|
Cemetry Gator posted:Can you stop with the "left-Progressives" talk. It makes you sound like a loving idiot. I have no idea who the left-Progressives are, or where the right-Progressives live, or what ideology you are discussing. How about just saying "people who advocate for social democracy." Seriously. Reading your posts is like reading a bad student paper. There's a reason why I didn't become a teacher over being a retail manager. If I had to deal with teenagers, I at least didn't want to read their work! I'm not talking about vaccines other than to say that I stand by my view that I oppose the State forcing people to take them against their will. I never said vaccines are "bad", or that people shouldn't take them. I stated something that is true, namely that there is a real danger to granting pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to produce vaccines that the State then MANDATES the public to take. The incentive structure is such that it encourages an overproduction of vaccines and pressure to give more and more vaccines at younger and younger ages, beyond the reasonable demands of public safety. Where's your skepticism of big money and distrust of corporate greed when it comes to vaccine production, Progressives? Let's not get sidetracked by that subject right now, okay? You've been involved in these debates with me for a while now, Cemetary Gator. Why do you keep conflating the libertarian policies I endorse with the sort of policies the United States is now living under? I can practically guarantee that the United States is currently farther away from the sort of policies I'd like that the sort that you'd recommend. Before I delve into that, let me back up my claims about Sweden. Everyone and their grandmother use Sweden as the sort of model social democracy that the United States ought to emulate. Bernie Sanders is doing so right now on the campaign trail. But the truth is that the wealth that Sweden has was created largely during the eighty to one hundred years before the social democratic reforms championed by progressives. There are two sources I'd like to cite to back up this point. The first is short article by Nima Sanandaji called "The Swedish Model Reassessed: Affluence Despite the Welfare State": http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf Pay careful attention to the charts and especially the list of sources at the end, which further back up the claims made. Here is something about the author: "Nima Sanandaji has a Master’s Degree from the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, anAdvanced Master’s Degree from The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and has previously conducted research studies at both Chalmers and the University of Cambridge. He is the president of the think tank Captus. Nima has previously published six books, covering subjects such as entrepreneurship, women’s career opportunities, and innovation within the IT sector. One of these books, as well as several published reports, focuses on Swedish integration policies and entrepreneurship within immigrant groups in Sweden. Nima has also written a number of articles for Swedish newspapers, such as Aftonbladet, Expressen, and Veckans Affärer, and international publications, such as The Wall Street Journal. The second source is an article called "How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich" by Johan Norberg. I'll post just the epilogue, though please read it in its entirety from the link below: quote:Epilogue http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich#.t3jtth:XePw The point I am making is that Progressives get confused and think that the market economy is a zero sum game where the rich exploit the poor and people starve and die without access to food, healthcare and needed accessories unless or until someone comes along and constructs a social welfare State that redistributes wealth to the less fortunate members of society. What I am arguing is that the trends that Progressives attribute to State policy (reduction in poverty, access to healthcare, the rise of the middle class) are almost always already existing features of a growing free market economy. The poverty rate was dropping rapidly for decades before the United States adopted any sort of national anti-poverty programs. The rate continued to drop at the same exact speed before flatlining where it has been for several decades now. Free markets with property rights and contract law are the engine which has lifted humanity out of poverty and provided the means by which starvation has been largely eliminated in the developed world. The problems that exist in the United States today have to do with State policy that has largely undone the great prosperity and productive capacity of our once great free market economy. The growing gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with our abandonment of a sound currency and our embrace of reckless fiat monetary policy which has empowered the parasitic and unproductive rich while punishing the poor, the savers, and the productive entrepreneur who bears the brunt of the regulations heaped onto the economy. It is indeed a rigged game but don't blame this on the free market or libertarian ideology! Cato puts out a yearly report where they rank the countries of the world according to their "economic freedom", i.e. correlation of policies with libertarian ideology. This year, the United States ranks 16th. These are the top countries ranked by their adherence to policies that promote economic freedom: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. New Zealand 4. Switzerland 5. United Arab Emirates 6. Mauritius 7. Jordan 8. Ireland 9. Canada 10. United Kingdom 11. Chile 12. Australia 13. Georgia 14. Qatar 15. Taiwan All these nations are deemed to be more economically free and thus closer to libertarianism than the United States. Interestingly, both Canada and the United Kingdom are ranked higher than the United States. But Progressives frequently cite those countries as the sort of "socialist" nations the "free market" United States ought to emulate. Let's focus our analysis on the top four most libertarian economies according to Cato. Do you suppose they have widespread starvation in Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand or Switzerland? Obviously not. If one looks at this list, it becomes clear that the more economically free nations have greater general prosperity which doesn't just accrue to the rich, but benefits everyone. Here is the full report: http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf What this should tell you is that we don't need to invalidate private property rights or embrace so-called "positive" rights (the right to healthcare, the right to a house) to create a prosperous society with a vibrant middle class and very few poor. If we embark down the path of fiat money, growing State debt and redistributive welfare, society will become much poorer in the long run. This is what the United States is teaching us, and Sweden as well. Both were vibrant and prosperous free market economies earlier in their history but later they became mired in repeating economic bubbles, increasing public debt and stagnating or declining growth. Then there is the insidious damage done by inflation which hurts the poorest while incentivising a parasitic class to mooch off the State rather than earn a living off honest, productive labor.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 08:31 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:16 |
|
Caros posted:Doublepost but who gives a poo poo in hellthread... No, a corporation can't homestead. A corporation is simply a contract between multiple people who came into the contract already owning certain things. The contract specifies which person owns what share of the wealth that the company produces. I think what you are implying is that it is contradictory for an employer to hire a worker to produce things for him and keep the excess profit because it is the worker who is actually "mixing his labor" with the raw materials and not the owner. But this is incorrect because the owner and the employee enter into a contract voluntarily. And the homesteading principle only applies in regards to un-owned land. If a worker works in a factory, he is mixing his labor with property which is already owned by the factory owner. Just as you can't dig up my front lawn and plant some seeds and then claim ownership over it, mixing ones labor with something which has already been homesteaded confers no property transfer or acquisition. I think I've gone over this before but I'll reiterate it because it is important. The reason that it is not exploitative for the employee to work for the employer but not reap the full return on his labor (the profits if any go to the employer) is because the employee has a high time preference and present goods are more valuable than future goods. And secondly, the employer assumes all the risk in the venture. The employer already has property which allows a worker to be much more productive than he otherwise could be on his own. Machines, forklifts, computers, whatever the case may be. The employee therefore gets to use this capital equipment which makes his labor much more valuable in exchange for a guaranteed weekly or twice monthly wage while not assuming any risk if the end product is not successful. Meanwhile the entrepreneur, the factory owner, assumes the full risk if his idea, product or service is not successful and he takes losses. Furthermore, there is a time delay before he sees any return on his investment in the form of profits. Given that it is a voluntary contract that satisfies both sides, it is not exploitative. And since the employer already owned (homesteaded or received via legitimate title transfer) the property he used, the fact that the employee mixes his labor with the property is immaterial. It is not impossible to determine who owns what in a partnership. As I said, each person who enters into a contract brings some form of legitimate property into the deal. That property was not stolen but was homesteaded or acquired through legitimate title transfer from someone who did homestead it. Then the contract would clearly specify how much of the output or profits of the joint venture each member is entitled to. Since property can be freely given away or sold, this is entirely consistent with libertarian theory and property rights. States are not like very large partnerships. Partnerships are voluntary and consensual. States, by their very definition, are coercive. If a State constituted just a bunch of people who enter into an agreement with their own property and leave everyone else alone, there is no libertarian objection to it. The problem is that States force everyone in an arbitrary geographic area to submit to its rules and live under its jurisdiction. I am forced to pay taxes to finance the effort. My property is seized whether I like it or not. Any number of people could enter into a partnership even if they abdicate their property rights in the process. Suppose ten thousand people enter into a contract to form a collective. They all enter into the contract with property they originally homesteaded. They stipulate that all this property is now part of a collective owned by all ten thousand members. If anyone decides to leave the collective in the future, they simply abandon their property. Then suppose the ten thousand decide to democratically decide how the collective property will be used. I think this would be foolish and would work poorly. But I wouldn't use force to stop them from doing it. The key point is that everyone involved is there of their free will. They are not violating anyone's property rights nor are they stopping anyone from leaving.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:01 |
|
This thread has been very successful in your clearly answering the question in the title OP, so congrats for clearing that up. Property Rights aren't really that important compared to the rights to the access of good healthcare, good education, good housing.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:10 |
|
jrodefeld posted:The problems that exist in the United States today have to do with State policy that has largely undone the great prosperity and productive capacity of our once great free market economy. The growing gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with our abandonment of a sound currency and our embrace of reckless fiat monetary policy which has empowered the parasitic and unproductive rich while punishing the poor, the savers, and the productive entrepreneur who bears the brunt of the regulations heaped onto the economy. It is indeed a rigged game but don't blame this on the free market or libertarian ideology! Hmmmm
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:15 |
|
Helsing posted:Honestly this is the lynch pin on which everything else he says hangs: I'm well aware of all that. I've never claimed that the United States was anything approaching a libertarian utopia at any point in its history. And there is a real reason why I separated economic freedom from social/personal freedom. We are absolutely more free in many ways than we were earlier in our history. But if you confine our analysis simply to economics, there was more freedom to start a business during the late 19th century and the money maintained its value. The American people had greater savings and less personal debt. We had a gold restrained monetary system, with the exception of the few times we abandoned the gold standard only to return to it shortly after, until 1933 and a link that remained until 1971. This sound currency restrained the growth of the State and allowed our economy to grow and our society to become the most prosperous the world had ever seen. We have to parse apart the good from the bad. American history is a mixed moral bag. Our government has committed unimaginable atrocities, but our society had from the founding been based on great ideas. Liberalism, Natural Rights, a restrained government and a free economy. We can both list dozens if not hundreds of ways that the State violated these values in its early history through the present day. But compared to other countries at the time, we had a way of beating back the State when it encroached upon our economic liberties which allowed us enough liberty to generate an unprecedented amount of prosperity. Another vitally important thing the US government was NOT doing prior to World War 1 was maintaining a world empire and stationing troops around the world. Sure, there were events where we used our military for non-defensive purposes, but in comparison to the foreign policy of the 20th century? We had a much more non-interventionist military policy in the 19th century. Racism was much worse. The genocide of the American Indians was grotesque as was the abhorrent legacy of Jim Crow and chattel slavery. I never speak about "going back" to an earlier time. I consider our founding to be a rough first draft of what a free society could be. We don't want to "go back" to the past, but move steadfast into a new future with new and better ideas. Libertarian ideas have progressed tremendously since the 19th century and we have a much better foundation for a future free society.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:24 |
|
Mofabio posted:I just wish any libertarian would address the Actually Existing Private Property system. I talked to tons of people afterwards about their experience with robberies - exactly zero people ever got their stuff back. In rich neighborhoods, cops even dusted for fingerprints. Nada. You might be able to anticipate my response, but the problem you faced has everything to do with the fact that the police are a part of the State. They have absolutely NO incentive to retrieve your stolen stuff. If, on the other hand you could hire competing security forces to secure your neighborhood and catch and punish thieves then you would be far more likely to see much better protection of your property rights. After all, a private business that depends on your voluntary payments rather than coercive taxation has every incentive to provide you with a good service. If they don't, you can fire them and hire a different security company.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:31 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm well aware of all that. I've never claimed that the United States was anything approaching a libertarian utopia at any point in its history. And there is a real reason why I separated economic freedom from social/personal freedom. We are absolutely more free in many ways than we were earlier in our history. But if you confine our analysis simply to economics, there was more freedom to start a business during the late 19th century and the money maintained its value. The American people had greater savings and less personal debt. We had a gold restrained monetary system, with the exception of the few times we abandoned the gold standard only to return to it shortly after, until 1933 and a link that remained until 1971 Bryter fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:32 |
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But I think by telling Jrod what he's doing wrong, I can improve the writing of other people. They can use JRod as an example of what not to do. The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win. I did want to mention that I don't copy and paste at all. Unless I clearly attribute something and put it in quotes, which I don't do often. I don't want people to think that because I write a lot of words, I am copying them from somewhere else. That is not the case.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:34 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You might be able to anticipate my response, but the problem you faced has everything to do with the fact that the police are a part of the State. They have absolutely NO incentive to retrieve your stolen stuff. If, on the other hand you could hire competing security forces to secure your neighborhood and catch and punish thieves then you would be far more likely to see much better protection of your property rights. After all, a private business that depends on your voluntary payments rather than coercive taxation has every incentive to provide you with a good service. If they don't, you can fire them and hire a different security company. I also like the idea of hiring thugs to beat up people who may or may not be guilty.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:38 |
|
jrodefeld posted:The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win. So you believe Native Americans have a claim to some of North America, and that the descendants of slaves are due reparations, right? What kind of proof for things you admit happened would you accept? Would genealogical evidence that a person is descended from a slave be sufficient proof to entitle them to reparations? How about a treaty signed with a Native American tribe? Or is it that you think these things theoretically should happen, but in practice can't happen because of...reasons.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:39 |
|
paragon1 posted:i thought laissez-faire was the natural state of man jrode. Why would Africans need us to "teach them" about it? Shouldn't it just come naturally? Where did I say that? If laissez-faire just came naturally, the world would be made up of libertarian countries. No, people have to have some economic literacy. People aren't born knowing everything. You'd have to read Bastiat's "The Law" or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" or something similar to be able to think like an economist. Remember, the primary difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that the good economist takes note of the "unseen" as well as the seen. This is not natural. It requires an understanding of economics and opportunity costs.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:44 |
|
jrodefeld posted:The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win. Except for the times we caught you plagiarizing. Other than that, yeah, I believe your word vomit is entirely typed by you. I just don't think there's much of a gap between what you read from a Good Libertarian Source and what you say - it doesn't get filtered through much thought.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:45 |
|
jrodefeld posted:All these nations are deemed to be more economically free and thus closer to libertarianism than the United States. Interestingly, both Canada and the United Kingdom are ranked higher than the United States. But Progressives frequently cite those countries as the sort of "socialist" nations the "free market" United States ought to emulate. So, hey. New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong all have the following things- State housing (far larger as a proportion of total than the US, especially in Hong Kong) State healthcare (Either compulsory insurance purchase as in Switzerland, or single-payer as in Singapore, or a mixed insurance and public option as in New Zealand and Hong Kong.) Compulsory primary and secondary education, state assistance for tertiary education. Paid Parental leave (10 weeks Hong Kong, 14 weeks Switzerland, 16 weeks Singapore and New Zealand) Annual paid leave (between 18 days and 39 days for all but Singapore Seamen) Minimum wage in all but Singapore. Singapore has a guaranteed minimum income for certain job roles. And I'm sure a whole bunch of other stuff that Libertarians want to tear down. Stop objecting to all of that stuff, and you'll get less angry responses.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 09:52 |
|
Andrast posted:I also like the idea of hiring thugs to beat up people who may or may not be guilty. And if you steal the victim's money, you leave them unable to buy their justice.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:15 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey jrod I have an urgent question, sorry for typos: phoneposting under some emotional stress. Have you heard the expression "hard cases make bad laws?" There are libertarians who have spoken about such extreme situations, but I want to speak about "lifeboat scenarios" in general because they are practically worthless regarding the validity of ethics or law that must be based on normal situations, not extreme and unusual circumstances that most of us are unlikely to ever encounter. Nearly every system of ethics breaks down in the most extreme of situations. I think Murray Rothbard wrote a good article about the problem with lifeboat situations and I'll cite a passage: quote:It is often contended that the existence of extreme, or "lifeboat," situations disproves any theory of absolute property rights, or indeed of any absolute rights of self-ownership whatsoever. It is claimed that since any theory of individual rights seems to break down or works unsatisfactorily in such fortunately rare situations, therefore there can be no concept of inviolable rights at all.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:24 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:"look i don't think he's racist, and i'm gonna say that, but i don't want to hear you say anything to the contrary" - a coward gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore. You are the coward. You wouldn't dare speak to me that way in person but, surrounded by 25 of your like-minded internet buddies and made anonymous by your IP address you act like a tough guy.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:30 |
|
QuarkJets posted:1) What do you think that the Soviet Union was trying to do by spreading communism? Jesus Christ. I actually figured that most of you would say "well, of course world government would be bad" and make up some excuse as to why your ideology doesn't logically lead to that place. But instead you embrace it as a good and desirable thing. If you look at how poor people in third world and undeveloped nations are, and how many people there are on the planet compared to the populations of the United States, Canada and Europe, how on earth would you NOT expect a substantial drop in prosperity for those of us who live in those countries? Do you have any idea how much money would have to be redistributed to Africa and India to make people materially equal? I wish the absolute best for everyone, but how responsive do you think a world government would be to the people they supposedly represent?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:38 |
|
jrodefeld why do you quote people's entire posts
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:39 |
|
Jrod, have you ever considered that you're absolutely garbage?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:41 |
|
jrodefeld in a world without regulations, whats to stop a dickcheese like this guy just pricing all the medicine that can save lives so that only the rich and wealthy can pay for it? Since I know you won't go back and read what I said on that before. jrodefeld posted:gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore. Why wouldn't he dare to speak to you that way in person, if I might ask? Should he be afraid you'd beat him up? E-Tank fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 10:44 |
|
Caros posted:Not to belabor but it isn't just we who think Hoppe is a racist. In the libertarian thread you yourself showed that you were leaning that was when it was pointed out to you that he hosts an annual conference for Race Realists. Just making sure everyone is aware. I promise I am NOT getting into a debate about Hoppe but I will only correct one thing you said. Hoppe doesn't host a conference for "race realists". He runs his own organization called "The Property and Freedom Society" which hosts lots of different speakers, even controversial ones. The vast majority of speakers are run of the mill libertarians, usually right-libertarians and sometimes paleo-conservatives. A couple times that I am aware the infamous Jared Taylor spoke at his conference. That is all there is. This is a far cry from hosting a conference FOR "race realists'. Hoppe is the direct descendant of Rothbard's late "paleo-libertarian" phase. Paleo-libertarianism tried to create an alliance between libertarians and conservatives and in that (in my view) misguided effort, some unsavory elements were brought into the libertarian tradition. Rothbard was so alienated from the Koch-funded "mainstream" of the libertarian movement and disillusioned from the break-up of the New Left that he had aligned himself with in the late 1960s and early 1970s that he had little choice but to form an alliance with the right. That is what the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters amounted to. They were crude fundraising letters reaching out to "the rednecks" by trying to capitalize on racial resentment sentiment that reached a fever pitch in the early 1990s, around the time of the LA Riots and the Rodney King incident. There is no evidence that any libertarian actually believed any of that rhetoric but it was seen as somehow legitimate to use it to form an alliance with even the unsavory elements, whatever was necessary to abolish the State. Luckily this "paleo" strategy was soon abandoned and libertarianism became more unified by the mid 1990s. Hoppe, however, continues to claim that libertarians ought to be natural allies of conservatives. I couldn't disagree more. Yet, I appreciate his Austrian economic literacy and his views on plenty of subjects. So I will take what I see of value from Hoppe just as I take what I value from left-libertarians like Gary Chartier, Sheldon Richman and Roderick Long.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:12 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I promise I am NOT getting into a debate about Hoppe but
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:14 |
|
Boo, as you're replying chronologically I can see you have ignored my response to you which I put a bit of thought into but you are willing to respond and get in a spat with "say it to my face, tuff guy" type responses to other posters.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:15 |
|
jrodefeld posted:If you look at how poor people in third world and undeveloped nations are, and how many people there are on the planet compared to the populations of the United States, Canada and Europe, how on earth would you NOT expect a substantial drop in prosperity for those of us who live in those countries? Do you have any idea how much money would have to be redistributed to Africa and India to make people materially equal? A world government obviously wouldn't make people materially equal instantly, but would do it as part of a long process of redistribution, with higher taxes on richer individuals, and more development in regions with less. I'd also imagine any potential world government would also be highly federalized, with global redistribution programs running alongside regional ones. Still though, lets take your notion at face value. According to the ILO the global average wage is $1480 per month. A straight redistribution of wealth would put everybody on this income. Now notably, that still represents a substantial *increase* in salary for anybody working for US minimum wage.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:18 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Jesus Christ. I actually figured that most of you would say "well, of course world government would be bad" and make up some excuse as to why your ideology doesn't logically lead to that place. But instead you embrace it as a good and desirable thing. I thought libertarians were all about breaking down barriers to trade? Surely borders are the last logical step on that journey? You could eliminate nearly 200 governments on the way to a world government! Libertarians should love it! jrodefeld posted:Austrian economic literacy lol Bryter fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:21 |
|
Undead Hippo posted:Still though, lets take your notion at face value. According to the ILO the global average wage is $1480 per month. A straight redistribution of wealth would put everybody on this income. Now notably, that still represents a substantial *increase* in salary for anybody working for US minimum wage. It would also end relative and absolute poverty as everyone would have equalised wealth which would put them above the $1-$2 absolute poverty limit.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:37 |
|
Sharkie posted:Thank you for entering into a contract with me, Jrod. We know the locations of certain southern plantations where Africans were enslaved and forced to work. Many of them still stand today. Libertarian justice would have granted the freed slaves a plot of land on the plantation they were forced to work once they were emancipated. The plantation owner would have to forfeit his property. Since this obviously DIDN'T happen, genealogical evidence can be used to determine whose descendants are still alive and, when they are located, a plot of land should be granted to them in my view. Or a cash settlement can be reached with the current occupant of the land. It may be harder to determine property rights claims for Native Americans but certainly treaties broken by the US government would be taken into account. Land that certain tribes were promised but were reneged on should certainly be regarded as stolen land to be given to descendants of the Native Americans who lived there. I know how many of you like to call me a racist, but I don't know many racists who would take a view like this. Justice should be served and there can be no statute of limitations on justice.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:43 |
|
jrodefeld posted:gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore. Jrod would trying to prevent someone from using a service or a space (say like a website) they have legally contracted to use be considered a form of violence? jrodefeld posted:We know the locations of certain southern plantations where Africans were enslaved and forced to work. Many of them still stand today. Libertarian justice would have granted the freed slaves a plot of land on the plantation they were forced to work once they were emancipated. The plantation owner would have to forfeit his property. Ok cool, I'm legit glad you support reparations for the descendants of slaves and for reverting large chunks of American land back to Native American control, that's something we can agree on. But the descendants of slaves should also be recompensed for the forced labor, right? I honestly think you'd agree. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:49 |
|
Sharkie posted:Ok cool, I'm legit glad you support reparations for the descendants of slaves and for reverting large chunks of American land back to Native American control, that's something we can agree on. Talk is cheap. It's all fine and dandy when you're talking in generalities, but when it comes to specific cases Jrod would be full of excuses for why the descendants don't deserve anything. It's just the same old fair weather friend bullshit, it's no different from the usual libertarian support of gay rights.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:53 |
|
Bryter posted:HMMMMMM So I speak about economic policy in the 19th century and you post a chart that starts in 1916. What is this supposed to prove? If anything, it only bolsters my case because of the massive increase in private debt in recent decades, following the break down of Breton Woods in 1971.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 11:56 |
|
jrodefeld posted:gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore. You're in no position to call anyone a coward, you selfish manchild. Every time someone brings a substantive argument to you you do the following: • Spew a giant wall of text, some of which may be straight up copy-pasted • Insist you don't want to talk about the subject anymore (while posting about it) • Refuse to address the issue at all, even when pressed on it Every single loving time. I'm literally watching you do it right now. Remember how you're talking about vaccines? jrodefeld posted:I'm not talking about vaccines other than to say that I stand by my view that I oppose the State forcing people to take them against their will. I never said vaccines are "bad", or that people shouldn't take them. I stated something that is true, namely that there is a real danger to granting pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to produce vaccines that the State then MANDATES the public to take. The incentive structure is such that it encourages an overproduction of vaccines and pressure to give more and more vaccines at younger and younger ages, beyond the reasonable demands of public safety. Where's your skepticism of big money and distrust of corporate greed when it comes to vaccine production, Progressives? Hey look, you don't want to talk about vaccines, you're bringing it up again, insisting that "the government shouldn't be allowed to make people get vaccinated, even though I think they are good", presumably because you have literally no comprehension of vaccines. Which is why the last time you posted about vaccines, you got loving [url="https://"http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=192#post441414775"]turbo[/url] destroyed. Of course, you aren't going to admit to actually believing any of the things you said, you're just going to insist that it was a miscommunication and you don't actually think, or ever thought, that vaccines may be linked to autism. This ties into a trend of you, noted coward jrodefeld, being completely incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions, or living up to anything you did. Notice how you kept saying in that thread that you didn't wan to talk about it, that you wanted to change the subject, but every single time you had to get the last word? Because god forbid someone call you out on your lovely views. The easiest solution for you, jrodefeld, is to just clamp your hands over your ears, go "LALALALALA" and pretend it didn't happen. I don't know how in your childhood you never learned to take accountability for anything, but I'm going to assume it's something you picked up from your mother that you keep talking about, and I'm going to hope that her business skills are better than her parenting skills. Remember when Muscle Tracer called you out on not answering that question about healthcare and elasticity? Here, let me post it again for you, just in case at some point you forgot. Muscle Tracer posted:You do not understand "inelasticity." Let me give you a two-part example: Do you know how long it took you to answer (while responding to way less substantive posts)? Three loving months, you coward. Three loving months to crawl through mises.org, hoping that you'll find a link on there, because god knows we've found you pulling pretty much every single source you've ever used from there. I'm not sure you've ever posted an original thought here; your method seems to be basically infodumping Mises on it with an attempted leftist spin, then backpedaling furiously as people call you out left and right for the consequences of your libertarian beliefs/who you look up to (e.g. Hoppe being a racist piece of poo poo, Rothbard literally advocating for child labor, etc.) until you go "hey guys, do-over" and try the same thing again. I'm convinced that you don't actually understand the words you write. You're like a sovereign citizen who knows that the arcane rituals to paralyze judges must be somewhere in the ::j of the family rodefeld:: and joinder and maritime law or something, but every time you're convinced you just must be messing up the magic words that will make us suddenly understand the great path of Libertopia. You assert things as fact and fundamental truth that aren't (and then refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect when you are called out on this). You refuse to acknowledge any negative consequences of your decisions (I'm not a racist, even though it's really clear that I'm supporting ideologies that would be terrible for not-white people!) You refuse to engage with anything that might have an answer you can't immediately pull from mises.org. And then you get mad because someone is calling you out. jrodefeld posted:You might be able to anticipate my response, but the problem you faced has everything to do with the fact that the police are a part of the State. They have absolutely NO incentive to retrieve your stolen stuff. If, on the other hand you could hire competing security forces to secure your neighborhood and catch and punish thieves then you would be far more likely to see much better protection of your property rights. After all, a private business that depends on your voluntary payments rather than coercive taxation has every incentive to provide you with a good service. If they don't, you can fire them and hire a different security company. Like this. "Lalalalala, economic coercion doesn't exist, lalalalala!" Like, we've gone over this before. You just sort of magically wishfully think that the free market will solve everything, and refuse to acknowledge any indications that it won't (even when given evidence). But hey, jrodefeld. Maybe you can have your grandparents come make some posts for you to save you from looking like even more of a coward, the same way they swooped in to take care of your medical bills. Good job bootstrapping yourself there, chief.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 12:08 |
|
Goddamm it Jrod, I didn't think you'd come for another beating.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 12:32 |
|
The Mattybee posted:You're in no position to call anyone a coward, you selfish manchild. Every time someone brings a substantive argument to you you do the following: Oh I see. Ever getting help from anyone somehow makes me a hypocritical libertarian? For the record, I only ever borrowed $1000 from my grandparents which I promptly paid back, but way to bring up a red herring. Let's get this straight though. I am not obligated to answer every single post on YOUR schedule. I've wasted far more time than I should on these forums. It's like you are unaware that unlike apparently some of you, I actually have a day job, family obligations and other hobbies. If I don't post here every loving week or every month, it doesn't make me a "coward" who had to concede defeat. I don't care what the gently caress you do. Just don't aim those loving guns in my direction. You don't really care about the State violence committed on your behalf. If there is a social problem you are concerned about, go fix it! Work in the market, create something, innovate. Don't use the political process to terrorize your fellow man into complying with your social designs. This is what sociopaths do. Civilized people interact with others on a voluntary basis. There is a reason I am trying to be really clear about what rights people have and what constitutes just property titles. If there is clarity on these fronts, it means you can't weasel your way out of it when it is inconvenient for you. You all want to make things very vague, so you can justify State coercion without constraint. For a principled person, there is a threshold that must be met if the State is to seize property. The property must be proven to be invalid for some clearly defined reason. It shouldn't be a vague justification or a democratic whim of the majority.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 12:33 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Oh I see. Ever getting help from anyone somehow makes me a hypocritical libertarian? For the record, I only ever borrowed $1000 from my grandparents which I promptly paid back, but way to bring up a red herring. Did you burst into existence a fully formed and independent adult?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 12:38 |
|
You might be worried that these men are about to coerce you: But no need to worry! Turns out they're private contractors, so all your interactions with them will be intrinsically voluntary! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/us/before-shooting-in-iraq-warning-on-blackwater.html Edit: Phew, it's a good thing they have an incentive to do a good job, unlike these 'police' I hear so much about. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:00 |
|
jrodefeld posted:For a principled person, there is a threshold that must be met if the State is to seize property. The property must be proven to be invalid for some clearly defined reason. It shouldn't be a vague justification or a democratic whim of the majority. Right. I'm glad that you finally agree that the state is sometimes justified to seize property from individuals for certain clearly defined reasons. For most of us in this thread, one of those clearly defined reasons is known as income. When somebody is above a certain income, the state has a justification to seize some property. The justification is that at a certain level of income, the property taken will not substantively affect the wellbeing of the individual it is being taken from, and may instead be usefully employed to increase the wellbeing of others, or on communal projects that would not otherwise be possible that are of benefit to everybody in the wider group.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:01 |
|
I like that after building southern prosperity on the backs of poor black people their decesendants are now entitled to a bit of land. Not a lot, and certainly none of the actual WEALTH that was created on the backs of their ancestors, which has since evolved into whole other forms of wealth and entanged into the world economy. But a bit of land, which may or may not be useful, conveniently located (yeah guy who was born and raised in Harlem, here's an empty corner of a field in Alabama, it's worth a few hundred bucks but it's all the way down there why don't you just sell it to me at half price now), or even large enough to stand on. We can't feed them (and all other poor people) through taxation though, that's COERCIVE.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:13 |
|
Haha no see we just made an alliance with racists and neoconfederates and apartheid-lovers because we decided low taxes were more important than racial equality and civil rights #wearethelibertypeople. We don't hate blacks, we were just willing to sell them out in exchange for a 31% top tax bracket #notracistbut
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Oct 15, 2015 |
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:29 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's get this straight though. I am not obligated to answer every single post on YOUR schedule. I've wasted far more time than I should on these forums. It's like you are unaware that unlike apparently some of you, I actually have a day job, family obligations and other hobbies. If I don't post here every loving week or every month, it doesn't make me a "coward" who had to concede defeat. You are not obligated to respond to posts, but at the same time just because you are responding voluntarily does not mean that your voluntary responses are good and worthwhile. The manner in which you voluntarily decide to respond to posts can be evasive, disingenuous and avoiding engaging with issues effectively. It's a valid point which you've completely misinterpreted (which is again part of the problem that is being raised)
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:45 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 17:16 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Oh I see. Ever getting help from anyone somehow makes me a hypocritical libertarian? For the record, I only ever borrowed $1000 from my grandparents which I promptly paid back, but way to bring up a red herring. I think it's hilarious, honestly, because in your ideal libertopia societ,y had you not been lucky enough to be born to grandparents with more money than sense, you'd be dead. jrodefeld posted:Let's get this straight though. I am not obligated to answer every single post on YOUR schedule. I've wasted far more time than I should on these forums. It's like you are unaware that unlike apparently some of you, I actually have a day job, family obligations and other hobbies. If I don't post here every loving week or every month, it doesn't make me a "coward" who had to concede defeat. Oh hey, look, jrodefeld. You're refusing to take accountability for your actions. Again. Which one of us posted the big confrontational thread after having to be contained to his own thread because he'd constantly make lovely threads, run away, and then make another lovely thread? It's not me! And frankly, the fact that you're responding to this instead of any of the substantial posts that actually might require you to know anything about anything, ever is exactly why you're a coward. You respond to the easy poo poo. You respond to things like this, like little one-off posts, but you do not engage with substance unless you have to. You ask for the debate, and then when it comes down to it you put off answering hard questions as long as possible. Your quantity is not what makes you a coward, jrodefeld. Your avoidance of content-filled posts in favor of bullshit like this makes you a coward. jrodefeld posted:I don't care what the gently caress you do. Just don't aim those loving guns in my direction. You don't really care about the State violence committed on your behalf. If there is a social problem you are concerned about, go fix it! Work in the market, create something, innovate. Don't use the political process to terrorize your fellow man into complying with your social designs. I dunno, my interactions with the government seem pretty voluntary. Have you considered moving? (You wouldn't consider it, because you are a coward who cannot bear the idea of being even slightly inconvenienced.) jrodefeld posted:For a principled person, there is a threshold that must be met if the State is to seize property. The property must be proven to be invalid for some clearly defined reason. It shouldn't be a vague justification or a democratic whim of the majority. Are you telling me that taxation has no clearly defined reason? Which member of your family taught you that, or which Mises article?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2015 13:55 |