|
Plastics, how does it feel to be a literally crazy? TIA, and also please see a mental health professional
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Plastics posted:Or could it be that actually Governments do not exists by or for the People and have always been and will always be the tools of the very elite you fear in my system? Except in my system they have no formal powers and can only do what they earn the ability to do rather than forcing everyone to bow down to their laws? Please highlight how Libertarian-ism won't just be a bastion for the 'Haves/Elites'. Thank in advance Oh wait its too late, you said Libertarianism will allow people to fufill their natural roles of poverty or wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please highlight how Libertarian-ism won't just be a bastion for the 'Haves/Elites'. Thank in advance Until our beloved jrod comes back, this is a thread of rabid piranhas eating rancid meat. "I am in favor of my principles even if they directly lead to human extinction." "...hey, but what about...?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
I hold to the principle that human extinction is bad, and will gladly pay the 'price' of not getting to live in libertopia for this principle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I hold to the principle that human extinction is bad, and will gladly pay the price of not getting to live in libertopia for this principle. I say we sell tickets and setup live feeds. Its going to be a riot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Plastics posted:If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside. "I'm willing to pay the price of dead sick kids and poors being sold into slavery if it means I can stop paying income tax!"  so brave
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Plastics is the guy who protests the banning of child labor in textile factories, not because he has any stake in it, but because he thinks those children don't deserve to have their scalpes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so the thing a lot of Statists seem to not recognize is that if they take on those contracts because they need to then it is by definition fair. If they need the employer more than the reverse and that gives the employer power then that is perfectly fair and reasonable. How could it not be? Getting a job is something we do to afford things we need or want. If my only skills command a low wage then why should I get a higher wage? How could anyone even begin to argue that it is fair or rational to pay people more than what the market decides is the value of their labor? quote:And saying the Gilded Age was bad is pretty crazy. The fastest growth of the economy in US history which INCLUDED wages in real terms. The creation of the industrial economy and building great cities filled with gleaming skyscrapers and works projects as vast as transcontinental railroads and so on and so on. Plus of course people who are opposed to capitalism like to pretend this was some great era of poverty and exploitation by cruel robber barons but in fact those people often donated tremendous amounts of their wealth to things social causes and institutions such as museums and universities. It is latter day propaganda that makes it sound like some kind of horrific DIckensian nightmare whilst actually the poor were mostly recent immigrants who managed to improve their situations once they found work and learned the language.  This was an age in which things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire occurred, and regulations were passed directly in response to the abuses of the age, and that's your argument? "Nuh-uh, didn't happen"?And please, dear lord, tell me you are not serious about the charity bit, because if you think charity can deal with overwhelming issues in society like healthcare and poverty, I invite you read through some of the earlier pages of this thread, where people exhaustively detailed how that is not the loving case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Plastics posted:And saying the Gilded Age was bad is pretty crazy. The fastest growth of the economy in US history which INCLUDED wages in real terms. The creation of the industrial economy and building great cities filled with gleaming skyscrapers and works projects as vast as transcontinental railroads and so on and so on. Plus of course people who are opposed to capitalism like to pretend this was some great era of poverty and exploitation by cruel robber barons but in fact those people often donated tremendous amounts of their wealth to things social causes and institutions such as museums and universities. It is latter day propaganda that makes it sound like some kind of horrific DIckensian nightmare whilst actually the poor were mostly recent immigrants who managed to improve their situations once they found work and learned the language. No. The Gilded Age wasn't bad. IT WAS loving AWFUL. It WAS a Dickensian nightmare, jackass. It was the age of exploitation and company towns, the age of abuse and company paid thugs. How the gently caress are you praising it?! Half of the benefits we enjoy in this modern age (No Child Labor, Wage Laws, Humane Hours, Labor Laws, OSHA, etc.) are direct responses to the freaking crimes of the Gilded Age. The only reason we enjoy weekends in the United States is because people rioted/striked/got shot/arrested/bullied/beaten for them. theshim posted:And please, dear lord, tell me you are not serious about the charity bit, because if you think charity can deal with overwhelming issues in society like healthcare and poverty, I invite you read through some of the earlier pages of this thread, where people exhaustively detailed how that is not the loving case. Oh, don't forget the charities that directly blackmail you into doing things to get charity, like joining their church (or else) or voting the way they want (or else). CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Charity works great! When people have a lot of extra money laying around they can ignore their economic interests and throw money away on strangers hoping that it'll help people instead of getting misused! Unlike that evil Universal Healthcare that actually works great in the real world where people live. What happens when times are bad and people don't have a lot of excessive money to give to charities? Well gee I hope that doesn't happen. Now, let's move onto why we need to switch to buttcoin...
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Do I you honestly believe that the majority of the poor were recently immigrated and couldn't speak English? Really?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Plastics posted:If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside. Isn't this exactly what you are doing by paying taxes that you know will go to fund the FDA's reign of terror? Why aren't you holding to your principles and withholding your sanction and your financial support from USA's military police state, downside of federal prison be damned? You are literally (literally) Dr Mengele's medical assistant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Plastics, if your "P"rinciples ask for the extinction of the human race, perhaps that's proof that they aren't tenable? Afterall, the extermination of the human race would eradicate all "P"rinciples, thus betraying your "P"rinciples, paradoxically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Plastics posted:And saying the Gilded Age was bad is pretty crazy. The fastest growth of the economy in US history which INCLUDED wages in real terms. The creation of the industrial economy and building great cities filled with gleaming skyscrapers and works projects as vast as transcontinental railroads and so on and so on. Plus of course people who are opposed to capitalism like to pretend this was some great era of poverty and exploitation by cruel robber barons but in fact those people often donated tremendous amounts of their wealth to things social causes and institutions such as museums and universities. It is latter day propaganda that makes it sound like some kind of horrific DIckensian nightmare whilst actually the poor were mostly recent immigrants who managed to improve their situations once they found work and learned the language. On the off chance you're not a gimmick, I'll point out that this is staggeringly ahistoric bullshit of the first magnitude and you're a total fuckoff for suggesting it's not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Okay, to sum up:
e: I probably missed a bunch, I'm dead tired. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Plastics posted:If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside. You have stated you're willing to let the entire human race go extinct for your principles. You're willing to let other people suffer so you can have your principles. You are not a jew who's sacrificing himself for his principles. You're the prison camp guard who chose to sacrifice all the jews for his principles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so the thing a lot of Statists seem to not recognize is that if they take on those contracts because they need to then it is by definition fair. If they need the employer more than the reverse and that gives the employer power then that is perfectly fair and reasonable. How could it not be? Getting a job is something we do to afford things we need or want. If my only skills command a low wage then why should I get a higher wage? How could anyone even begin to argue that it is fair or rational to pay people more than what the market decides is the value of their labor? So, we have a situation where many employers are knowingly giving employees less than they could, sometimes less than the cost of living, sometimes less than is legally allowed or was specifically promised, for the sole purpose of padding their profits a little more. Are you actually trying to claim that that's somehow fair? Because if so, your definition of the word "fair" is bonkers. If the market decides that the value of your labor is less than the cost of living, the market is wrong, especially when it is in fact a cost that the market could easily bear. This is especially true because people having a bit more money to spend puts more money into the local economy and generally helps everyone out. quote:Okay this is actually pretty easy to answer but people do not LIKE the answer because they feel insulted by it. The answer is that some people like power and some people like having decisions made for them and the second group gives power to the first group (usually thinking this will be a beneficial arrangement because it will give them Security or wealth or equality) and over time this goes from listening to your wise tribal elder because he has proven he is wise to building huge pyramids for the pharoah. Now, the differences between the public and private sectors aren't nothing, but I've noticed a tendency for libertarians to act as though they were cosmically different, and act as though one were automatically just and the other unjust. Anything bad that you see the government doing, the private sector can and will do (and has done in the past) if there's profit in it. And as consumers, our ability to influence large companies just isn't that great, certainly not anywhere near as good as you seem to think it is. Government has its issues to be sure, but it doesn't have the overwhelming need to pursue a profit motive even at the cost of human lives. Governments do kill people, sometimes with good intentions and sometimes without, but absent corruption from the private sector they generally don't kill people solely to make a number go a bit higher. quote:If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside.  !) has the downside that they get killed. What libertarians call "coercion" tends to have the "consequence" of a functional society where we don't let quite too many people die in the streets for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
I gotta say, I've seen libertarianism as a scam and libertarianism as a religion, but libertarianism as a planet-wide death cult is new.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I gotta say, I've seen libertarianism as a scam and libertarianism as a religion, but libertarianism as a planet-wide death cult is new. Yet oddly appropriate and logical, once the faint veneer of and pretension to intellectual respectability is finally stripped away, as Plastics has done here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so the thing a lot of Statists seem to not recognize is that if they take on those contracts because they need to then it is by definition fair. If they need the employer more than the reverse and that gives the employer power then that is perfectly fair and reasonable. The only reason the workers "need" the employer at all is because the employer owns the poo poo they need to do their work (land, resources, machines), because private property is a thing, because it is enforced through coercion upon the propertyless by a state and armed police force. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so the thing a lot of Statists seem to not recognize is that if they take on those contracts because they need to then it is by definition fair. If they need the employer more than the reverse and that gives the employer power then that is perfectly fair and reasonable. How could it not be? Getting a job is something we do to afford things we need or want. If my only skills command a low wage then why should I get a higher wage? How could anyone even begin to argue that it is fair or rational to pay people more than what the market decides is the value of their labor? How do you determine the value of labor? Should someone who was born to a family of lesser means be doomed to starve just because they have no marketable skills in your world? What do you do when your skillset is made obsolete by technological advances? Also, why do you think that people wouldn't lie/cheat and steal their way to the top in a free market economy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No, that would be the initiation of Force, how would that be Just? Force is defensible when it is retaliatory (though whether that means it must be proportionate I have not yet come to a personal conclusion on) but not otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
1000101 posted:How do you determine the value of labor? I think I can answer these questions starting from the principle that it's better every man, woman, and child on this here planet of earth perish than for a bureaucrat to inconvenience a property owner in the mildest of ways. (1)Yes (2) Starve (3) So what if they do
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Plastics posted:No, that would be the initiation of Force, how would that be Just? Force is defensible when it is retaliatory (though whether that means it must be proportionate I have not yet come to a personal conclusion on) but not otherwise. Then we're agreed; the government's use of force against you for refusing to pay taxes would be retaliatory and therefore legitimate
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Regulation of dangerous business actions is like retaliatory force but from the future. Whoa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. Okay, then we agree-- Plastics posted:But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. So since "rich people might have to share", it's obviously better to create a world where it's not fair, because fairness is less important than "people being allowed to keep their things as opposed to being forced to share for the good of all". Like, you literally just admitted that the reason is "gently caress you, got mine". Plastics posted:But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. Like what? Plastics posted:And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms. Which is why people got paid better when there were less labor laws during the Industrial Revolution (or other times where we had less labor laws), right? Riiiight?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
You know what the real problem with the government is? It helps too many people. Immigrants Aren’t the Only Ones Who Shouldn’t Be Voting by Ryan McMaken Much of the current immigration debate in the United States centers around the issue of “amnesty,” which is a vague term that may mean anything from “we won’t deport you” to “let’s fast-track you to citizenship and voting rights.” From a laissez-faire perspective, the deportation aspect of amnesty — an increase in federal inaction — is one thing. The extension of voting privileges, though, is something else entirely. Indeed, the amnesty debate has helped to illustrate the difference between real, concrete property rights, and the much different political “rights” such as voting. Limiting property rights is always illegitimate. Limiting political rights, on the other hand, may sometimes be essential. Property Rights vs. Political “Rights” For example, everyone everywhere has property rights regardless of the type of regime they live under and whether or not the government recognizes the existence of those rights. These rights include the right to own one’s own body, to own property peacefully acquired, and to enter into peaceful contracts with other people, including contracts involving employment and housing. The foreign nationals known as “illegal immigrants” also have these rights. But property rights such as these should not be confused with political “rights” that are quite distinct from the right to self-ownership. In fact, in practice, political rights such as voting are often used to justify coercion against others in the form of expanding government spending, and government control over every aspect of daily life. Critics of amnesty who wish to further restrict the free use of property by employers, landlords, and laborers make a mistake when they try to limit immigration by restricting property rights. On the other hand, they are on more solid ground when they attempt to restrict the further expansion of government power by restricting the franchise and the number of people eligible (via citizenship) for government checks. The assumption behind this position on immigrants is that new arrivals tend to seek an expansion of government benefits, and that they are net tax receivers who get more in tax benefits than they pay in. This is an empirical claim that may or may not be true. But, it is no doubt true that some immigrants are in fact net tax receivers, and it is in that direction that we should direct our attention. Limiting Government Size by Limiting the Vote In making their arguments against expanding the vote to immigrants, the activists who hold this position place themselves among the few who are actually confronting the problem of widespread voting rights in a society where large numbers of net tax receivers also have the ability to vote further benefits for themselves. However, when we really start to examine the sheer number of voters who benefit from expansions in government spending, immigrants begin to look insignificant by comparison. The legions of government employees, government contractors, and Social Security recipients all know that any significant cuts in government spending would hurt them personally. And they vote. So, if we’re going to take the position that those who benefit from tax funds should not vote, why limit ourselves to looking at immigrants? The Net Taxpayers vs. the Net Tax Receivers In his short book Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises examined this problem in the context of government employees. In a section titled “The Bureaucrat as a Voter” Mises explains: quote:The bureaucrat is not only a government employee. He is, under a democratic constitution, at the same time a voter and as such a part of the sovereign, his employer. He is in a peculiar position: he is both employer and employee. And his pecuniary interest as employee towers above his interest as employer, as he gets much more from the public funds than he contributes to them. Mises went on to examine the rise of powerful interest groups in France and Germany in the years before “the fall of their democratic constitutions.” He explained: quote:There were not only the hosts of public employees, and those employed in the nationalized branches of business (e.g., railroad, post, telegraph, and telephone), there were the receivers of the unemployment dole and of social security benefits, as well as the farmers and some other groups which the government directly or indirectly subsidized. Their main concern was to get more out of the public funds. They did not care for “ideal” issues like liberty, justice, the supremacy of the law, and good government. They asked for more money, that was all. No candidate for parliament, provincial diets, or town councils could risk opposing the appetite of the public employees for a raise. The various political parties were eager to outdo one another in munificence. Mises concluded: quote:Representative democracy cannot subsist if a great part of the voters are on the government pay roll. If the members of parliament no longer consider themselves mandatories of the taxpayers but deputies of those receiving salaries, wages, subsidies, doles, and other benefits from the treasury, democracy is done for. Not surprisingly, many commentators who rightly point out the problem of government largesse and voting rights for immigrants also fail to mention all those more politically powerful and popular groups (i.e., builders of roads and weapons, and pensioners) whose incomes also depend on government spending. And of course, the “official” government employees all depend directly on a government check for their incomes, and in much larger numbers than any group of immigrants. Although federal law and the decisions of the federal courts mandate that all citizens be given a one-man, one-vote status, it remains abundantly clear that it is imprudent in the extreme to allow a person who depends primarily on government funds for his or her income to exercise a vote in any election that may have an impact on his or her paycheck. In any other context, this would be considered an enormous conflict of interest. Naturally, we would not approve of a city council member who votes on whether or not the city should hire his own firm to pave the city’s streets (although this surely happens anyway). And yet, we blithely accept that voters should be allowed to do something extremely similar. And while it may be correct, it is nevertheless politically easy to oppose voting rights and welfare checks for immigrants, because they vote in relatively small numbers. But such action will amount to little in the long run unless the net taxpayers begin to confront the reality that the voters who vote to keep the government money flowing will be well represented among those longtime citizens cheering the loudest at next year’s suburban Fourth of July fireworks show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And you are too much of a coward to do that, therefore you do not actually hold the Principals you claim that you do. I have already explained more than once that I think we need to come to Anarchist Libertarianism in a certain way and that as a result of that I think that some sacrifices need to be made in order to reach that point. I do not like doing this but I know well enough that if I tried to defy the Government as it stands today I would very soon end up in prison and be silenced just like lots of historical figures have ended up (and I am just a regular guy rather than a gifted speaker or leader or anything) so I could throw myself on my sword and achieve nothing or I could accept that I am not abiding by all my Principles (and I seem to be the only person around here who actually AMITS they can not or do not live up to everything they hold True) because I hope that in so doing I will achieve something down the line. Unless you all think that Slaves who did NOT let themselves be tortured and killed instead of doing the work demanded of them were wrong then maybe you should all back off me! CommieGIR posted:Please highlight how Libertarian-ism won't just be a bastion for the 'Haves/Elites'. Thank in advance Because as I already explained the Government is playing the biggest part in keeping poor people poor. It creates dependency and it is in the pocket of the big businesses and rich elites you hate so much! They use that power of the state to create laws and regulations and so forth that all benefit them. If the Government did not exist this kind of cronyism would not be possible and people would have much MORE social mobility because many (not all but many) of the barriers to that would be gone. If and when it does result in some people having more than others well so what, that must by definition be fair if the system has not had interference in it? theshim posted:Because, if left to its own devices, the Free Market localizes power in the hands of a very small number, who then can decide that the value of people's labor is barely sufficient food and water to ensure they can continue working and not a single thing else. The Free Market is not this all-knowing god-arbiter of the value of everything; it, like many other things (say, the government you seem to fear and distrust so) are subject to being coopted by people with an agenda, and as a purely economic system assigns no worth whatsoever to the value of people's lives or happiness, with predictable results. This is the bit that a lot of people seem to be having trouble with! The Free Market is completely not that you are right! It is not a knowing and knowledgeable thing that exists but it is rather a Mechanism by which other things can be figured out! quote:Holy loving poo poo. Okay to the first part there: Bhopal or Deepwater Horizon or Fukushima! These disasters all happened under YOUR system and what came about as a result? Nothing at all except some finds that nobody had any trouble paying. If your System worked and actually did any of the things you claim the businesses responsible would be out of business. So even if everything you say about what I propose was 100% per cent true our Systems would then be exactly equal. You have the System that already exists and you are not doing a very good job of defending it! CommieGIR posted:No. The Gilded Age wasn't bad. IT WAS loving AWFUL. This is all ahistorical propaganda that was created during the FDR era in order to justify his new Deal. If you examine some history books from before the 1930s you will see a very different picture! Or you could look at the statistics from the era featuring the greatest economic growth in American history INCLUDING the largest rises in real wages ever! quote:Oh, don't forget the charities that directly blackmail you into doing things to get charity, like joining their church (or else) or voting the way they want (or else). I do not understand what the problem is with most of this. Voting yes but the corruption of the 'democratic' process is not really an issue when democracy itself is a sham designed to maintain power for the rich and elites! The rest of it though is "I will give you something if you give me something in return" and that is not blackmail that is the basic trading exchange that has been going on for as long as we can identify. The time before we traded like that is the time before we were even humans. CharlestheHammer posted:Do I you honestly believe that the majority of the poor were recently immigrated and couldn't speak English? Yes, really! Guilty Spork posted:Employers simply do not set wages based on the value an employee produces for the company. They generally set wages as low as they can get away with within the bounds of the law (or whatever shape they can bend the law into) and what lets them get sufficiently qualified applicants. That means that there is a substantial gap between what a competently run business pays its employees and what it could pay them if the people in charge weren't pursuing profits over human dignity. Even companies like Google that are renowned for treating their employees well have colluded to keep wages down and started using an underclass of temp workers. Multiple studies have shown that even if a retailer were to put the entirety of a living wage increase into raising prices, the difference would be measured in pocket change. If we get the $15 an hour minimum wage that many people want, we won't see $20 hamburgers as some hack political cartoonists like to claim. The wage (and other benefits) that you can negotiate with your employer is BY DEFINITION fair in a system that does not have coercion in it. If you do not like the wages you are getting or are offered then find another job. If you can NOT do that then you do not have skills people find useful so why should you be paid more than your utility? If people want to PRIVATELY CHOOSE to help you then they can do that but you can not Force people into this kind of distorted market insanity and act like that is Just. quote:You'll find that most of the people posting in this thread are utilitarian in that they care more about the quality of outcomes than the philosophical underpinnings that go into them. Betraying your fellow Jews to the Nazis ( Oh I am sorry to hear that and I did not realize people were so misguided here. Utilitarianism is Evil and it is saying that if 51 people vote to murder 49 the 49 must accept it. If two people want to rape one person the one person must accept it because they are outnumbered. Utilitarianism is the most disgusting and vile and Immoral of all systems, it does not have any Principles except whatever feels best at the time and there is no room for Logic or Reason (but they will pretend that is what they use because they recognize that those things are important and respected by most people). Nolanar thank you for posting that article because it shows some of what I am saying better than I am able to do 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Man, its ashme recorded history and first hand accounts were a thing by the Gilded Age, else you might actually have a leg to stand on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Plastics posted:I have already explained more than once that I think we need to come to Anarchist Libertarianism in a certain way and that as a result of that I think that some sacrifices need to be made in order to reach that point. I do not like doing this but I know well enough that if I tried to defy the Government as it stands today I would very soon end up in prison and be silenced just like lots of historical figures have ended up (and I am just a regular guy rather than a gifted speaker or leader or anything) so I could throw myself on my sword and achieve nothing or I could accept that I am not abiding by all my Principles (and I seem to be the only person around here who actually AMITS they can not or do not live up to everything they hold True) because I hope that in so doing I will achieve something down the line. Unless you all think that Slaves who did NOT let themselves be tortured and killed instead of doing the work demanded of them were wrong then maybe you should all back off me! Consider: In the above paragraphs you capitalized the following non-proper adjectives and nouns: - Evil - Principles - Logic - Reason - Force - Just - System - Mechanism - Free Market (I guess for you this is like capitalizing "God," so maybe it's ok) - Slaves It makes it harder to engage with the substance of an argument when your reader is constantly thinking "why is this crazy person capitalizing every single abstract noun?" Nobody here is going to cure you of your stupid anti-empirical philosophy, but by gum we are going to cure you of this idiotic stylistic tic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
It's really sorta refreshing to see a libertarian that just embraces the racism inherent in the philosophy and says, "Foreigners should be a de jure underclass, and integration was the greatest crime of the century."
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
You yourself said slavery is voluntary and that it is the slaves fault for being slaves because they chose slavery over death. Don't whine at us when we hold you to the same standards that you're holding everyone else. Also Bhopal occurred because business interests sought out a less regulated environment where they could ignore safety procedures, the very thing your ilk argue are evil. Your equating of India and the USA like they're the exact same thing doesn't score you any points, it just makes you look like an ignorant jackass. As does your hand-waving away of facts as propaganda. You're incredibly intellectually lazy on top of being evil, what a surprise. quote:Oh I am sorry to hear that and I did not realize people were so misguided here. Utilitarianism is Evil and it is saying that if 51 people vote to murder 49 the 49 must accept it. If two people want to rape one person the one person must accept it because they are outnumbered. Utilitarianism is the most disgusting and vile and Immoral of all systems, it does not have any Principles except whatever feels best at the time and there is no room for Logic or Reason (but they will pretend that is what they use because they recognize that those things are important and respected by most people). This is Utilitarianism about as much free beer is Fascism. Which is to say, "holy crap not even close".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
You missed Government, but that's a lot like Satan, so we can let that slide too. Edit: also, if killing and eating 49% percent of the population is wrong, I don't want to be right. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:It's really sorta refreshing to see a libertarian that just embraces the racism inherent in the philosophy and says, "Foreigners should be a de jure underclass, and integration was the greatest crime of the century." Yeah between agreeing with that article and the accusation that all poor people in the Gilded Age (sharecroppers? never heard of them!) were non-integrated non-English speakers...yeah. How do you feel about immigrants Plastics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:You missed Government, but that's a lot like Satan, so we can let that slide too. Immoral too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
It's hilarious how you openly admit your hypocrisy towards taxation and yet still call slavery a choice since they could die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Unless you all think that Slaves who did NOT let themselves be tortured and killed instead of doing the work demanded of them were wrong then maybe you should all back off me! This is literally your stated position, not ours. I'm sorry if you don't like being forced to take a critical look at your own philosophy but that's really not my problem now, is it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Was the gilded age really the biggest in terms of expansion and GDP increase and such because I thought the post WW2 new deal era was the highest point of US productivity
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Oh I am sorry to hear that and I did not realize people were so misguided here. Utilitarianism is Evil and it is saying that if 51 people vote to murder 49 the 49 must accept it. If two people want to rape one person the one person must accept it because they are outnumbered. Utilitarianism is the most disgusting and vile and Immoral of all systems, it does not have any Principles except whatever feels best at the time and there is no room for Logic or Reason (but they will pretend that is what they use because they recognize that those things are important and respected by most people). Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. The harm done by 49 of the people being murdered vastly outweighs any possible benefit the 51 could get from them being killed. It's not a voting system. Your description of utilitarianism is absurd and has literally no resemblance to what anybody believes. Make some loving effort to understand what you're arguing against.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Plastics posted:The wage (and other benefits) that you can negotiate with your employer is BY DEFINITION fair in a system that does not have coercion in it. If you do not like the wages you are getting or are offered then find another job. If you can NOT do that then you do not have skills people find useful so why should you be paid more than your utility? If people want to PRIVATELY CHOOSE to help you then they can do that but you can not Force people into this kind of distorted market insanity and act like that is Just. You totally avoided addressing the point that employers pay employees significantly less than the value they produce as a matter of course, and you are completely leaving out the part about how the relationship between employee and employer is decidedly unequal. There are people who have the option to just up and quit their job if they don't like it, but for more of the population than not, that's just not a tenable proposition. They may not be using "coercion" in the libertarian sense, but giving someone the "free choice" to work a (possibly terrible) job or die in the streets is for all intents and purposes coercion. The utter failure to address the free market's ability to exert pressure/coercion is one of the single biggest strikes against libertarianism. Finally, regulating the market to not screw over employees does work in real life. Every last proposed law to reduce the suffering of workers has been met with talk like yours about how it would distort the market and cause an economic armageddon, and it has never once been the case. At this point you're basically on the side of the boy who cried wolf. We're not "distorting" the market, we're containing its well-documented murderous tendencies. Plastics posted:Oh I am sorry to hear that and I did not realize people were so misguided here. Utilitarianism is Evil and it is saying that if 51 people vote to murder 49 the 49 must accept it. If two people want to rape one person the one person must accept it because they are outnumbered. Utilitarianism is the most disgusting and vile and Immoral of all systems, it does not have any Principles except whatever feels best at the time and there is no room for Logic or Reason (but they will pretend that is what they use because they recognize that those things are important and respected by most people).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 23:31
|
|