|
President Kucinich posted:Committing arson against 140 some acres of land on 3 separate occasions and jeopardizing the lives of multiple firefighters. Openly supporting arson through negligence against others property and calling all of that "a controlled fire". You're a loving joke and that's two clear instances of you making GBS threads all over the NAP on just this page. Also he's a child abuser http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ranchers-inspired-ore-takeover-accused-abusing-teen-article-1.2485648
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Also he's a child abuser I think Jrod's position on what a parent may do with his property is more than well established by this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Anyone else remember this?jrodefeld posted:As I previously stated, libertarians believe that the original way that just property is acquired is through original appropriation i.e homesteading. I was challenged with a good question, which I will try to answer here. "Since all land in 2015, or at least all desirable land where humans congregate is owned by somebody, or at least some property right is asserted, why does it matter how property was originally acquired? We don't live on the frontier where original appropriation of unowned natural resources is possible for almost anyone, so of what practical use is this abstract concept?" The interesting thing about the Civil War is that its immediate aftermath was the one point in history at which this plan would have actually accomplished something useful in the pursuit of justice. I'm going to ignore the asinine technicalities of method (i.e., freed people were owed plots of land from the plantations where they were enslaved due to having "homesteaded" them, a dubious and irrelevant claim) in favor of the general moral principle (i.e., freed people got robbed by their former masters and so they deserved payback). jrod's plan for reparations is idiotic for a few reasons which relate to the distance in time from emancipation to now: it is difficult to imagine how any such documentation could be provided, there's actually a pretty compelling moral case that just booting off whoever happens to currently live on that land-to-be-transferred is pretty drat unfair, and it's not clear what good a plot of former plantation land would be to any modern descendant of slaves in the US. What does that land produce now that is of value, and would any random modern descendant of a slave be capable (in terms of skills, say) of making good use of it? None of this applies to the period after the Civil War: it would have been easy to figure out where freed people last served a master, and potentially where they were kept as slaves prior to that (fyi, jrod, this is a thing that happened frequently, slaves were sold from one plantation to another, making any individual connection drawn between a descendant of a slave and discrete plantations blurry... but I digress), and there's no doubt that the then-current owners of the plantations were guilty parties deserving of expropriation. Additionally, plantation land would actually have been useful to them because plantations were capable of producing things worth selling or consuming and the freed people, having spent much of their lives working on plantations, had the skills necessary to make good use of the land. Soooommeehoooowwwww... this didn't happen. jrod, I want to put the question to you here: Given that by the end of the Civil War, abolition by force of federal arms was fiat accompli, and the newly freed people were in the perfect position to be able to both claim a share of their former masters' misbegotten wealth and also to actually be able to use that wealth for their own benefit, (1) would you have supported forcibly redistributing slaveholder land and wealth to the people they used to exploit, and (2) can you explain why this eminently just solution was not actually implemented? GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Marx wrote a letter to Lincoln congratulating him on him on ending slavery at the end of the Civil War. Spooner wrote a letter complaining that slavery didn't end the way he wanted it to. I think that's all the that needs to be said about Libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The invasion of Mexico in 1848 was a thoroughly Southern enterprise, too. Eh, it's hard to hold that one against them too much. Be honest, if you had the opportunity to steal California (plus some other junk, I guess) wouldn't you take it in a heartbeat? Note: answering no to this question disqualifies you from eventual membership in Valhalla DRO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh good. I was worried I was going to have to be productive tonight. Weight off my shoulders. I think that is a remarkably poor argument. The legal environment, State-educational system and political climate have conspired to heavily incentivize people to participate in a very specific type of medical system. It takes time to change peoples attitudes and expectations about how medical care can be delivered. People are already heavily taxed to pay for, among many other less justified things, State social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If they have health insurance, they have to pay for premiums already so have every incentive to try to get their insurance to pay for coverage before trying to pay for something out of pocket. People don't usually have the option to just pick up a catestrophic health insurance plan that covers only rare and life threatening emergencies. People's money is taken without their consent to fund social welfare programs so why wouldn't they have every incentive to use those services first? This is the culture and political climate that we live in. These things take time to change. It doesn't matter how successful libertarians demonstrate free market delivery of healthcare to be, many people are simply not used to paying out of pocket for medical costs, even if those costs are relatively low. But notice how you move the goalposts. First, the argument is that the free market cannot deliver medical care effectively or cut costs to any considerable degree. When libertarians organize and prove that it is indeed possible and they create a successful and profitable business model by eschewing insurance, State welfare programs and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead, you then argue that these are the exception and why aren't there more of them if they are so successful? This model of healthcare delivery was actually fairly commonplace up until the middle of the twentieth century. Most healthcare was purchased out of pocket and insurance existed for catastrophic medical emergencies. Since then, the State has intervened to fund Medicare, Medicaid and various regulations, tax policies, crony corporatism and market distortions have incentivized people to not participate in the market and have your insurance pay for ALL medical services, life threatening or not. New ideas, even very effective and superior ideas, take time to catch on. This is even more true with the status quo is being propped up by State coercion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Marx wrote a letter to Lincoln congratulating him on him on ending slavery at the end of the Civil War. For those who don't know, Marx's coverage of the Civil War make for some truly fascinating reading. Most of the southern revisionism we see today actually originated with the London press of the time, which was heavily pro-Confederacy, and Marx was there to debunk poo poo like "well, you see, this is actually a dispute over tariffs and Northern exploitation" in real time. It's also amusing because he clearly knew nothing about military strategy, thought Lincoln was an empty suit long past the point where he'd proven otherwise, and was inexplicably John C. Fremont fanboy. But the positives of his reporting vastly outweigh the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
It is days like this that I wish I was a mod so that I could issue you a Mod Challenge to shut the gently caress up about the confederacy. Because for a person who really doesn't want to talk about racism you always talk about racism despite the fact that you are the one who frames the conversation here. What the gently caress is wrong with your brain.jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. Then I, an abolitionist, decide to bomb the entire apartment complex in retribution for your act of enslavement. Naturally, I'd be indiscriminately murdering a couple hundred people you had nothing to do with your pro-slavery actions. Thus the act could never be considered moral. On the other hand, if I were able to target you specifically and force you to release your prisoner or, if you refused, to kill you then that is a different matter and could be morally justified. So what is the metaphor for the entire building deciding to declare itself a sovereign state where that kidnapping is legal forever because the entire economy of that apartment building relies on kidnapping. Oh and they start shooting at nearby buildings in an attempt to annex them before any police even show up on scene. You are working off the lost cause bullshit that attempts to minimize the impact of the confederacy and the fact that the majority of confederates supported the war and directly benefitted from slavery. They didn't secede by accident you fuckwit. quote:The Civil War was problematic because the killing, property destruction and unintended consequences affected far more than just the unrepentant Southern slave-owners. In fact, hundreds of thousands of non-slave owners and many slaves themselves were killed due to this war. Lincoln's army raped women and burned down entire villages. The war crimes and atrocities committed by both sides were greater than any other war in our nations history. The civil war was problematic because a bunch of assholes decided they would rather fight a war than stop owning human beings. How the gently caress do you not realize that this is not okay? How do you not realize that the loving confederacy fired the first shots of the war? Are you so dense that you can't acknowledge basic and well understood historical facts? Yes, war is hell, the union and confederate troops did lovely things! These lovely things were necessitated because the confederates would rather go to war than stop owning people. quote:It also could not be rationally considered a "civil war" since one side wanted to leave the Union peacefully, albeit for some immoral reasons including their supposed "right" to maintain the institution of slavery but there were other reasons for the desire to secede. More correctly it should be called the war to prevent Southern secession. If Lincoln hadn't been ardently dedicated to maintaining the Union by any means necessary including waging aggressive war against his own country, the war would have been avoided. No, it should be called the civil war because it is a war between countrymen which is a term that has been used for centuries to describe this exact situation. What were these other rights that they seceded for, and which, if any, do you think overwhelmed the desire for slavery. Because I can throw quotes at you for days from confederate constitutions, from statements of issue, from constitutional conventions and the vice president of the confederacy all detailing the primary reason the south left the union. For fucksake, do you know that the confederate constitution was almost identical to the US constitution? Did you know that states actually LOST rights in the confederate constitution compared to the US constitution, and that of the handful of edits involved the majority were minor issues of tariffs? Basically the only major difference between the US and confederate constitution is that the confederate constitution had 'slaves forever' written into it. You know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about, and your arguments are based entirely on the work of one fuckwit who is laughed out of every reputable discussion of history because he just makes things up whole cloth to feed a neo-confederate agenda. quote:The fight against slavery could have and should have been waged a different way. What Lysander Spooner and a number of other historians have pointed out, was that Lincoln's motives were highly dubious. He cared not one whit about the slavery issue until it became strategically advantageous to him as a wartime tactic. A notorious bigot, Lincoln kept the dream alive to his dying day that the United States should relocate all blacks out of the country because he thought the two races could never coexist and the white race was inherently superior. And Lyndon Johnson was racist as gently caress. He also signed the civil rights act. People can have awful opinions and still be able to do the morally right thing. Which in this case is ending motherfucking slavery. quote:Spooner had proposed very different means of abolishing slavery, one that was congruous with a consistent application of morality. The Union should have been allowed to dissolve and all fugutive slave laws should be immediately repealed. Thus any runaway slave that reaches a Northern state would be immediately free and there would be no way for the Southern plantation owner to re-capture him. Any attempt to do so would amount to an invasion of a foreign nation and the enemy combatant would be immediately shot. All the while, negotiations could begin to take place between the North and South and a re-formation of the Union could be possible if, and only if, the South would agree to a phasing out of the institution of slavery. Did Spooner have a suggestion with how to deal with traitors in the confederacy who opened fire on Union troops? You are under a mistake impression that Lincoln started the war. He didn't. He certainly finished it however. quote:In the meantime, abolitionists in both the North and South should both continue to maintain the underground railroad which would, as efficiently as possible, transport runaway slaves from the South to freedom in the North. Even more directly, private non-State militia movements should mount a form of domestic guerrilla warfare targeting and killing slave owners who refused to free their slaves. The cost of maintaining the institution of slavery would soon be far too much and negotiations for total emancipation would soon be possible. Basically what you're saying is that they should have let one of the most vile institutions in human history continue to take place within arms reach because... why? Also gently caress right off with your absurd idea that owning human beings for cheap labor would ever be anything but profitable. quote:Simply saying that this view amounts to libertarians "not caring" whether the institution of slavery persisted for another ten or twenty years is disingenuous. Even though slavery was technically abolished with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, blacks didn't achieve genuine freedom for another hundred years. Many historians have noted that the post Reconstruction conditions and treatment of blacks was made immeasurably worse due to the manner in which emancipation took place. It has been persuasively argued that had more peaceful methods of emancipation been successfully tried, blacks might have achieved a genuine equality far earlier in our history. See, its bullshit like this. Ten or twenty years? There is no reason to think that the CSA wouldn't still have slaves to this loving day if they had been allowed to continue on their merry way. You are engaging in armchair philosophy about how everything would have turned out just great if mean old violent lincoln hadn't just gotten all up in a tizzy after states illegally seceded from the union (which they can't do by the way) and started shooting at the goddamned US army. quote:Spooner pointed out that it is hypocritical to not allow freedom of association regarding the Union and it's participating states, but at the same time pose as the great opponents of slavery. Lincoln used conscription, itself a form of slavery, to man his army in the Civil War. War sucks and people do bad things in wartime. News at 11. The southern states had their chance to not join the union. They chose to join the perpetual union and once joined were not legally allowed to secede anymore than my city is allowed to secede from my state. Tough poo poo. Also slavery isn't about freedom of association it is about forced ownership. You fucker. quote:This is hypocrisy. If we care at all about moral principles, justice and human rights, we need to apply these standards consistently. War makes hypocrites of us all. Also not to go full  but the Nazis murdered people! They killed them by the millions! But we also engaged in war, which is murder! We used murder to end murder, which is hypocrisy! When will it end! Sometimes you have to do bad things to end worse things, particularly when the end result of a confederate victory would be a united states with legal slavery. You fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
So jrod, are you deliberately lying to support the Confederacy, or is this all new information to you and a wakeup call that your reliance on libertarian sources for history is atrociously misinforming you? The South did not secede peaceably, did not believe in a general right of secession, and did not believe in self-government a) Secession was not peaceable: it was characterized by campaigns of violence and lynching of unionists b) the South did not believe in a right of secession: they refused to put a right of secession in the confederate constitution, and they attacked unionist strongholds that tried to secede from their own states to rejoin the Union c) the South did not just want to leave: they attacked and invaded border states with the goal of forcing them into the confederacy. They also planned to subjugate and enslave Cuba and even more of Mexico At the very least, you should recognize that both countries had identical views on secession (it's only okay when we do it, no one is allowed to secede from us), that the free states had a better claim to the idea of self-government because at least they didn't enslave half their population and by the end of the war were fighting for universal male suffrage and total abolition and then, like most 19th-century liberals you'd at least support the Union cause as the lesser of two evils, but that would require you to get your information from somewhere besides white supremacist revisionists who have built a whole ideology around calling white supremacy "liberty" to try to rescue it from the ashbin of history where it belongs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think that is a remarkably poor argument. The legal environment, State-educational system and political climate have conspired to heavily incentivize people to participate in a very specific type of medical system. Can you support this claim at all? I can imagine that exposing conspiracies is hard work so I am not asking for much right away. Maybe just start small by demonstrating that there is an actual agenda to condition people to participate as you say. An agenda isn't proof of a conspiracy, but it is a precondition for a conspiracy, so that's a good first step. And you can just focus on one aspect of this for now. Let's say education, because that is what I am most interested in. You could look through public school social studies curricula for evidence that students are being taught to only rely on a certain medical system. Keep us up-to-date about what you find.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Supreme pro confederacy revisionism you got going on there. Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? If I believe that there was a more ethical, more effective manner by which emancipation could have taken place without the bloodshed and horrific ramifications of the Civil War and I point this out, in what rational world does this make me "pro racial slavery"? You've discredited yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
How is it that people are dumb enough to be duped en masse into believing in the terrible statist health care system, yet also smart enough that when the One True Free Market (pbuh) descends from on high, they will be able to tell which obfuscatory megacorporations deserve their hard-earned untaxed dollars and which are selling sawdust for heart medication?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:It's also amusing because he clearly knew nothing about military strategy, thought Lincoln was an empty suit long past the point where he'd proven otherwise, and was inexplicably John C. Fremont fanboy. But the positives of his reporting vastly outweigh the negatives. Frémont's kinda interesting because he was the kind of general who was good but not great and really shoulda been demoted for being an rear end in a top hat but as it turns out being an rear end in a top hat while holding the rank of general gets the papers talking about you and that leads to the armchair strategists talking about how you're a straight shooter who takes poo poo from no man  I am contributing to this derail because Jrod has yet to respond to 2 of my questions DarklyDreaming fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? I've said this before and I'll say it again: you support every possible method of ending slavery in the United States except for the one that actually did. Don't act surprised when we question your motives on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? War was literally the only way the South would give up slavery. One of the reasons the Civil War happened was because the South realized that slavery was an increasingly unpopular institution that was going to be made illegal very soon. It was only a matter of time and their response was "gently caress you, we aren't giving up slavery." Yes it would have been preferable to just sign a law and say "no more slaves" and leave it at that but there was absolutely no way the South was going to do that peacefully. That was...kind of the whole point of the Civil War and everything leading up to it. After literal decades of a bunch of states screaming "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!" to the federal government the feds started saying "knock that poo poo off." The South said "we aren't your states anymore" and the country was having loving none of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So jrod, are you deliberately lying to support the Confederacy, or is this all new information to you and a wakeup call that your reliance on libertarian sources for history is atrociously misinforming you? But was the Union really more free than the Confederacy? Let's not forget, while being allowed to own, beat, and rape slaves isn't cool, is it really any worse than the government levying a progressive income tax, which Lincoln did? Stones and glass houses, libruls. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? Yes. When the question came up whether slavers had the right to leave the country rather than give up their slaves, he came down on the side of the slavers. He preferred the perpetuation of other people in slavery if it meant that he was theoretically allowed to go start his own country for any reason. jrodefeld posted:If I believe that there was a more ethical, more effective manner by which emancipation could have taken place without the bloodshed and horrific ramifications of the Civil War and I point this out, in what rational world does this make me "pro racial slavery"? Yes, because your support for a supposedly more ethical manner of emancipation is based on lying about the Confederacy: lying about their history, lying about their actions, lying about their goals, and lying about their methods. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know all the details of this story but I'll tell you what I do know. In the first place, the ranchers at question here (a father and son) lit a controlled fire on their own property. Ranchers do this all the time. Supposedly there was a wild fire raging and by lighting a controlled fire in a particular way you can protect your property from being in danger. They never intentionally set fire to any federal lands. The fire got a little out of control and spread to the State-owned property. As was noted: they accidentally lit public land on fire three times. One of these instances is probably to cover up illegal poaching, burning 140 acres. One time could be a mistake, three times indicates that they don't know how to handle fire. And unfair treatment? They get leased this public land for pennies on the dollar, and have an obligation to avoid damaging it. There's a contract here, explicitly signed. I don't have a copy of this contract, true, but I would be incredibly surprised if it states that they can light the land on fire. And lastly: it doesn't matter whether someone got hurt or not. They engaged in risky behavior, clearly without the proper ability to control the fire, and whether someone got hurt at that point is just a roll of the dice. Would you say that driving drunk is totally ok if you just happen to not kill anyone? Also, you didn't answer the last part. Dildos. Aggression, or no? jrodefeld posted:In the meantime, abolitionists in both the North and South should both continue to maintain the underground railroad which would, as efficiently as possible, transport runaway slaves from the South to freedom in the North. Even more directly, private non-State militia movements should mount a form of domestic guerrilla warfare targeting and killing slave owners who refused to free their slaves. The cost of maintaining the institution of slavery would soon be far too much and negotiations for total emancipation would soon be possible. Slavery was literally the primary economic driver for the South. It's incredibly profitable for everyone involved, and a few runaways aren't going to change that. If enough slaves ran away that it actually disrupted the economy, they'd go to war to protect slavery rather than get rid of it. EDIT: Got a source. Slaves produced over one quarter of white people's incomes in the South as a whole in 1960. Imagine what would happen when 25% people just suddenly become unemployed because their profession (slavery and slave-produced goods) became illegal. Yeah, they're going to fight for that. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/ Karia fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:War was literally the only way the South would give up slavery. One of the reasons the Civil War happened was because the South realized that slavery was an increasingly unpopular institution that was going to be made illegal very soon. It was only a matter of time and their response was "gently caress you, we aren't giving up slavery." Yes it would have been preferable to just sign a law and say "no more slaves" and leave it at that but there was absolutely no way the South was going to do that peacefully. No you see, filthy statist, if we just asked nicely and waited another 250 years the South would have finally found that giving up slavery was in their rational self-interest!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Wait, I have a question. If Jrod thinks that the government should have just paid off the Confederate states to offset any losses that they would incur with the abolition of slavery, where would that money come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Wait, I have a question. If Jrod thinks that the government should have just paid off the Confederate states to offset any losses that they would incur with the abolition of slavery, where would that money come from? Mutual aid societies and private abolitionist charities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think that is a remarkably poor argument. The legal environment, State-educational system and political climate have conspired to heavily incentivize people to participate in a very specific type of medical system. It takes time to change peoples attitudes and expectations about how medical care can be delivered. People are already heavily taxed to pay for, among many other less justified things, State social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If they have health insurance, they have to pay for premiums already so have every incentive to try to get their insurance to pay for coverage before trying to pay for something out of pocket. Noooope, try again. The SCO opened in 1998 which means it has been in continuous operation for over a decade and a half without any significant imitators cropping up. Your suggestion is that this clinic is a model for an ideal healthcare service yet as far as I can tell there are perhaps two or three clinics nationwide that actually have done anything even remotely similar. The simple (and correct) answer for this is that there simply aren't enough people who are willing or able to pay out of pocket for surgical services, meaning that as far as a market goes the OSC model is a pan with an inch of water next to the ocean of real medical care. quote:People don't usually have the option to just pick up a catastrophic health insurance plan that covers only rare and life threatening emergencies. People's money is taken without their consent to fund social welfare programs so why wouldn't they have every incentive to use those services first? This argument would work if there were a handful and it was a growth industry, but it isn't. The only two examples of this style of business I can find are clinics run by literal libertarians who have the same idiotic ideological opposition to universal healthcare that you do. I'd actually be willing to bet that the OSC is far less profitable than it should be specifically as a result of being used as a test bed for ideology rather than a medical business first and foremost. Much as with the political sphere, no one likes your ideas because they don't work in practice. Just to expand on this I went and looked at the medical care offered by the OSC. You want to know why it isn't a growth business? Because very few people are able to pay out $20,570 out of pocket to have a defibrillator implanted. Your go to is 'well they'd have catastrophic coverage which blah blah blah' but the problem with that lies in this quote: "Once again, if you are scheduled for surgery at our facility and insurance is to be filed by us, these prices listed on our website do not apply to you." Their prices go out the window the moment you include insurance. This is because a big part of the way they can afford to have lower prices is because they pretty much eliminate accounting issues and concerns about not being paid by insurance companies, two of the largest costs for any real doctors. So even in your perfect world where people could come to see them with their catastrophic coverage, it wouldn't matter because the savings evaporate the moment insurance gets involved. quote:This is the culture and political climate that we live in. These things take time to change. It doesn't matter how successful libertarians demonstrate free market delivery of healthcare to be, many people are simply not used to paying out of pocket for medical costs, even if those costs are relatively low. Relatively low!? Dude, you really haven't looked on their website have you? The average cost for treatment at the OSC is $4,000. That is about eight percent of a median family's gross income for an entire year. You are out of your gourd if you assume those sort of prices would ever be affordable to the average american. quote:But notice how you move the goalposts. First, the argument is that the free market cannot deliver medical care effectively or cut costs to any considerable degree. When libertarians organize and prove that it is indeed possible and they create a successful and profitable business model by eschewing insurance, State welfare programs and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead, you then argue that these are the exception and why aren't there more of them if they are so successful? I didn't move poo poo. Libertarians have created one (1) example of a functional (don't assume profitable) business model that only works for people who are capable of shelling out 8% of the median family income out of pocket every time there is a medical emergency. And you somehow think that this proves you are right? I have an entire world of examples of states providing affordable and effective universal healthcare any you think one single loving clinic that only handles a specific subset of disorders and only when paid upfront while moderately reducing the costs (but not really because again, insurers pay about the same costs at a real hospital as these people would pay up front) and you somehow think that you are winning this argument? It is not moving the goalposts to point out that having a single functional clinic says nothing. How does the OSC function for the poor? For anyone living paycheck to paycheck (the majority of americans by the way) the OSC is non-functional because they can't afford to drop $4,000 or more on an unexpected surgery. It does not handle emergency care. It does not handle primary care. It does not handle end of life care (the single largest expense). It does not handle cancer treatment. It does not handle basically anything but one specific subset of treatments. This is the equivalent of pointing to a boob job clinic and saying 'see the free market works!' quote:This model of healthcare delivery was actually fairly commonplace up until the middle of the twentieth century. Most healthcare was purchased out of pocket and insurance existed for catastrophic medical emergencies. Since then, the State has intervened to fund Medicare, Medicaid and various regulations, tax policies, crony corporatism and market distortions have incentivized people to not participate in the market and have your insurance pay for ALL medical services, life threatening or not. The model of healthcare you are talking about also involved leaching. Health insurance was basically not a thing until the twentieth century and your repeated assertions that we can somehow compare modern medical treatment to surgical procedures from the turn of the century is loving baffling. quote:New ideas, even very effective and superior ideas, take time to catch on. This is even more true with the status quo is being propped up by State coercion. You're going to be saying this on your deathbed about austrian economics, and I'm going to be laughing at you. Because I'll live longer since I live in a country with a functional healthcare system and the correspondingly lower mortality rates. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Wait, I have a question. If Jrod thinks that the government should have just paid off the Confederate states to offset any losses that they would incur with the abolition of slavery, where would that money come from? The free market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Simply saying that this view amounts to libertarians "not caring" whether the institution of slavery persisted for another ten or twenty years is disingenuous. Even though slavery was technically abolished with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, blacks didn't achieve genuine freedom for another hundred years. Many historians have noted that the post Reconstruction conditions and treatment of blacks was made immeasurably worse due to the manner in which emancipation took place. It has been persuasively argued that had more peaceful methods of emancipation been successfully tried, blacks might have achieved a genuine equality far earlier in our history. Oh yeah, I wanted to point out that the reason blacks didn't acquire genuine freedom for a hundred years and their post-reconstruction treatment was so bad was because of a white supremacist insurrection that overthrew the popularly elected state governments and reestablished white supremacist oligarchies the instant federal troops left (which wasn't ended until they returned in the 1960s to enforce integration)...and your solution to this problem is to never send in federal troops in the first place, just let those white supremacists have uncontested control of those states the entire time, give them their own country in perpetuity so they never have to submit to anti-segregation decisions from the US Supreme Court or federal civil rights legislation, let them keep their own military, and then hope a slave revolt happens which would somehow have the bizarre ahistorical feature of being the only bloodless orderly peaceable slave revolt and revolution in history. Yeah. Seriously, you want to talk about how some slaves died in the Civil War, why don't you look up the death toll of slave revolts in Sparta, Rome, and for a 18th/19th century contemporary example: Haiti. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
"I believe that self-ownership is inviolable and everybody owns themselves. Except slaves. They don't get to own themselves." - jrod
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't favor an armed insurrection against the State. This is primarily for practical reasons. I don't have much sympathy in general for the right-wing militia types who don't have a consistent understanding of liberty any more than your typical left-winger. I just have to ask, am I the only one who thinks libertarians doth protest too much? It was one thing that bothered me even back when I was a libertarian. The liberty movement of Freedom, freedom, liberty! It just seems so incredibly pompous to me whenever I hear someone talk about it I'm just reminded of this section from the newsroom: quote:And with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America is so starspangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, BELGIUM has freedom! Two hundred and seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom. The weird obsession with acting like libertarians are the only ones who believe in freedom is just obnoxious to me. I believe that people should be free too! I just don't believe that a prerequisite to freedom or liberty is to be completely devoid of any connections to your fellow man or society in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Anyone else remember this? Of course I would support the forcible redistribution of slaveholder land and/or wealth to the freed slaves. This is not in any way an act of aggression but a just act of restitution in payment for past acts of aggression. It is an interesting thought though to think of how much farther ahead American blacks would be had their ancestors been immediately granted a just proportion of money and land in reparations for slavery and built up this wealth over the generations. Why didn't this happen? Well, I think the Civil War muddied the waters. The amount of property destruction, to say nothing of the human cost of the war, made reconstruction efforts about repairing and re-integrating the Union rather than about restitution for freed blacks. The Union, whether it stay intact or break up, is not that loving important. The real moral issue involved the subjugated black slaves and their exploitative white "owners". Black slaves want to disassociate with their masters and are prevented by violence and threats of violence. Their labor was stolen and justice demands that they be compensated for that theft. Sadly, the slavery issue became an afterthought as "saving the Union" became the nationalistic battle cry. The only good outcome of this conflict of course was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, but given the level of sincerity Lincoln and the Republicans showed towards the slavery issue, it should hardly be surprising that they didn't push further for just compensation given to the newly freed Africans as Justice would demand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"I believe that self-ownership is inviolable and everybody owns themselves. Except slaves. They don't get to own themselves." - jrod I know right? You'd think that if there was one thing that would demand violence it would be the abolition of human ownership by others. If self ownership is the core of your society you'd think it'd be anathema to have slave owners standing nearby, but apparently not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? Yes. Supporting something in theory and then arguing against any effort to actually do it is a classic failure of armchair liberals. Ooh slavery is bad, but defending yourself from a Civil War the slavers started is worse. Yeah, I don't like Apartheid but oh Lord please don't replace it with black people ruling. Look, we can all agree that genocide is wrong but we can also all agree that defending Poland from Nazi aggression would be an even greater evil. ETC quote:If I believe that there was a more ethical, more effective manner by which emancipation could have taken place without the bloodshed and horrific ramifications of the Civil War and I point this out, in what rational world does this make me "pro racial slavery"? Because you make up revisionist lies about every step of the civil war, from what started it, to how many people died, to how much support for the war the South had and what the South did to dissenters. You are either so misinformed about the war that your beliefs are based in fantasy, or you are a liar hiding your support for slavery behind concern trolling over the method that ended slavery. quote:You've discredited yourself. You stole the words from my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course I would support the forcible redistribution of slaveholder land and/or wealth to the freed slaves. This is not in any way an act of aggression but a just act of restitution in payment for past acts of aggression. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. If the union hadn't been restored, the slaves wouldn't be free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Sadly, the slavery issue became an afterthought as "saving the Union" became the nationalistic battle cry. The only good outcome of this conflict of course was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, but given the level of sincerity Lincoln and the Republicans showed towards the slavery issue, it should hardly be surprising that they didn't push further for just compensation given to the newly freed Africans as Justice would demand. Lincoln was imperfect therefore we should have just left literal chattel slavery in place in perpetuity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? Nah I'm going to take it up with you because it's your words I addressed (and finally, thank you for proving you can actually read my posts; address all the other poo poo I've flung at you, especially about fraternal societies). You blatantly misconstrued who fired the first shots of the war because either your understanding of what happened there (as is your understanding of President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Unfuckingbelievable. A newly established party founded on the issue of abolition of slavery wins the highest office in the land for the first time resulting in slave states starting at the time one of the largest land wars in history. No poo poo "save the union" became a battle cry when you've got marauding slave drivers invading multiple states carving a path of death through your country. But the south was sincere in their love of all things related to raping and killing black kids so we should side with them up to and including mythologizing their actions
President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Sadly, the slavery issue became an afterthought as "saving the Union" became the nationalistic battle cry. The only good outcome of this conflict of course was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, but given the level of sincerity Lincoln and the Republicans showed towards the slavery issue, it should hardly be surprising that they didn't push further for just compensation given to the newly freed Africans as Justice would demand. haha you really have no moral center, do you? you've just completely flip flopped on whether or not ending slavery through war was a good thing or bad thing "well some people were more interested in preserving the statist abomination of federalism than they were about ending slavery, so clearly the better thing to do would have been for the statist abomination to somehow through means other than taxation to just buy all the slaves" you have no idea what you're talking about here and i suspect that you kind of just gently drift through a mediocre academic career given that your response, when pressured, is to poop out a squid-like ink cloud of words to dazzle and confuse those who would otherwise eat you alive
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course I would support the forcible redistribution of slaveholder land and/or wealth to the freed slaves. This is not in any way an act of aggression but a just act of restitution in payment for past acts of aggression. That's good. For the record, I didn't really think this would be a problem for you to say. The actual difficult question was the second one. quote:It is an interesting thought though to think of how much farther ahead American blacks would be had their ancestors been immediately granted a just proportion of money and land in reparations for slavery and built up this wealth over the generations. This is all very vague and doesn't really address the point. It is true enough that repairing the Union became an overriding concern for which many just goals were sacrificed. For example, late in Reconstruction, the will to uphold the political rights of black southerners melted away, leading to the withdrawal of federal military protection and the institution of Jim Crow. But what you really need to consider is that prior to this, black political rights were something the federal government and its Union-loyal citizens were willing to support and protect. This did not just amount to passing some Constitutional amendments and calling it a day. The political rights extended by those amendments had to be protected by force of arms and while they were, black southerners voted, ran for office, and held positions in government. After that protection was withdrawn, the forces of white supremacist terrorism and reaction undid all these gains. Please note: in the face of white southern opposition, even violent opposition, the federal government was willing to force the governments of the southern states to accept black political participation. There was the will to fight for this for a time. Why was there not the will to fight for economic reparations for freed people? It's not like nobody talked about it. It's not like it was never tried. Why was that measure a bridge too far? GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Please note: in the face of white southern opposition, even violent opposition, the federal government was willing to force the governments of the southern states to accept black political participation. There was the will to fight for this for a time. Why was there not the will to fight for economic reparations for freed people? It's not like nobody talked about it. It's not like it was never tried. Why was that measure a bridge too far? most white americans at the time were deeply racist. ending slavery was a nice moral position but really most white americans were more concerned with preserving the dignity of the united states government by defending against an armed and violent rebellion. if the south hadn't attacked first it's questionable how much most white american voters would have cared, given the unpopularity of both war and abolitionism black americans, of course, cared deeply and profoundly about abolitionism. which is why they surely would have supported mutual aid societies to fr- oh, they did? this actually happened? uh, well *shuffles note cards nervously*
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I've said this before and I'll say it again: you support every possible method of ending slavery in the United States except for the one that actually did. Don't act surprised when we question your motives on the subject. Very much like Rothbard's libertarian concern trolling about sanctions and divestment from Apartheid-era South Africa hurting the blacks because they're poor, and therefore we should have continued shipping the Nats everything they needed to shore up their brutal oligarchy no matter how many Sharpevilles and Sowetos they committed to hang onto power, and hey by the way maybe democracy in South Africa wouldn't be that great, the ANC are socialists after all (as were the Nats but we're going to pointedly ignore socialism and coercion that benefits white people). We're in principle against apartheid, but we also oppose every effective means of ending it and also we prefer keeping it rather than risk the ANC winning democratic elections. And again, jrod is concern trolling Lincoln for the number of slaves killed as collateral damage in the war that freed them, while proposing that instead the slaves themselves do all the fighting in a protracted bloody insurrection for decades or centuries in grinding asymmetrical warfare against a fully established sovereign government with a state-of-the-art military and no compunctions about using the most brutal horrific methods imaginable to suppress dissent, while libertarians in the rump United States do everything they can to block military or economic aid for the slave revolt because it would be an imposition on Southron sovereignty and self-government. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
The South screamed bloody murder because they might have lost their majority in the Senate, as they felt entitled to the full control of the Republic. There were also what we'd probably call "slaver-backed sectarian militias" operating in "Bloody" Kansas and in other areas. When Sam Houston, a Founding Father of the recently-assimilated Republic of Texas, pled with Texas to not join the Confederacy and, if they must secede, become an independent state again, I believe he was thrown out of the legislature. The antebellum South also made numerous (failed) attempts to plant slave agriculture throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and would have probably demanded the seizure or purchase of Cuba (as a slave state, perhaps by force) if they hadn't left when they did. Very libertarian!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Yes, what happened to black people and Indians and subjects of colonial power was very bad *affects look of concern that just looks like a crazy glare because you learned it from molyneux* however, none of those people's literature is worth reading, only lily-white mises.org and lewrockwell.com that keeps me loving racist misogynist womb-colonialist Ron Paul, is worth reading. The most important battle on earth right now is one that, regretfully enough, puts me in common cause with a rustling thicket of white supremacists
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Caros posted:The southern states had their chance to not join the union. They chose to join the perpetual union and once joined were not legally allowed to secede anymore than my city is allowed to secede from my state. Tough poo poo. Also slavery isn't about freedom of association it is about forced ownership. You fucker. Nessus posted:The South screamed bloody murder because they might have lost their majority in the Senate, as they felt entitled to the full control of the Republic. This this this. The South loving loved the Union and the federal government when they controlled all three branches and the Supreme Court was overturning emancipation laws in free states, federal troops were marching into Boston to arrest escaped slaves, and the US Army was conquering Mexican territory for them in order to expand their slave empire from sea to shining sea. It's only when the majority of the country elected a free soil president and the senate tipped in favor of free states after Southern militias failed to impose slavery on Kansas by force of arms did the South finally discover their principled opposition to a federal union with supremacy over state law and their sudden support for states' rights. And then they promptly formed their own federal government that also barred secession, imposed slavery on the territories, gave even less respect to states' rights, and began an expansionistic war of conquest...but for some reason libertarians prefer this sort of federal government to the abolitionist-dominated US federal government...how mysterious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:52
|
|