|
https://www.google.com/search?q=slaves+in+UAE&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 There you go chucklefuck.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am frankly astonished at the amount of time you all have spent focusing on this particular post and then inferring that it proves libertarians don't care about slavery. Caros was the only one that touched upon any actual substance regarding this claim, but even he didn't go into much substance. To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". We are not, by and large, speaking about actual chattel slavery in which human beings are legally sold as physical property and cannot disassociate from their masters, correct? Did you somehow miss the point in my post where I talked about how workers who enter the country are not physically allowed to leave without the permission of their employers, permission those employers then frequently deny to keep them in country working under indentured conditions? Are you seriously going to be a pedantic little poo poo about this after I explicitly explained it to you? Slavery in Qatar and the UAE isn't a little issue about labor rights or unionization. Large, impartial, international organizations have all declared the conditions for these workers to be varying degress of "Modern slavery" "Neo-Feudalism" "Basically slavery" and so on. This is not in loving question by anyone except you because you are too loving childish to actually admit that you were wrong on an issue. Jesus loving Christ. These are people who can't leave the country without permission, can't move without permission, can't switch jobs without permission, can't open a loving bank account without permission. Do they need to be held in literal loving chains for you to acknowledge that this is something above just 'not having enough rights?' And don't even try to say "Well I didn't know that". You referenced my post, so one of two things happened. Either you skimmed it briefly and didn't realize your mistake before tripping over your own two feet in coming to post about how it isn't real slavery, or you are chosing to ignore the multitude of labor abuses that I described that make this slavery. For fucksake Jrodefeld your own retarded definition of slavery is "can't disassociate" and I explicitly provided a common problem that detailed how these people are unable to dissasociate from their owners. So which is it Jrodefeld? Did you just not read my post in your haste to talk about how it isn't real slavery? Or are you just being a disingenuous little poo poo who sees every single thing but is still going to try to argue against it without even doing the most cursory research to show that you are up your own rear end. Here is the a quote from the goddamned wikipedia article on the issue, which should at least be the most basic reading for anyone who wants to discuss something like this: quote:Most of these people voluntarily migrate to Qatar as low-skilled laborers or domestic servants, but are subsequently subjected to conditions indicative of involuntary servitude. Some of the more common labor rights violations include beatings, withholding of payment, charging workers for benefits which are nominally the responsibility of the amir, severe restrictions on freedom of movement (such as the confiscation of passports, travel documents, or exit permits), arbitrary detention, threats of legal action, and sexual assault.[28] Many migrant workers arriving for work in Qatar have paid exorbitant fees to recruiters in their home countries – a practice that makes workers highly vulnerable to forced labor once in Qatar. THAT IS NOT A loving LABOR DISPUTE YOU QUIBBLING PIECE OF poo poo. THAT IS SLAVERY UNDER YOUR OWN GODDAMNED DEFINITION! You want to be taken seriously when you come onto these forums but then you squat down and drop something like this and I don't even know what to say. The information that you are wrong has been provided to you in this thread and you say claim that I haven't gone into enough substance. Meanwhile you can't be bothered to do a basic loving google search to determine the conditions of the people you are talking about, but you are still more than willing to drop a very specific statement about how it isn't really slavery, and the 4,400 people expected to die working on the world cup stadium aren't really being worked to death with no pay and no ability to leave. I am very patient with you, but poo poo like this pushes the upper boundaries of my goodwill. You want to make an argument that it isn't really slavery, then make it. Make it with facts, make it with evidence. Don't come in and say "Oh you see it isn't slavery because they aren't literally shackled to the floor between shifts" (mind you some of them are). If you want to argue a point then argue it, but do not do this poo poo again. quote:That is not to say that workers rights are not important, but you've got to have a pretty clear definition of what we're talking about when referring to a term like "slavery". And I am open to being educated on this topic because I admit to not knowing a great deal about the internal policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Yeah, the clear definition you provided was people who don't have the ability to disassociate from their employer, which is the condition that the vast majority of the workers under the Qatari Migrant Worker system find themselves in. Why the gently caress do you post things like this? quote:Also, how about you not "mock" anyone but instead try to have a good-faith discussion, okay? If you're only goal is to dig up the smallest detail to nitpick and criticize your opponent, it amounts to an admission that you are not debating in good faith. gently caress you. You are treating literal human slavery as a labor dispute. You are in no way showing an interest in a good faith discussion. quote:The single point I was trying to get across was that when we look at our un-libertarian world, the general trend is that those nations that have policies that are closer to laissez-faire libertarian free markets have greater prosperity, larger middle classes, less poverty, and higher general living standards. And the point that I, and others made is that your chart is a looney toons fantasy that ignores everything that disagrees with it. You didn't provide evidence, you provided the fever dream of a libertarian think tank specifically designed so that libertarians would have a chart to back up their talking points. Imagine my wife and I were having an argument about who did the dishes more and I went to my friend and asked him to produce a chart detailing who did the chores more in my house. The chart doesn't have to be scientific and he can use any criteria he wants. Would you be surprised to learn that the chart shows that I do the dishes way more often, occasionally sweep the floors and thus am clearly the one who does the most chores? What do you mean the laundry and bathroom cleaning aren't on there? Why would they be? This is what your stupid chart is. It is a made up think with absolutely no scientific backing that serves only to say "Hey look how great libertarianism is". It is no different from looking at african americans and saying they must be lazy because they are all poor. When you choose not to include anything that doesn't meet your ideological bias you can make 'data' say basically anything. So why the gently caress do you think we should accept your premise when all you are presenting us with is a chart that might as well say "Freemrkts R Great"? quote:Hardly anyone has actually responded to this claim and this general trend. Instead all you want to talk about is the workers rights abuses of immigrant workers that you claim are occurring in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Okay, you've addressed two out of the two hundred or so nations of the world but this is a textbook example of missing the forest for the trees. You're so desperate to validate your view of libertarians as sociopaths who only want to prop up the very rich and stomp on the poor that you'll be as dishonest and disingenuous as needed to maintain that narrative. gently caress you! I posted an in depth break down of this as did several other people. You are ignoring them in favor of responding to a troll post because that makes it easier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Walter Williams. Not Walter Block. Did you even read the post? Walter Williams is a black libertarian and economist who I have mentioned in passing before. Pot, kettle? And I knew who exactly you were talking about when I said Walter Block. I am very adept at determining the origin of your sources (remember that time I caught you plagiarizing?) and I absolutely meant Walter Block. You might pull from other sources, but your particular take on race and native americans is basically Walterblock.txt, which is why I called you out on it. It is hardly absurd to call you out for obsessing on race. For all the times you've talked about how you don't want to talk about race you always seem to end up talking about race. I'm not sure if it is some weird habbit or what, but you seem to be unable to simply look at a substantive post over one that calls you out on the fact that you have absolutely abhorrent beliefs on racism. I mean this post is a perfect example. I dropped two massive, substantive replies to you yesterday and this is the one you decide to comment on? Not the one where I meticulously break down your idiot study? Not the one where I talk about homesteading and the actual things you pretend you are here to talk about? No it is the one post where I tell you to stop loving talking about race. Here is a thought stop loving talking about race and go back to actually address some of the many substantive arguments levied against your godawful principle of property rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:What the gently caress is this? I was expecting something concrete about how my standard would just result in more injustice and then you started going off about a bunch of "but what about these guys, they did OK??" It is possible that different forms of racial injustice have different histories and played out in different ways, but you're kind of cracked if you think that there's no anti-Jewish or anti-Asian racism in need of redress. Is there some reason why you do not want to stick to the topic at hand, i.e., reparations for slavery? Does the fact that not all the problems facing black Americans stem from the legacy of slavery mean that we don't have to deal with that legacy? Hey, I was rereading the last few pages since I only skimmed them at work and since Jrod didn't respond to you and won't, I'll be a pal and clarify his intent for him here. You see, what Jrod is getting at here is that Jewish and Asian minorities haven't been made lazy and shiftless by taking government handouts like the blacks have. You see, why would a black person get a job when by doing so he would lose his benefits? That's exactly what Jrod would have done had actually applying for benefits after his illness not been too difficult (a blessing in disguise, really, as it saved his pure Libertarian soul). And why would they apply themselves in schools when they can just be appointed to any college or job by an Affirmative Action Committee? Or hell, just have some kids and go eat lobster and drive around your Mercedes. Because welfare, not slavery, is the worst thing that can happen to minorities, and we can see this is true because Jews and Asians were also oppressed and they didn't take as much welfare and thus they're doing just fine. See, this response is a really good example of the fact that J to the Rod has absolutely no concept of empathy outside what he has directly experienced himself. He has never experienced institutionalized racism, so can it really be that bad? He has never watched a love one die, but he has probably dumped, so that must be the cause of Caros' loathing of Libertarians. He's never been in a position of being so desperate he'd do any job just to afford a tiny bit of food, ergo people can't be coerced into being slaves in all but name (unless there's a government involved). He is literally incapable of understanding anything that hasn't happened to him or been dictated to him by Libertarian "thinkers".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He has never watched a love one die, but he has probably dumped, so that must be the cause of Caros' loathing of Libertarians. Hey, now, I'm not sure I can buy that. Jrod could never be dumped. Remember how hot he is? Everyone's probably swooning at his feet to have sex with him. He surely has far more experience doing the dumping than getting dumped. Besides, as a Captain of Industry he has a ton to offer in a relationship (which also explains his supernatural attractiveness.) Come on, it's like you haven't even read Atlas Shrugged. Jrod is John Galt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a little more about your personal story regarding libertarianism. From what I have ascertained from our past discussions you were once a dedicated libertarian who was familiar with all the common literature and arguments. The evolution in your thinking started when your friend became very ill and was unable to afford the treatment that could have cured her (my recollection is that your friend was female). From this undoubtedly traumatic event, you reassessed your position and rejected libertarianism. But this really doesn't account for the vitriol and hatred you have of libertarianism. At most, this event might make you reconsider a specific aspect of your beliefs, in particular that there is indeed a role for government policy in establishing some sort of social safety net that could have effectively helped your friend get the health treatment she needed. But this does nothing to undermine the many other libertarian arguments with which you are no doubt familiar. There must be more to the story. I'm fighting drunk so this might not be the best time to reply to you, but go choke on a dick and die if you would be so kind. I've told you this story about... probably three or four times so far. Someone actually bought me an avatar solely based around you doing exactly what you are doing here. Look to your left and you will see a Wookie with a Rand Paul sign and a Gadsden flag along with a quote recalling the first time I told you this story and you did this exact same thing you are doing now, trying to condescendingly act as if the death of one of my greatest friends was somehow insufficient motivation for me to reconsider my beliefs. Please, before you get to your keyboard and start being an enormous infected cock once again just stop and think about what you've just said. You know this story, you know that I had a very good friend who suffered from a treatable form of cancer. You know that she was unable to receive medical care due to cost and that she died incredibly young from a disease that had a 95% five year survival rate. You might even remember that in one of my more personal moments I actually talked about how we considered a sham marriage because she would have been eligible to receive medical care in Canada which might have been enough to save or at least prolong her life. Can you even consider that? Does your brain function enough to understand how much a loss like that can damage and affect a person? Years later my wife still finds me sobbing at my desk on the anniversary of her death. When push came to shove I realized how much of a selfish prick I'd been. I'd been just like you in fact, why do I need to pay for universal healthcare, I don't get sick! Maybe I'm still selfish in that it never really struck home to me until it hit me personally, and frankly I'm pretty ashamed of that. But once it struck home it struck home hard. The free market is great, right? It gets the best possible outcomes and people get what they deserve! Except this young, beautiful woman full of life and with a promising future wasted away while we knew how to help her. If she'd been born in Canada, she'd be alive, full stop. Want to cry a little tonight? Try googling before and after photos of cancer victims and imagine that its someone you care about. The free market doesn't work. That was basically all it took. The free market clearly didn't do its job. I'd always thought healthcare in the US was just better in Canada, and if you can afford it I suppose it is. But 45,000 people die annually from preventable disease due to lack of ability to pay. Once I realized that the free market isn't actually the best at providing some services, it wasn't a far hop to see what else was wrong. If you think the free market is always the best it is easy to think "Oh yeah lets just have free market roads". Once you've stopped being a cultist you tend to realize, as I have, that free market roads are ridiculous. As is free market justice. And free market healthcare. It really is that simple, once I realized government could do good I rejoined the human race and realized I wasn't some self made island. I owe a lot to society and it gives back in turn. I'm honestly curious if you really just can't understand how insulting it is that you think "No, the death of a loved one can't be enough of a catalyst for someone to change, it has to be something stupid like a breakup." quote:Have you ever had any traumatic real-life experiences with libertarians? A psychotic ex-girlfriend who happened to be a libertarian? An encounter with cultish Ayn Rand followers? I'm just trying to understand your transition from a person who was an informed libertarian to one who now holds a "particular loathing for libertarianism". It might be worth holding a particular loathing for Communism, but this hatred for an ideology that is based on opposing aggression seems excessive. If anything, your particular experience ought to give you a certain amount of sympathy for people who still hold these views, such as myself. I do love the bolded line because it shows what is wrong with you. I can see why you hate communism, or statism or whatever else even if I think you are wrong. The fact that you can't even conceive of an opposing viewpoint speaks volumes. As I've said earlier in the thread, what I have is pity for you. I know where you are and it is a sad, lonely and misinformed place. You live in your own little bubble, circle jerking with your philosophers with your pretend, easy understanding of the world. Everything is clear for you because you have secret knowledge in the same way that 9/11 truthers see the world the way it really is because they know. I hate many of the things you and yours say and espouse because they are actively harmful and lead to needless suffering and death, but I don't really hate you. I just feel sorry for you and hope that one day maybe you'll figure out that you are being duped and that you live in a fantasy world. quote:If I was a leftist, which I was and probably still would be had I not been persuaded by Harry Browne's writings and Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2007 and subsequently through reading many of the important books written on the subject, I would nonetheless still appreciate the work of certain libertarian authors and commentators. Others have pointed it out, but you do realize that Ron Paul was one of the most bigoted, conservative republicans in 2007 right? I mean yeah, Mike Huckabee, but Ron Paul really wasn't far behind. Ron Paul is the broken clock, right twice a day on war and drugs. quote:Do you have a contemporary libertarian author or commentator that you still admire or appreciate, even though you disagree on plenty of important issues? I would think that you would appreciate Scott Horton and his daily radio show or the people who run Antiwar.com since they are narrowly focused on opposing war and police brutality. They publish probably more leftist commentators than even libertarian ones. I would assume that you might still have an appreciation for left-libertarians like Roderick Long and Gary Chartier. Maybe you haven't been made aware of the breadth of contemporary libertarian thought? No. There are libertarians with viewpoints that are good, but those same viewpoints can be found on the left absent all the insanity that the libertarians attach to them. Antiwar.com is great, except that their opposition to the war is in their own words based on the concept that "War is the health of the State." I personally prefer people who are antiwar because they are antiwar, not because they view war as a something that promotes statism. And I mean look at the rest of your list. Yeah, why wouldn't I like Gary Chartier! Sure he focuses on idiotic ideas like polycentric legal order that I am adamantly opposed to, but maybe if I were just exposed to him more. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I find your ideology to be a total fraud and faulty in its most basic underpinnings and that is why I don't like the people who follow it? Also lol @ 'breadth'. Libertarianism is a shallow kiddie pool indeed, sorry Jrod. quote:Anyway, I could easily list the leftist reporters and commentators that I most admire. I admire Glenn Greenwald, Ralph Nader and Jeremy Scahill to name only a couple. Though I have issues with their economics, Cornel West and Chris Hedges. That's nice. I don't really care who you admire. quote:The vitriol that many of you show towards libertarians is more than a little concerning. We are just individuals who are doing our best to discover a consistent moral and intellectual framework with which to establish civil society and allow human flourishing. If you stay within your own insulated bubble it becomes easy to demonize people who think different from you and forget our shared humanity. You are individuals who seek to perpetuate and expand upon the free market ideology that I believe is ultimately responsible for the premature death of one of the greatest friends I have ever had. The fact that dupes such as you do so without malice is the only reason my responses consist of something more complicated than the words gently caress you written in various fonts and sizes. Also the bolded section is sad coming from you, it really is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
quote:Also, how about you not "mock" anyone but instead try to have a good-faith discussion, okay? i missed this earlier but you do not, under any circumstances, get to cry about people arguing in bad faith, you cowardly motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItWIYcD6jas
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8EMndSFFMk
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's start with a written debate and see how it goes from there. A topic? Well, let's first figure out the logistics of how the debate would proceed. There are a million relevant topics we could discuss related to libertarianism and I'm sure regardless of the formal topic we decide upon, numerous other issues will no doubt intrude. Would we debate on this forum? I'm thinking that we set up a specific thread where we agree that only you and I will post. Maybe we set up a second thread where others can comment on our ongoing debate. Perhaps a moderator would be willing to ban people who intrude onto our thread to keep the rules established. This is just a thought. Well to be honest letting a million other issues intrude tends to make for a lovely debate in my experience. I'm biased due to my love of Oxford style debates, but I personally prefer debates with a stark motion. "We should abolish the death penalty" is a strong motion for example because it puts a vast gulf between the two sides and doesn't have too much room for intrusion on unrelated subjects. Again, just personal preference. Using multiple threads is pretty much a no-go in D&D unless Exclamation Marx decides he wants to allow it. To be honest the simplest way to handle it would be to include it in this thread or in another with a link to each post edited into the OP. Absent that I think the best alternative was one suggested by Who What Now wherein we use something along the line of an editable google doc that is linked to the thread so that we aren't cluttering up the forum with a useless argument. quote:I'd have to carve out enough time to dedicate to a debate as well but that shouldn't be too hard since I'll certainly have some free time this holiday season. There should be a reasonable time limit on the debate also. Since I have to sleep and will have some obligations during the day, something like a three day time limit seems reasonable to me. That way we can both say what we have to say but there is a finite limit. I assume by this you'd mean a limit between posts? Three days in total won't really allow for much to be done unless our schedules match up more or less exactly since we'd just be posting once or twice a day at max. quote:You play online role playing games so you'll probably appreciate this analogy. The reason I've never been able to get into those kinds of games is that I know there is always someone out there with less of a life than me who is willing to spend more time at the game, getting more experienced, more skilled and thus able to take advantage through sheer force of repetition and time invested. That is sometimes how I feel posting on these message boards. There are members on these forums who will end up spending a whole lot more time here than I am able to. In an open-ended debate, the poster who merely posts the most will feel as though they have won because the other person can't dedicate the same investment of time and therefore is not able to reply to each and ever post, read every link and source and so forth. So a hard time limit is a necessity to alleviate this problem. Frankly the simpler answer to this is to just limit the format. Written debates aren't something I have much, if any experience with in a formal setting to be honest. They aren't something you see much of at all because written debates pretty much neuter one of the main aspects of a debate, but even still we can work around that by using standard debate rules. Frankly Effectronica gave up his usual shitposting to even suggest some basic rules along the lines of a traditional debate, and in keeping with that I'll suggest a basic format if you'd like. I don't much care so pick what works for you. Opening Statement (One from each) Rebuttal Statements (One from each) Question Period (Several rounds. If we have someone moderating we can have him decide. Alternately we can ask the peanut gallery and/or simply pose questions to one another) Closing Statement (One from each each) Word count limits make a decent enough stand in for time restraints in a typical debate. If we did three rounds of questioning that would make it a six round debate which isn't unreasonable, but it is entirely up to you because as I said, I don't much care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
And now I'm even sadder. Thanks a lot rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
oh oh oh i wanna be the moderator
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:oh oh oh i wanna be the moderator "Jrodefeld the next question is yours. Why are you such a fucker? You fucker."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:"Jrodefeld the next question is yours. Why are you such a fucker? You fucker." point of order he is in fact a motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:"Jrodefeld the next question is yours. Why are you such a fucker? You fucker." I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:point of order he is in fact a motherfucker I disagree vociferously. He is clearly a donkeyfucker. Humans are too good for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later. Definitely would be down for that at some point to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I disagree vociferously. He is clearly a donkeyfucker. Humans are too good for him. He is a watermelon fucker, whether he admits it or not. Jrod, have you stopped loving your watermelon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:point of order he is in fact a motherfucker I say the debate be called Caros V. Motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am frankly astonished at the amount of time you all have spent focusing on this particular post and then inferring that it proves libertarians don't care about slavery. Caros was the only one that touched upon any actual substance regarding this claim, but even he didn't go into much substance. To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". We are not, by and large, speaking about actual chattel slavery in which human beings are legally sold as physical property and cannot disassociate from their masters, correct? I might be drunk at the moment too, but gently caress that and gently caress you. You do not get to talk about good-faith discussion, you wouldn't recognize a good-faith argument if it took a poo poo on your chest. I spent plenty of time trying to get you to engage honestly in the last thread before you ran away from it with your tail between your legs, and I learned a simple lesson: the more effort and facts and logic we put into a post, the more likely you are to ignore it. So if you don't like it, engage with the effortposts, and maybe people will make them more. As for your Qatar/UAE points, look at this. Look at these things you wrote: You posted:I am open to being educated on this topic because I admit to not knowing a great deal about the internal policies of the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. You, in the same goddamned post posted:To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". "I don't know anything about what we're talking about, but I'm sure you're just bitching about unions not being powerful enough." People have tried to educate you, but you're apparently incapable of reading a basic sentence unless it has a Mises.org header at the top. It's actual, literal, no-poo poo slavery going on there. The slaves can't leave the country, they can't quit their jobs, they can't travel or open bank accounts or countless other things. They're being beaten and raped by their owners. And the slaves are pushing half the population of Qatar at this point. That's half the country with literally no rights. It's astounding how much you distort anything and everything to fit your cultist viewpoint. You write up a half-dozen paragraphs about how income taxes are literally slavery, but when you're presented with your own study endorsing countries where slaves are dying in droves to build soccer stadiums, the word slavery gets scare quotes and dismissals about  unions instead of actually looking into it.And guess what? Once slave states get high marks on a freedom list, the entire methodology behind that list absolutely must be scrapped, regardless of anything else on it. If I was at work and made a model for electrical conductivity, and concrete ended up near the top of the list? You had better goddamn believe my boss would hone in on that! And he wouldn't take kindly to my response if it consisted entirely of me whining about it. It points to a severe deficiency in the model itself. As we've pointed out, that deficiency is incredibly obvious to any non-cultist who looks at it: the model only factors in the experience of rich business owners and could not give less of a gently caress about anyone else. We've pointed this out over and over, and your only response is to re-post the exact list we're criticizing, as if it changes anything. I'm not with Caros on this one. You're not a child who can't be blamed for believing all the crap your mother taught you. You've had ample chances to change your mind, and countless people have tried to talk some reason into you. You aren't a poor misguided soul deserving of pity. You are an idiot coward deserving of nothing but contempt. You aren't even worth violence, because you and your entire movement are powerless cowards who will never, ever have the power to enact your depraved ideology on others. So gently caress you, gently caress Mises, gently caress Rothbard and Hoppe and all the Walters you can muster. Your whole movement is a worthless pile of self-justifications, and it will be thrown into the garbage where it belongs once its ultra-wealthy funders finally die off and leave the rest of us to clean up their mess. PS You're a racist
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later. I'd be up for this! Assuming y'all think it'd be worth it. It's not like JRode's going to accept the challenge, but on the off-chance he actually grows a pair and answers any questions at all, I'd like to be in on something of this nature. Schedule and time-zones permitting, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Definitely would be down for that at some point to be honest. Sweet. I'll try to set a date on some weekend between Thanksgiving and Christmas, hopefully. Depends on who wants to participate and when they're available, I guess. If anyone else is interested please let me know here or PM me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later. What requirements must be meant to be in the roundtable? I've only been on this forum for 2 months Edit: just saw paragon1's response
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I'd be up for this! Assuming y'all think it'd be worth it. It's not like JRode's going to accept the challenge, but on the off-chance he actually grows a pair and answers any questions at all, I'd like to be in on something of this nature. Schedule and time-zones permitting, of course. He absolutely will not consent to an actual conversation where a bunch of goons can yell at him in real time. Though yes jrode you are welcome to use this as an opportunity to actually debate someone. Anyway, even though I'm sure he won't I hope you'll still participate. I don't care if it turns out to be a huge drunken goony circlejerk so long as people have fun and make internet friends. I hope you'll all participate. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:What requirements must be meant to be in the roundtable? I've only been on this forum for 2 months I'm not entirely sure but preliminary: a microphone that doesn't pick up however you'll be listening to us and willingness to let goons see your skype name. I don't give a poo poo about your regdate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I hope you'll all participate. Is there a portion of the debate where we just hurl obscenities at him? Because sign me up, I have a real annoying voice and I was raised by a carpenter and a truck driver who taught me the right way to swear at people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey, I was rereading the last few pages since I only skimmed them at work and since Jrod didn't respond to you and won't, I'll be a pal and clarify his intent for him here. You see, what Jrod is getting at here is that Jewish and Asian minorities haven't been made lazy and shiftless by taking government handouts like the blacks have. You see, why would a black person get a job when by doing so he would lose his benefits? That's exactly what Jrod would have done had actually applying for benefits after his illness not been too difficult (a blessing in disguise, really, as it saved his pure Libertarian soul). And why would they apply themselves in schools when they can just be appointed to any college or job by an Affirmative Action Committee? Or hell, just have some kids and go eat lobster and drive around your Mercedes. Because welfare, not slavery, is the worst thing that can happen to minorities, and we can see this is true because Jews and Asians were also oppressed and they didn't take as much welfare and thus they're doing just fine. Yeah, I got that, I just kinda folded it into "different racial oppressions etc" because by that point I think I was getting tired of dealing with whatever he was saying about that because I realized he was wasting my time with non-responsive bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Not sure how I feel about organizing a two minutes hate but hey there's a first time for everything. I want to make it clear that I don't expect jrod to attend or for it even to mostly be specifically about him (though it might turn out that way). I'll be putting up a google doc for suggestions on the structure of the thing at about the same time I put up one to try to arrange a time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Not sure how I feel about organizing a two minutes hate but hey there's a first time for everything. I want to make it clear that I don't expect jrod to attend or for it even to mostly be specifically about him (though it might turn out that way). I'll be putting up a google doc for suggestions on the structure of the thing at about the same time I put up one to try to arrange a time. By busting a deal (to not be a lovely poster,) jrode has chosen to face the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Not sure how I feel about organizing a two minutes hate but hey there's a first time for everything. I want to make it clear that I don't expect jrod to attend or for it even to mostly be specifically about him (though it might turn out that way). I'll be putting up a google doc for suggestions on the structure of the thing at about the same time I put up one to try to arrange a time. i want in as long as we can talk about sovcits for at least a couple minutes
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:i want in as long as we can talk about sovcits for at least a couple minutes I don't see why not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Thank you Jrod, for confirming you are a watermelon romancer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Romancing the watermelon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's hard to believe this is even a serious question, but I'll answer nonetheless. Slavery is one of the most egregious violations of the non-aggression principle possible and is indeed a worse act than a property tax. Many, many times worse. However, both exist on a continuum and are not completely unrelated. Do you realize how you sound to most people when you say "Slavery is worse than property tax?" Right away, I disagree with you main thesis, on many levels. First, I don't agree that they exist on a continuum. Secondly, even if they did, that doesn't make being on the continuum wrong. It's not an all or nothing game. quote:There was a notable political theorist whose name escapes me at the moment. Nonetheless he posed the question "when does a slave cease being a slave?" Let's suppose a person owns a person and forces him to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and whips and beats him daily. Clearly the person is a slave. But let's suppose he stops beating him every day and only beats him on the weekends. Not only that, but he doesn't make him work seven days a week but only makes him work five days a week. Is he still a slave? Obviously he is. The problem with slavery is that the person being enslaved is being forced by threat of violence to associate with his or her "master" against his or her will. If the slave master reduces the slaves work output to only three days a week and gives the slave four days off, is he still a slave? The answer of course is yes. Here's where your logic breaks down. You don't substantiate anything you say. You're not defining slavery in a meaningful way. All I get is that even if I give my slaves 4 day weekends every week, it's still slavery. quote:Now, suppose the slave master says "okay, you will not be forced to work on my plantation at all, but I will allow you to move out into the world and do what you wish. However, you will be forced through threat of violence to send me half of everything you earn as a tribute." While this is no doubt preferable to being forced to work in the cotton fields seven days a week and beaten every day, the real fundamental issue is being avoided. The fundamental issue which separates a slave from a non-slave is that a free person is one who has total self-ownership and whose associations with others are entirely voluntary. While every move towards being less of a slave is preferable, the fundamental issue is being avoided. No, Jrod. It is not clear. Your logic takes a huge leap between the classic example of slavery to income tax. It makes sense to you because you agree with the proposition, but you haven't built it up. You haven't lead us to it. The biggest problem with your argument is that you fail to define your terms in a meaningful way, and if you don't do that, it's impossible to effectively get across what you mean. See, language can be horribly imprecise, because words have two different meanings. The first meaning is the pure factual "this is what it says in the dictionary," and the second is the connotative and emotional meaning. We use certain words because of their power to strike an emotional chord. For example, take the word adequate. Just watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxpuKXhlss So, the word "slave" has an emotional meaning. It brings up terrible images for us from our history, and we see it as something shameful. But here's the thing - "slave" isn't just a word you can throw around and expect people to fall in line with. You still need to explain how you're using it. You also fall into the trap of saying "THREATS OF VIOLENCE" without defining what that means. Most of us don't agree with your world-view that throwing someone in jail for not paying their taxes is kidnapping or committing an act of violence against them, or that people are only paying taxes because there is that threat of violence. Because let's be honest, for most of us, the "violence" is so far removed, that it's not meaningful. So, let's go back and look at slavery. The problem with your definition of slavery is that you define it by the presence of violence. One can be a slave and never be beaten. There were slave-holders who were not violent, and treated their slaves in as humanely as you could treat someone while still thinking of them as a slave. The defining characteristic of slavery is the idea of people as property. Which ironically, is a defining characteristic of YOUR world view. The only difference is you feel that people own themselves. See, when it comes to income tax, there's no way you can reasonably say that I'm being treated as property. If I don't want to pay income tax, I can choose not to work! There's no negative repercussions for me not working. At least from the government. Before you read more books on governmental theory, I recommend you read a dictionary. Because you do this a lot. You use a lot of neologisms and misuse words left and right. And it makes having an honest discussion with you hard. If I can't agree with you on what you're saying, how are we supposed to get to the meat of what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well to be honest letting a million other issues intrude tends to make for a lovely debate in my experience. I'm biased due to my love of Oxford style debates, but I personally prefer debates with a stark motion. "We should abolish the death penalty" is a strong motion for example because it puts a vast gulf between the two sides and doesn't have too much room for intrusion on unrelated subjects. Again, just personal preference. If you want something actually different from Jrod, don't do any sort of formal debate. Just two people in IRC or instant messages having a conversation in real time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Also, if slavery is characterised "inability to disassociate" (as Jrod suggests) then income tax clearly doesn't qualify, because you can disassociate yourself from the State by emigration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What you are doing is spreading a gross caricature of libertarianism that says more about your own prejudices than it does about actual libertarian thought. Libertarians care more about low taxes than slavery? Really? Sorry I'm just going by what I've read from a prominent libertarian philosopher On income tax: jrodefeld posted:That is why an income tax, while absolutely and unequivocally far less egregious than chattel slavery, is still a form of slavery because the recipient of this income tax is being forced against his or her will to pay a percentage of his or her income under threat of violence and kidnapping (throwing you in jail if you refuse). My tax bill is literally slavery! On forced labor: jrodefeld posted:To be clear, we are speaking about immigrant workers who don't have enough rights vis a vis their employers (union leverage) which is being called "slavery". We are not, by and large, speaking about actual chattel slavery in which human beings are legally sold as physical property and cannot disassociate from their masters, correct? Well technically the forced laborers aren't literally sold on an auction block like cattle, so let's not throw around mean words like "slavery" when really we just mean "people who are forced to labor for their employers in unbearable conditions and aren't allowed to quit", I mean look at the big picture they don't even owe income tax so I don't see how they can be slaves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, I started out by assuming you do care more about slavery than about income taxes, and that's why I posted the breakdown of Cato's economic freedom score to show you that Cato's priorities are the opposite so you'd start to question them, but now I believe that you, you personally, you J. Rodefeld, care more about income taxes than slavery. And it's your own posting that convinced me of this, not any kind of prejudice against Libertarians. "Here's a tortured Ship of Theseus metaphor for why paying a fraction of the income to the government is literally slavery, but whoa whoa if the people Qatar is imprisoning and forcing to labor on football stadiums against their will aren't literally being sold at auction bearing paperwork saying 'I am a no-poo poo slave' then don't call it slavery it's more like whiny union members"   The degree to which you'll twist the term slavery to cover minor annoyances in your life, while at the same time relying on the most nitpicky details to try to distinguish forced labor in a belovéd tax haven from slavery is so unreal it's funny. poo poo dude, your own argument for why immigrant labor in Qatar isn't technically slavery (because they can't be officially bought and sold and recorded as property) should blow your "but the income tax is slavery" argument right out of the water, but you don't even critically examine your own positions for consistency, not even ones you've taken within the same drat day. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
I thought taxes were theft anyway. Maybe armed robbery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:If you want something actually different from Jrod, don't do any sort of formal debate. Just two people in IRC or instant messages having a conversation in real time. Public debate in IRC. Set someone as the host moderator who can silence everyone except the debaters. 5~10 minute opening arguments, 3~5 minute to rebut. Q&A section; each opponent gets to pick two questions from a predetermined list, moderator picks two, and four (or more) questions asked blind from the general audience, selected by RNG or to the moderator's liking. Answers to questions 2~3 minutes, with 1.5 minute rebuttal, 1.5 minute response and 1.5 minute response rebuttal. Adjust times as needed for if someone has fat fingers or is a slow typer. No special software needed, just use mibbit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 11:34
|
|
