient way to resolve disputes instead of the exact kind of thing the Government today does. Or it could be by just taking Revenge and taking something of theirs (but which they lost the rights to by their deceits) or harming them physically. They harmed you physically so doing the same to them is the most Just response. And as a bonus if you knew that selling brain cancer pills would get someone to come and make YOU take those same pills not very many people would sell brain cancer pills! Well this is straight up wrong. Just look up chelation therapy for autism. Parents pay crooked doctors to inject their kids with disodium EDTA, in the hopes that it will bind to the heavy metals (they think) are causing the kid's autism. Instead the kid dies, because disodium EDTA will loving kill you. This is well known! But these treatments continue, because there's money in it. The doctors still go get the chemical for it, despite the fact that it would be easy to switch it out for saline. And the kicker? That poo poo is banned. They choose to pursue it illegally anyway, because they don't have the blind faith you insist people have in the FDA. quote:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! Just to be clear, this is exactly why we all oppose you. You approve of mass-scale suffering as a moral good (as long as it's the dumb/lazy/unlucky people), because you're dedicated to the principle of "less government" rather than increasing the welfare of humanity. It's social Darwinism and it's sickening to anyone who cares about anyone but themselves. I'm just going to lay this out there: "not understanding biochemistry" is not a crime, and shouldn't carry a death sentence. The same applies to "not identifying a scam," "not having an LCMS in your house," and the rest of the basic errors and misinformation common to the vast majority of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! I barely got any sleep last night so I'm going to take the Rational decision and have a midday siesta rather than deal with this right now, but I really feel like this bullshit in particular ought to be addressed before I do. What you are talking about here is the Just World fallacy, that those who work harder or smarter succeed and do better in life than those who do not. As with most of your "Common knowledge" this opinion of yours is not in any way reflected in reality, as seen here:  As you can see, the single largest predictor of future income (which is more or less a measure of 'success' in america) is the earnings of their parents. If you are born into the bottom quintile you have a 47% chance of remaining in the bottom quintile. Even if you go to college (somehow) have a 47% chance of remaining in the bottom 40% of earners in the country. By contrast someone born to parents in the top quintile has a 25% chance of remaining in the top 20% of earners even if they don't go to college (eight times that of someone who starts at the bottom) and a 51% chance of remaining a top income earner if they go to college, which they are statistically far more likely to do! The IDEA that people who work harder or smarter succeed in life is a fantasy. The people who succeed in life are statistically far more likely to have simply been born the children of those (who might also be the children of those...) who through a combination of work and luck bumped themselves up the the top quintile. Anecdotally there are plenty of people who have lived the american dream, but to suggest we restructure our economy based on what is largely a myth is pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
The constant insistence on patterning society after what people "should do" rather than what they "actually do" feels way more paternalistic and patronizing than a state that simply seeks to provide minimum level of dignity and comfort to everyone. The corollary that anyone who does something counter to what they "should do" may suffer a socially justifiable death is sickening and evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! What level of human suffering would you be willing to tolerate if it meant society adhered to your principles? If you want to break it down into specifics like "I would tolerate (x)% increase in cancer," or "I would tolerate infant mortality going up by (x)%," that's fine. More specifically, why should I risk shoddy medicine in order to make sure the unschooled don't rise above their place in the human hierarchy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:I barely got any sleep last night so I'm going to take the Rational decision and have a midday siesta rather than deal with this right now, but I really feel like this bullshit in particular ought to be addressed before I do. Psh, there you go again, with your "evidence" and "statistics" and "making even an ounce of loving sense." Don't you know that real knowledge and understanding of the world and human society comes from logical conclusions derived from undeniable first principles such as "people act" and furthermore- *prolonged, satisfied fart*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Hi yes I feel this is a good picture for this thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! Wow, I never expected a libertarian to come right out and say that they simply want people to die for their Free Market god. Well, I don't want a bunch of people to die for no reason, so I guess we're at an impasse! quote:Okay so I think the problem is that you are looking at this from the perspective of Consequences instead of the position of Principles. The reason I think that it is better my way is because the Government is not involved but the fact that I think it would lead (in the long term!) to a more efficient system is also a good bonus and sometimes that kind of thing persuades people. But I see that on this forum a lot of people do not agree that it would be more efficient! So you're not actually worried about the consequences of your actions despite preaching the need for actions to have consequences. Doesn't that make your ideology a bit hypocritical? But yes, I refuse to look at something from the perspective of Principles. Your ideology is faith-based, but I prefer logic, reason, and evidence. Jehovah's Witnesses might refuse a life-saving blood transfusion on the basis of Principles, but that doesn't make their decision logical or reasonable. And no, your system of 100 competing FDAs, all with conflicting information, would not be more efficient. That seems really obvious. quote:Okay that is just incorrect because all I would have to do to see which competing FDA were reliable is either think back to my previous experiences with them and think "Ah yes QuarkJets Certification has always been reliable" or "Oh, QuarkJets stuff does not seem very effective, I will use Caros Certifcation instead" OR if it is something I do not have previous experience in I can talk to friends and family or look it up online. And if I successfully bought off your preferred private-FDA, then you'd buy my drug and now you'd have brain cancer. The system works! Or are you trying to say that you'd have subscriptions to all of the private-FDAs simultaneously so that you could review all of them? That seems extremely wasteful and unrealistic. quote:I know what you say next! "But not everyone has internet access!" Yes that is very true though it seems to be changing but more importantly I was not using that as the single Factual Solution it was just an example of the kind of place we can find information. If that makes the internet a more important thing for people to get well so what? The world is always changing and what is important and not important (except for the most basics of life!) is always changing as well. Even if someone has internet access, there's still a good chance that I've worked the system well enough to trick them into buying my drug anyway. This is how thalidomide sales to pregnant women continued well into the 80s in some countries. But as you've already pointed out, the point of your system is not to be useful, it's to follow a set of Principles without any concern for the consequences. quote:Okay so you and some other people all gave these similar hypothetical questions about my system. I think they are a bit silly because why would someone sell something they knew caused brain cancer? You would just say "Oh wow this causes brain cancer? Destroy it all!" You have an interesting idea there, but on the other hand there's all of human history. You're wrong; I'm a free market capitalist, the most important thing to me is my bottom line, not whether or not my drug hurts people. Furthermore, remember that in this scenario everyone is following your free market Princples anyway: it's not my responsibility to worry about the drug's side effects, it's everyone else's responsibility to do their own research, remember? Remember thalidomide? The manufacturers of that drug continued selling it to pregnant women for decades. quote:If you wanted to trick people you would not DO medical research in the first place you would just give them sugar pills. But okay lets go with it it for the sake of argument. The thing is that if you have lied to someone when you sell them something that makes you an aggressor against them and that means in turn that they can get Justice. That could be by using a mechanism for suing people if that exists in my system and it probably would because people would want a convenient way to resolve disputes instead of the exact kind of thing the Government today does. Or it could be by just taking Revenge and taking something of theirs (but which they lost the rights to by their deceits) or harming them physically. They harmed you physically so doing the same to them is the most Just response. And as a bonus if you knew that selling brain cancer pills would get someone to come and make YOU take those same pills not very many people would sell brain cancer pills! It's not a matter of wanting to trick people. I sunk a bunch of money into developing this drug, and I want to recoup those costs. Even if the drug in question just causes brain cancer, I'm going to start selling it so that I can continue running my business. I never lied about the effects of my drug, I just chose not to disclose them. In a world without government, having more money means having more control over whatever system of Justice that you can concoct. Selling drugs that cause brain cancer gives me more money. Ergo, selling drugs that cause brain cancer gives me greater control of the Justice system. quote:I do try to research places and foods before I go there yes (and I am not perfect but the difference is I would admit it was my own fault if I got sick because I did not research my food) BUT! There is something you have overlooked here. ALthough the Government does exist and exert its power that does not mean that NO other factors can be in play. If I go to a diner I can know that it is probably safe because a lot of other people have gone there and enjoyed their food and not been sick or dead from it. And I only need to go the first time to do research or when they change policies. In an anarchist system that would be exactly the same by the way.. The FDA doesn't deal with making sure that individual restaurants are safe. Do you really not know this? How can you be against an organization when you don't actually know what they do? The issue with your plan is that the restaurant could change their supplier to someone less reputable in order to save money, and then you're hosed despite reputation. There's really no way for you to win in your scenario without relying on huge amounts of sheer luck. How the gently caress are you going to know whether they've changed policies or changed suppliers? Who is giving you this information? When do you have the time to review all of the changes in policy that are happening simultaneously to all of the businesses in your life? quote:That is absolutely not how the Government came into exstience. It goes all the way back to the first tribes when the caveman with the biggest club and thickest skull would say "ME IN CHARGE!" and would beat up anyone who said something else. Today we have a much more sophisticated way of doing that but it is the same basic principle. There has never been a time when Rulership has not had the force of arms backing it up. This is the cutest misinterpretation of human history that I've ever seen. Please go take a history class, or at least a class on government. You're wrong, and without knowing the facts you aren't really making informed political decisions. quote:This is a really good point but not how you meant it. See here is the thing. Because Government exists, people assume that when something bad happens like the BP spill they will do something about it. "Oh they polluted the coastline and it cost $41,000,000,000 to clean it up? Well the government will make them pay for that." So even if that does happen people feel that the price has been paid and are perfectly happy to carry on without doing anything more about it. In an anarchist system there would be no Government to do this so it would be up to people themselves to do something about it. That would mean that people might actually stop buying oil from BP and if they did not then they must rate their access to BP's oil more higherly than they rate the environmental damage that was done. This is a bullshit answer and you know it. An anarchist society would have more oil spills, not fewer. The consequence of an oil spill would be sidestepped as easily as transferring the assets to a new holding company with a different name. "BP oil caused the spill, not us. We're CP oil! We took their oil derricks because clearly those guys were irresponsible" -- CP President, was BP president yesterday. quote:The system can be effective without being Good though. That happens plenty of times throughout history. The Nazis got very very good at killing Jews and gay people and Russians and plenty of others, but nobody would say that is Good in itself even if it was efficient! The context and circumstances of something actually matter a whole lot and just because people have been convinced that something is effective does not mean it is a morally defensible thing. Is it your belief that the FDA is equivalent to the Einsatzgruppen? Can you elaborate on this? quote:I do not think it would be that bad but yes I accept that it is possible. Just as you accept that governments kill people around the world every day. Governments are just groups of people. People kill people. People have been killing people since before there even were governments. quote:But this is at the whole argument of what we are saying. I am saying that currently reputation does NOT matter because people will just assume the government will fix everything when we all know that is totally a lie. Just like you said these big financial organizations did not get into any real trouble. People assumed their benevolent masters in Washington would do something about it because "Something must be done!" and did not take actions THEMSELVES. Reputation becomes a lot lot less important in any system where someone else is saying "Do not worry about it, we will take care of you, we will make sure you are safe". Everything you just said here is an argument in support of anarchist libertarianism not against it! Everything you have said here shows that government is easily bought and sold, which is admittedly true of many Institutions but the difference is that the government has the unique ability to proclaim itself to be fixing problems and be believed/or force people to go along with it and then write laws that favor bad business practices. These things all work together to make a system where people do not believe they should CARE about reputation! But on the other hand, all of human history. Reputations didn't matter back when the government had no regulatory power, either. Your naive view of the world is untrue regardless of the existence of governments. quote:It is more Ethical because coercion is evil. Your Ethics would end lives and cause billions to suffer needlessly. Your Ethics are evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Plastics posted:People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! "If you aren't as smart as me, you will probably die because of it but that's okay because principles" Seriously, do you think people working paycheck-to-paycheck with kids have the time to do extensive medical research on every product they give their children? Do you assume that single mothers who are working paycheck-to-paycheck really have time to research every possible product on the market to make sure what they're taking has no dangerous side effects?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:With the exclusion of "Damages" his capitalization is consistent for someone who believes in an absolute moral law (and he does based on earlier posts). I'm stretching with "Position", but I think a hierarchy is implied. His source material probably capitalizes the words. That's why I capitalize a lot of words that piss some of you off. The source material does. That doesn't really explain it  What is the difference between a position and a Position? e: This isn't a rhetorical or leading question, I seriously haven't the slightest idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Plastics, others have mentioned (to you and jrod) that some things, like the infrastructure is cities, the Internet, medicines etc. came about because of the state. What I wanna know is, do you think the state is something we needed to get all those things, but we can get rid of it now that we've reached this level of development, and if not why not, or do you think the state is a historical aberration, and if so why has this aberration been so successful in things like curing disease, facilitating communication etc?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:That doesn't really explain it You fool! You're asking BrandorKP to explain shifting definitions of commonly-understood words, you'll kill us all!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Plastics, others have mentioned (to you and jrod) that some things, like the infrastructure is cities, the Internet, medicines etc. came about because of the state. What I wanna know is, do you think the state is something we needed to get all those things, but we can get rid of it now that we've reached this level of development, and if not why not, or do you think the state is a historical aberration, and if so why has this aberration been so successful in things like curing disease, facilitating communication etc? As long as we're dredging up the classics: It should go without saying that humanity predates government. So at some point, governments were able to not only arise out of free market conditions, but spread and flourish across the planet. What allowed governments to do so well against the free market, and what would stop new governments from rising up and doing it again if all existing states dissolved tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
I've always liked the phrase, "governments exist because markets don't work right".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Plastics posted:
Because people can? Lots of money can be made selling people on things like hope. If you don't exploit the system for maximum value then you're not going to survive in the free market. This holds true even today with rules in the game. Why couldn't I just lie about whatever research I did? Why do you think the average person has the resources to sue me if I've made a shitload of money off selling cancer pills? Wouldn't I use my resources to buy someone to arbitrate in my favor? Also stop capitalizing random words, it makes you look like a crazy person. quote:I do try to research places and foods before I go there yes (and I am not perfect but the difference is I would admit it was my own fault if I got sick because I did not research my food) BUT! There is something you have overlooked here. ALthough the Government does exist and exert its power that does not mean that NO other factors can be in play. If I go to a diner I can know that it is probably safe because a lot of other people have gone there and enjoyed their food and not been sick or dead from it. And I only need to go the first time to do research or when they change policies. In an anarchist system that would be exactly the same by the way.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Jack_in_the_Box_E._coli_outbreak I'm fine with paying taxes. I think of it like a lesser version of fees I would have to pay to private sector people to provide me with services like freeways, air traffic control, environmental protections, food safety and a myriad of other things. Just because you're not very good at business or financial planning doesn't mean we need to re-work the system just so you can have more money to buy gold. It would be more coercive to me if I had to pay my local robber baron to keep my family safe from raping and pillaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Plastics, you are both very evil, and very stupid. I hope this knowledge helps you in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA! Tell me, would you agree with the below? Because it sounds a lot like what you're saying. quote:Libertarian philosophy is very simple: There's no one better suited to look after your own interests than you. Therefore, if everyone looks out after their own interests, you've created a system where everyone has someone looking out for them. In addition, a libertarian system allows everyone the opportunity to succeed. Will everyone succeed? Of course not—but once again, that's not the libertarians' doing. That's just how the world works. Want to know where I got those paragraphs from? Mises.org? Some anarchocapitalist blog? It's from a loving Magic: the Gathering column about the "philosophy" that underlies the black-aligned cards. I just replaced "black" with "libertarian".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Libertarians keep stealing my labor as a government worker and I have no legal recourse for suing them as they try to avoid taxes and civic responsibility. There must be a blood price! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Libertarians keep stealing my labor as a government worker and I have no legal recourse for suing them as they try to avoid taxes and civic responsibility. Might I interest you in a longterm contractual relationship with Valhalla DRO?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Tell me, would you agree with the below? Because it sounds a lot like what you're saying. i knew without even highlighting this was maro spergin about the color pie
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Can't we all just agree that children dying of cancer because their parents picked the wrong asthma medicine is a far smaller Injustice than the Government using Coercion to take a small amount of my Money?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 22:31
|
|
