|
It's almost as if libertarianism is a greedy and vicious pseudo-ideology that murders real philosophies and wears their skins as a grotesque costume, or something.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No "society" doesn't "ask" me to pay my taxes to give medical care to others. I don't understand why clear language is so hard for some of you to grasp. If I don't have the option of saying "no" without being forcefully thrown in a cage, you are not "asking" me anything. You are threatening me and using violence to fund your idea of social welfare. The ends do justify the means even in terms of your own goals. Because among the biggest holes in your ideology is the fact that not being part of a government/dictatorship isn't actually an option. Anarchy can't protect itself and will be absorbed eventually. Separately, you're abstract notion of freedom isn't a thing. By providing protection and a fall back for services such as healthcare the government can enable freedom that wouldn't exist if I were living at lower standards. You can reject this, but you have to at least recognize other people's utilitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because among the biggest holes in your ideology is the fact that not being part of a government/dictatorship isn't actually an option. Anarchy can't protect itself and will be absorbed eventually. Jrod maintains that states are evil because they do things like use conscription to win wars, now he just needs to figure out the significance of the fact that using conscription wins wars
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:It's funny how it'd be so easy to simply say that "Nope, Slavery is not compatible with libertarianism" since, after all, it's easy to argue that you can't just stop self-ownership and as such a person can never own another person but nope. Gotta be able to own not white people. It really is revealing isn't it? He doesn't hesitate to say libertarianism stops war, but stopping slavery whoa now wait just a minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Are the PAULBOTS still screaming their little heads off to pretend that they're being forced to live in the United States? "WELL I DON'T WANNA GO NOWHERE ELSE SO I'M GONNA LIVE HERE PLUS THEY WON'T TAKE ME ANYWHERE" really stands out as a solid answer to this type of trash?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jrod maintains that states are evil because they do things like use conscription to win wars, now he just needs to figure out the significance of the fact that using conscription wins wars He also goes on about how bogus it is that the Union conscripted people and compares that to slavery as if the Confederacy didn't also do this. In fact, not only did the Confederacy conscript people, they conscripted slaves. So if the Union is somehow guilty of slavery then the Confederacy is guilty of the rarely seen double-slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
I'm curious what jrod would think about this article from libertarianism dot org:quote:There is a strain of libertarian contrarianism that holds that the Confederate States of America were within their “rights” to secede from the Union. Such contrarianism on this particular topic is detrimental to the larger cause of liberty because the logic of this argument relies upon relinquishing individual rights to the whim of the state. Indeed, as there is no legal or moral justification for supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War, it is impossible that there could be a libertarian one. On the one hand that site is run by Cato, which indicates that everything on it is 100% correct. On the other hand, that article opposes the confederacy and speaks positively of the federal government, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:He also goes on about how bogus it is that the Union conscripted people and compares that to slavery as if the Confederacy didn't also do this. In fact, not only did the Confederacy conscript people, they conscripted slaves. Yeah another example that's very revealing of his priorities. The Union used conscription and the income tax to fight the war, which are two forms of slavery so this alone invalidates all their pretensions of being for freedom The Confederacy also used conscription and the income tax to fight the war, oh and also had chattel slavery that made people into property forever and legalized unlimited rape and torture of them, but  hey no one's perfect, their cause is still the true freedom.There's no tenet of libertarianism that the Union disregards which the Confederacy wasn't as bad or worse about (except maybe tariff levels and some water rights stuff) from a libertarian point of view, including secession itself which the Confederacy not only forbade within its own borders but also went beyond that and tried to force Union states into the Confederacy against their will. But his brand of libertarianism is a cover for racial pro-slavery opinions, and at best he has been duped into supporting that through gullibility and his own historical ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:I'm curious what jrod would think about this article from libertarianism dot org: This is actually pretty great. They love talking about how they can't be racist because this requires "collectivist thinking," yet here jrod is, recognizing and championing the rights of collectives: those several states of the United States of America which would go on to form the Confederate States of America. He even argues for these rights by an analogy which turns these collective entities into individuals in an apartment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Pretty sure Jrod has actually repeatedly demonstrated that people can't stop owning themselves I liked this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
az posted:What's the overlap between jroderians and sovcits, they're both constantly cranky with the government and believe in magic. It seems like there's tons and tons of overlap between libertarians, sovereign citizens, and conspiracy theorists. It's like the dumbest people all wind up jumping headfirst into all of the dumb things eventually, but they're too dumb to ever give them up, so you wind up with bitcoin-hoarding sovcit libertarians espousing how the world is run by lizard people
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
So what is the Libertarian position on American entry into World War 2, jrod? Thinking over it, the USA had conscription and a 90% income tax, ie slavery so they obviously have no claim to being on the side of freedom. And Hitler was just trying to peaceably withdraw from the Treaty of Versailles which he had every right to do since he never personally signed it nor did most Germans so the right of free association under natural law applies here. Also he was supporting the right of self-government among the Germans who were forced subjects of untermensch governments in the interwar period, which he also had every right to do. Now that wasn't all he did, but hey nobody's perfect, holding a little slavery and genocide against him when the Allies had the income tax is hypocritical and immediately discredits the pro-Allied position. So from all this I assume the Libertarian position is the USA should have stayed neutral, or possibly allied with Hitler and joined the Axis Pact since he was fighting communism. Can you confirm?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Well, let's see what the font of all wisdom has to say! FDR was Hitler, because there's no difference between socialism and Nazism, and there's no difference between social democracy and Nazism. Oh, and also Pearl Harbor was the US's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Oh, and also Pearl Harbor was the US's fault.  Hahaha holy poo poo that last one blames the US for starting the war with Germany because it was protecting convoys to Britain, along with blaming the US for the Japanese attack because it refused to ship them oil. Normally it violates the NAP when you blockade someone's free trade or attack them for not selling you oil, but since it's fascists doing it welp I guess it's time to take a big old poo poo on the NAP and join up with Hitler and Tojo
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Anybody who knows anything about the 1850's can tell you, jrod, that the issue of slavery made congress into a completely nonfunctioning body. If you think our current congressional deadlock is bad, imagine trying to get anything passed while half the country believes literally every bill is a conspiracy to end slavery. Basically nothing of substance was done nationally in the 1850s without risking open war between North and South. Admission of states, territorial purchases or expansion, building a goddamn railroad, you couldn't do loving anything politically without going through months of agonizing debate about slavery, trying to cool down threats of secession, and ultimately producing compromises that made matters worse. The compromise of 1850 to allow California into the Union as a free state resulted in the Fugitive Slave Act, which dramatically increased abolitionist sentiment in the North, because it essentially legalized the false imprisonment of free blacks. The Kansas-Nebraska Act settled the transcontinental railroad issue by breaking previous compromises on the expansion of slave states. It would allow Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether to be free or slave states, and the result was a bloody invasion of Kansas by proto-Confederate southerners. This mess created the Republican Party and put abolitionism at the top of the list of concerns in the North. Knowing this context, doesn't it make perfect sense that Lincoln's racism and abolitionism can indeed coexist? There were a lot of abolitionists who wanted to end slavery not because they felt blacks were the equals of whites, or because they thought whites and blacks should have an egalitarian and integrated society, but because slavery itself made the country ungovernable. Indeed, even believing that saving the Union was more important than ending slavery is a perfectly valid point of view for Lincoln and his contemporaries, with respect to the larger political context. Lincoln still held out hope that he could preserve the Union by a combination of diplomacy and forcing the south to sue for peace through military encirclement and blockade. Eventually, with the fire-eaters out of power in the south, a gradual and peaceful emancipation could occur. The North did not commit to total war until it became apparent that there was no possibility of a political solution to secession. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
It's one thing to say the US was in a gradual escalation toward war with Germany anyway through late 1941, but quite another to say that the US was an aggressor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
If memory serves Lincoln's primary concern was actually preserving the union rather than ending slavery. His attitude was "hey if keeping slavery keeps the nation together than fine but if I have to end slavery to do it then I'll do that." It just turned out that the South was absolutely not willing to compromise on anything at all and seceded rather than play nice. They wanted to force the entire country to be all slave territory but the free states were having none of that. You saw that in the founding of the Confederacy; they wanted to spread slavery as they practiced it by force if necessary after the war. It was a legitimate threat to democracy in general as well. Even questioning slavery was absolutely verboten even in their constitution. Since they couldn't force the North do things their way they said "welp, see you fucks later" and tried to leave. The only way to keep the union together was to fight the war. It was also literally impossible for the CSA to win. They picked a fight they were severely outmatched in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves Lincoln's primary concern was actually preserving the union rather than ending slavery. His attitude was "hey if keeping slavery keeps the nation together than fine but if I have to end slavery to do it then I'll do that." It just turned out that the South was absolutely not willing to compromise on anything at all and seceded rather than play nice. They wanted to force the entire country to be all slave territory but the free states were having none of that. You saw that in the founding of the Confederacy; they wanted to spread slavery as they practiced it by force if necessary after the war. It was a legitimate threat to democracy in general as well. Even questioning slavery was absolutely verboten even in their constitution. Since they couldn't force the North do things their way they said "welp, see you fucks later" and tried to leave. And if people need any proof that the CSA would be an expansionist power if left unmolested, look no further than William Walker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It's one thing to say the US was in a gradual escalation toward war with Germany anyway through late 1941, but quite another to say that the US was an aggressor. And the reason we were gradually escalating towards war with Germany was because they had been breaking compromises and spurning political solutions in Europe for the better part of a decade! Not to mention sponsoring Fascist insurgencies across South America, directly interfering with American interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves Lincoln's primary concern was actually preserving the union rather than ending slavery. His attitude was "hey if keeping slavery keeps the nation together than fine but if I have to end slavery to do it then I'll do that." It just turned out that the South was absolutely not willing to compromise on anything at all and seceded rather than play nice. They wanted to force the entire country to be all slave territory but the free states were having none of that. You saw that in the founding of the Confederacy; they wanted to spread slavery as they practiced it by force if necessary after the war. It was a legitimate threat to democracy in general as well. This reminds me there's another aspect to the importance of "preserving the Union" that isn't widely known. By 1860, the US had only been "in operation" in its current form for about 70 years. In the same time period, republican government in France had been established by revolution, fractured by partisan division, betrayed to form an empire, undone to restore the old dynasty, nearly redone, actually redone, and morphed into an empire once more. It was an open question still whether republics were viable. "The Union" as a moral goal had the same weight as "democracy" does today. Keeping the country whole and the form of government intact was the only way to "prove" that a government representing the will of the people could work. The South splitting away is the kind of thing that conservative thinkers the world over expected to happen. (Again, the example of the French Revolution probably loomed large, since in the year of what is usually called the Reign of Terror, royalism and "federalism" were equally damnable positions, the latter essentially referring to a tendency to de-unify the nation represented by provincial revolts for royalist or Girondist causes against the National Convention's authority.) From this perspective, preservation of the Union was vindication of free government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It seems like there's tons and tons of overlap between libertarians, sovereign citizens, and conspiracy theorists. It's like the dumbest people all wind up jumping headfirst into all of the dumb things eventually, but they're too dumb to ever give them up, so you wind up with bitcoin-hoarding sovcit libertarians espousing how the world is run by lizard people Also known as Crank Magnetism
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I "pretend" to love Lysander Spooner?! He is one of the greatest American thinkers of the 19th century, at least on par with Bastiat and I'd maybe rank him a bit higher. How the gently caress you gonna say that repealing usury laws and promoting individual issuance of currency are contemporary leftist policy proposals? Have you ever met a modern leftist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
JRod, for your opinion on the Civil War to make sense, even given your incorrect version of the history of the war, you need one of three things to be true: a) Slavery would end in the CSA in a reasonable timetable/fashion, despite the CSA constitution making this impossible, and the explicit purpose of founding the CSA was to preserve (and even expand) slavery. Now that the CSA is free of the northern abolitionists (and its own abolitionists have been silenced or outright killed), it will obviously radically flip on the issue of slavery and amend their own constitution immediately to ban it. b) As bad as slavery is, the damages from the CW are worse. The ~4 year war (that the CSA started) and the suffering it caused totally overshadows the pains and sufferings of the slaves who would have continued to be enslaved until whatever future date the CSA banned slavery. While the civil war ended slavery, innocent people were hurt and died along the way. Slavery does not hurt or kill innocent people, as all slaves are guilty. c) As bad as the CSA was and as certain as we are slavery would continue, it was a democratic legitimate government that we had to respect. If we look at it by the standards of the times, it went through the normal democratic procedure to declare independence by having a supreme court rule that states did not have the power to declare independence without amending the US constitution, and then ignoring that ruling and declaring independence anyway, and then losing the subsequent war for independence. If we look at it by the standards of today with modern notions of self determination and liberty, we can also see it was legitimate because the decision to declare independence was made by politicians who were not explicitly elected on platforms of secession and who were voted in by white wealthier males, the only demographic that existed in the south at the time. The slaves that were wealthy white men had their chance to voice their opposition to secession and were outvoted. Please clarify for us which of these three positions best explains the morality of surrendering to the CSA, thank you. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
It's truly amazing the facts you learn when you type "[topic] site:mises.org" into google. For example, did you know that abolitionists were the real racists? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:It's truly amazing the facts you learn when you type "[topic] site:mises.org" into google. For example, did you know that abolitionists were the real racists? I agree. From searching "Climate Change" I found this article and the following facts: Mises Climatologist Francisco Capella posted:The freedom of a person to act according to his will in his property implies by symmetry that aggressions against others are ethically unacceptable. An illegitimate aggression is any sufficiently intense adverse physical interference caused by a person on another's property. So, let's do a quick rundown: 1) Carbon dioxide increases are good. If plants like why bad? Did you know how trees work? 2) Climate change might be for the best. Did you ever consider that, libtards? 3) Humans are good at adapting to new environments, like underwater cities, toxic plants that replace conventional agricultural products, and desert hellscapes. 4) It is extremely difficult to prove the connection between increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increased human activity related to greenhouse gas producing industries, and climate change. 5) Did I mention "gently caress YOU NATURE!" 6) Maybe people who live where is cold will like it to be warmer did you think of that. Climate change radicals don't want you to have warmer weather Minnesota 7) Fresh water shortages will be solved by making it inaccessible to people who have no property rights in it and to those who cannot afford it. 8) Heat waves will be solved by air conditioning. 9) Why spend billions of dollars mitigating or preventing climate change when we could just be part of the most massive migration/extinction event in human history? 10) Government involvement in solving climate change is morally worse than allowing millions of people to die and trillions of dollars in property to be destroyed by climate change 11) Global warming is a false flag to institute the NwO 12) Liberty Did I mention in a previous post that the most frustrating thing about Libertarians is that they elevate principles to the moral level of actual observable historical reality? Like, somehow, telling a climate denialist to STFU is the moral equivalent of modern societies being uprooted and destroyed by climate change. edit: Now, armed as I am with these unassailable facts, I will go to the Climate Change thread to educate the people on how to save the planet by abolishing the State. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
You guys are overthinking this. The reason jrode is being even more blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical than usual about the Civil War is that, no matter what, the answer has to be "federal government bad." So when the federal government does something good, even if only by virtue of combatting an entity worse than it by any conceivable metric, it still has to somehow be the villain of the story, because to admit that the federal government did something right, ever, would go against everything jrode believes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:You guys are overthinking this. The reason jrode is being even more blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical than usual about the Civil War is that, no matter what, the answer has to be "federal government bad." So when the federal government does something good, even if only by virtue of combatting an entity worse than it by any conceivable metric, it still has to somehow be the villain of the story, because to admit that the federal government did something right, ever, would go against everything jrode believes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
I, for one, would rather die of drowning or from a lack of access to potable water than submit to the evils of "bureaucracy." I mean, look at all those forms and duplicative administrative positions! The horror! Yes, I'd rather be killed in a freak heat wave due to massive electrical grid failure knocking out my air conditioning than submit to the tyranny of Matt the environmental engineer (did I mention gently caress nature?) discovering an energy company producing an illegal amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
theshim posted:He could make it easy on himself by saying "the CSA wanted to make another state, the worst of all evils" but instead he (read: DiLorenzo) chooses to frame it as a group of people who wanted freedom from the illicit regulations and unfair restrictions pushed on them by brutal, authoritarian tyranny, so That would be the morally consistent view for a libertarian to take, but for some reason libertarian thinktanks seem to skew really pro-Confederacy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
And plants crave CO2 anyways, so what's the big deal, Statists? Jefferson Davis (pbuh) would never have allowed this rank tyranny!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
As far as I can tell plants have an entirely libertarian form of government so at least that's ideologically consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
theshim posted:He could make it easy on himself by saying "the CSA wanted to make another state, the worst of all evils" but instead he (read: DiLorenzo) chooses to frame it as a group of people who wanted freedom from the illicit regulations and unfair restrictions pushed on them by brutal, authoritarian tyranny, so Yeah that's the big reason I enjoy seeing Jrod debate this. He is an alleged anarchist. The CSA was not only a state, but a state dedicated to the promotion and protection of slavery. He can easily say he has no skin in that game other than celebrating the USA's abolishment of slavery. Instead he hops in with both feet to support the far more authoritarian state and spouts revisionist lies to make the CSA out to be the poor faultless victim of genocidal Yankee aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:It's truly amazing the facts you learn when you type "[topic] site:mises.org" into google. For example, did you know that abolitionists were the real racists? Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union, by Donald W. Livingston posted:Nor should this be surprising considering the Negrophobia that prevailed everywhere in the North. It was assumed by the vast majority of Americans, North and South, that America was a white European polity, and that the Indian and African populations were not—and were never to be—full participants in that polity. For example, blacks were excluded from the western territories. Oregon became a state in 1859, and its constitution, which was passed by a vote of eight to one, declared that Oh wow those abolitionists sound pretty bad, what with a couple of their states denying black people equal protection under the law and all-- Lincoln's Inversion of the American Union, by Donald W. Livingston posted:It was during this period of “Reconstruction” that the Fourteenth Amendment was floated. This amendment, since the 1950s, has been manipulated by the Supreme Court to affect a vast transfer of power from the states to the central government, making it virtually impossible for the states to maintain those independent substantial moral communities protected by the powers reserved in the Tenth Amendment  Hmmmmmmmmmmm....
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Yeah that's the big reason I enjoy seeing Jrod debate this. He is an alleged anarchist. The CSA was not only a state, but a state dedicated to the promotion and protection of slavery. He can easily say he has no skin in that game other than celebrating the USA's abolishment of slavery. Instead he hops in with both feet to support the far more authoritarian state and spouts revisionist lies to make the CSA out to be the poor faultless victim of genocidal Yankee aggression. And that's because modern American Libertarianism is essentially a sophisticated cover for white supremacists, who can say "freedom!" instead of "niggers!" White supremacists like Tom Woods, who is on staff at Mises.org as a fellow. He says totally not racist stuff like this: Tom Woods posted:The doctrine was separate but equal according to the Constitution. Segregation was not unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education consolidated several cases about separation, and stated that if schools were separate they were, ipso facto, not equal. "Segregation was and is constitutional, and is in fact probably better for those undeserving blacks. America was great until those damned activist judges ruined segregation and also made abortion legal (which as a Libertarian, shouldn't I support?)!Did I mention that the Northerners are the Real Racists?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
I love it when those two arguments coexist. "See black people are moving back south because they feel more equally treated there! Anyway, we'd really like to re-legalize Southern Jim Crow laws and segregation again for oh you know no particular reason, just historical fidelity to the constitution  "E: quote:America was great until those damned activist judges ruined segregation and also made abortion legal (which as a Libertarian, shouldn't I support?)! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:You guys are overthinking this. The reason jrode is being even more blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical than usual about the Civil War is that, no matter what, the answer has to be "federal government bad." So when the federal government does something good, even if only by virtue of combatting an entity worse than it by any conceivable metric, it still has to somehow be the villain of the story, because to admit that the federal government did something right, ever, would go against everything jrode believes. This may also explain why he's an anti-vaxxer, what with government backed programs wiping out or at least mitigating poo poo like polio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Jrod is obviously using his time to devise devastating critiques of all our shitposts. I'm ready anytime you are, buddy. edit: There should be a thriving free market in communicable diseases. Vaccines are a tyrannical barrier to entry erected by the government. If people didn't want those diseases they would go out of business without the need for government interference. Once property rights have been established, and the price system allowed to operate freely, I think you'll see that communicable dieases take care of themselves! Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
I'm reading the Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment, and seeing that Ohio rescinded ratification and didn't re-ratify the amendment until 2003. God, what a poo poo hole of a state. And my grandparents keep saying "when are you coming home?" And all I can think of is "since when is Ohio my home?" Yeah, seriously, gently caress that state. Like I'm going to move back there just to work in a loving call center.Grand Theft Autobot posted:And that's because modern American Libertarianism is essentially a sophisticated cover for white supremacists, who can say "freedom!" instead of "niggers!" It's hilarious seeing jrode squirm about these points, because the fact of the matter is that every Southern Revisionist point these Libertarians bring up, I've heard a million times growing up listening to my Conservative grandparents and listening to the Conservative talkers. Like: The Civil War was about taxes, not slavery. Yes, about taxes on slaves. States Rights! What about individual rights? Lincoln started the war! Except he didn't. Which is doubly hilarious if you're talking to a Republican Conservative, because they'll assert this point, but then talk about how it was a Republican who freed the slaves and the Democrats are the real racists, especially the black Democrats. Anyways, I do want to hit another point: jrodefeld posted:something something buying fire insurance for your house something something I apologize for not digging out this exact post, but let me tell you the story called "Florida" or "The Day the Insurance Cried". So, in Florida, we have these little storms, maybe you've heard of them, called Hurricanes. Naturally, you buy a house, you get Hurricane insurance. The idea being that if your house is damaged by a hurricane, you're protected. Except you're not really. Somewhere as we entered the 2000s, the insurance people got smart. You now had to prove that damage was done by the Hurricane. Hurricanes bring strong winds, and even in the outer bands of the storm you can have gusts that exceed the reported strength of the storm itself. Was your house damaged by the wind? Well, if you were in the outer bands, it wasn't *actually* the hurricane that did it. Hope you have wind insurance? Oh, you don't? Sorry you're not covered. Struck by lightning? I hope you have lightning insurance! Inland flooding caused by the hurricane? I hope you have flood insurance! (I think eventually even storm surges fell into the "flood" category) And the real kicker? Let's say you have wind, lightning, flood, and whatever else, but not hurricane insurance. Guess what? All of these things were caused by a hurricane, and you don't have hurricane insurance? Claim denied. A real loving scam where they got you coming and going as they say. It became a huge joke, because despite having hurricane insurance to protect you from the hurricanes, the insurance companies would find some way to not blame it on the hurricane. Then came the 2004 hurricane season. After Charlie, most of the insurance companies started talking about how they couldn't afford to keep up. After Ivan, instead of an insurance payout, most people got a letter saying "we're dropping you. Good luck, maybe the government can help you." And after Katrina in 2005, anyone who hadn't already packed up and gone home, did. I believe it was in this time that Florida changed their laws regarding hurricane and home-owner's insurance, which further helped along the massive flight of insurers from the state; trying to get ahead of the Three Card Charlie game the insurance companies were playing. Basically, Florida for once did something right and told the insurers to knock their poo poo off, and all the companies basically took their respective balls and went home. That's right private insurance companies would rather scam the gently caress out of people than be forced to provide the service people were paying them for. And somehow jrode feels this is the way that health insurance should behave, and holds is up as a model of behavior. To use the fire model jrode provided, in case the hurricane incident wasn't clear. Case: House burns down from lightning strike Scenario 1: I have fire insurance Response: It was started by lightning. You don't have lightning insurance, claim denied. Scenario 2: I have lightning insurance, but not fire insurance. Response: Your house burned down because of a fire. You don't have fire insurance, claim denied. Scenario 3: I have fire and lightning insurance. Response: House was improperly grounded to prevent fires caused by lightning strikes. This is a contractor issue, and you cancelled the insurance from that after the first year of home ownership. Claim denied. Scenario 4: I have all three of the above. Response: This was an unforeseen disaster of a storm which has damaged many of our customers' homes including yours. We can't afford to pay out any money or we'll go bankrupt. Therefore, we're dropping you and the hundreds of others who have paid us thousands of dollars in hopes that we'd help them out when this exact thing happens. Call your governor, maybe he'll declare it a disaster area and you'll get some federal aid, but we're not giving you poo poo. Thanks for being a loyal customer, sucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
It's worth noting that if jrode stops responding this will be the second time in a row he was chased out of his own thread for defending literal slave-states. It's almost impressive 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:States Rights! What about individual rights? the fun thing about the States Rights argument is that Southern states imposed defacto slavery on the North through things like the Fugitive Slave Act which allowed Southern slave hunters to travel into states where slavery was forbidden, capture escaped slaves, and re-enslave them in free states
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:24
|
|
