|
Literally The Worst posted:Jrode is an idiot and a fartsniffer and ugly and I want to fight him in pitched combat, clad in only loincloths, heavily oiled, rolling and groping and thrusting Jrod isn't ugly he is in fact too beautiful for mortal minds to comprehend. I have tracked down a real picture of him which you can see here.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. You must support prohibition of alcohol also, right? All kinds of people develop alcoholism and drink way too much. Don't we need to protect people from themselves? hahahahahaha... Hahahahahaha hahahahahaha...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! https://youtu.be/jgflCE7zRpc Are you real? Is this reality right here? Oh jrodefeld you dumb bastard I knew you had problems but really? Are you seriously arguing that we can't prove whether or not MEDICINE can work? I have a sugar pill and an ibuprofen in front of me right now. I have a wicked bad headache as a result of being out all night with a wicked hot lady and drinking more than I should. Which of these pills should I take jrodefeld? According to your ridiculous loving argument we are not "capable of accurately determining which drug or treatment is efficacious and which is not" so should I just flip a coin? How loving stupid do you have to be to write that down and not realize that you just said that humanity is apparently incapable of performing clinical trials. Jesus Christ. I guess it explains you getting your fillings drilled out. Sure all the medical science in the goddamn world told you that it was actually worse to have that done, but as we now know medical science can't tell us anything, so it is best to go with your gut. Sugar pill it is Jrod. Sugar pill it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod isn't ugly he is in fact too beautiful for mortal minds to comprehend. I have tracked down a real picture of him which you can see here. Jrod is not as pretty as me
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Jrod is not as pretty as me Prove it, uggo
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I adorn my body only in the finest dirty jeans, batman hoodies, and chucks that are falling apart, unlike that bitch rear end Jrode who wears poop and mud as befits an ugly fruit loving coward
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
You know, I haven't done a point-by-point for a while, and I don't feel like doing work.jrodefeld posted:Back to the topic. I'll take the time to peruse the last several pages for important posts that I should respond to, but first I'd like to get a few things off my chest as to better explain my ideological identity. It seems that many of you still don't understand where I am coming from, and would like nothing more than to paint me into a corner where my "brand" of libertarianism is merely thinly veiled reactionary right-wing corporatism with not so subtle racial overtones and white supremacy. To me, this is a ludicrous caricature of libertarianism that bears no resemblance to reality. I don't blame you really because many of you (with some exceptions) probably are not intimately familiar with the broader libertarian and classical liberal tradition. So I think it valuable that I take a moment to point out which libertarians I most strongly agree with so as to better express my particular ideological views. I hope there will be no further confusion. I'm inclined to agree that what we go after is a ludicrous caricature of libertarianism, but the problem there is that we're going after your opinions as stated by you. You are a preposterous buffoon, but that is not our doing. quote:Although I am an anarchist, I make a strong point to prioritize which State actions I find most egregious and focus on opposing those policies first, setting aside the less urgent concerns I might have. For me, the absolute most monstrous thing that States do is to wage aggressive war. I suspect that many of you will agree with me on this point, though my confidence in anti-war leftism wavers more all the time. I am, by extension, strongly opposed to military empire and occupation and I believe the United States, as should all nations, ought to be limited in its military policy to defensive war but ought never interfere in the self-determination and sovereignty of foreign lands. I'd call you out on never talking about this, but honestly "we shouldn't invade other countries for no reason" isn't something we'd fight you over, so there's no reason to expect extensive discussion. The fact that you manage to be correct on one point does not forgive you from being grossly awful on everything else. quote:As the founding fathers advocated, stay free of entangling alliances and maintain a posture of neutrality on the world stage while freely trading and engaging diplomatically with those that desire such productive relationships. Son, you're not going to make much headway with appeals to The Founders here. Anyone who's done any kind of reading beyond middle school civics knows that they were a gaggle of squabbling aristocrats who owned slaves, did their best to alienate the non-rich from the political process, and disagreed on almost everything. Don't bother invoking them as holy writ. quote:The second action of the State that I find most objectionable is police abuse against the citizens. Black Lives Matter is a movement I genuinely support since it is raising a vitally important issue long spoken about by libertarians regarding police brutality and the inequities in the criminal justice system. Like every American mass political movement (i.e. Occupy and the Tea Party) the Black Lives Matter movement has been infiltrated and co-opted to some degree by left-wing political operatives that have ulterior motives, but the main systemic problem in the criminal justice system that animated the origins of the movement is extremely urgent and vitally important. If you had been listening, libertarians have been voicing these critiques of the criminal justice system and its systemic racism for decades before contemporary police scandals like that seen in Ferguson and the numerous cell phone videos of police abuse of blacks gave the issue national prominence in recent years. Again, "state-sanctioned murder of black people is bad" is not a position unique to libertarians (though far from universal to them, as your confederate apologist Kovenant Kommunity brethren will admit!). You're going to have to-- Wait Wait hold the loving phone. Did you just suggest that the Tea Party, the loving Taxed Enough Already Party, was co-opted by leftists? You are literally insane. That is black helicopter false flag crisis actor bullshit right there. Go to your room and think about what you've done. quote:Libertarians, myself included, are fond of referring to all State action as a manifestation of "coercion" and "aggression", or threats thereof. This is quite certainly the case, but at the same time it is quite true that if you succumb to the threat and choose to pay your income taxes or your speeding tickets or whatever the State, whether local or Federal, will generally leave you alone. Taxes aren't theft, you won't be killed or even jailed for not paying them, you are an idiot child. We have been over this. quote:But what of the people unfortunate enough to live in countries that the US has declared aggressive war against? The innocents living in Iraq or Yemen are not even given the option to comply with some edict so as to be left alone. They are subject to direct aggressive oppression by the US regime no matter what. Similarly, citizens who are subject to a warrant-less SWAT team raid on their home at 4am were frequently never even given the option to avoid the violence of the State. Again, "aggressive war is bad" is not a unique position to Libertarianism, and their "solution" to the police state is a DRO that can do the same things and also put surveillance cameras in your home and command you to immediately cut off all contact with friends and family on pain of death. quote:For this reason, the libertarians I identify most with are those who focus on opposing empire, wars of aggression and occupation and the police state. Randolph Borne famously said "war is the health of the State" and his dictum has surely been borne out by history. Even if you care mostly about domestic big government many such programs and policies were enabled by war-time conditions which allowed such expansions of power to take place. No, war is not the health of the state, war is pretty well known for draining the state of its wealth and power and utterly destroying one of the states involved. quote:So, in the interest of brevity,  quote:here is my list of the libertarians who most substantially approximate my own beliefs and values, ranked accordingly: Just so you know, Gish Gallops don't work on internet forums. You need a time limit and a friendly audience to pull them off. Don't bother throwing a long list at us and hoping we'll be intimidated into silence, especially given how such things have gone before. I'd single out the fact that you still have Rothbard and HHH on your list, but we've beaten those horses to death already and I want to go after new game. quote:[...] Really, you've read and learned from Nozick? Did you read and learn from the part in Anarchy, State, and Utopia where he explains that ancapism is stupid bullshit for idiots? quote:I think it is worthwhile to post this because I want to more correctly explain where I fit along the ideological spectrum. Some have chastised me for obsessing on race or racial issues, but that strikes me as an odd sort of critique coming from leftists. I’ll freely admit that it certainly sets me off when I, or people I admired and have learned from, are accused of harboring sinister motives or being so-called “reactionary right-wingers” who are closeted bigots and white supremacists. Ain't nothing closeted about accusing African governments of failing because of their Negroid time-preferences, son. And you keep that open and proud bigot on your list of thinkers to this day. quote:It is not merely that such accusations and reckless insults are clearly the last refuge of a man who is losing a debate, but more importantly liberalism as an ideology has much more in common with the left as it has historically been conceived and has been associated with the sorts of progressive causes that you somehow perceive as the exclusive purview of modern Statists. I honestly do not understand why you keep trying to convince us you're on the left. Do you not read what we post? We don't attack you for not being part of the tribe, we attack you for harboring awful opinions that run counter to everything we believe in. Not to mention, anyone who expects solidarity between different brands of leftism is, well, let's say unfamiliar with leftists. quote:You ought to recognize that it was my intellectual forefathers who were fighting against slavery, supporting women’s suffrage, and promoting worker’s rights against State-privileged monopoly corporatism by opposing the State which enabled such moral enormities and supporting laissez-faire Your intellectual forefathers fought against any effective means of abolishing slavery and still advocate "voluntary" slavery to this day, and you happily defend them for that. quote:while your intellectual forefathers (the so-called “Progressives” and big government advocates) were home to the eugenicists, bigots and white supremacists. Okay, point of clarification. When we attack you for being in the company of bigots, it's because you constantly cite bigots and defend their bigoted arguments. We aren't constantly fellating Woodrow Wilson and Huey Long in lieu of making our own arguments. You need to look up the people we actually refer to, outside of when Caros throws your idols' words in your face. I'll even give you a head start so you don't have to peruse the threads! I'm a huge fanboy of John Rawls and Karl Popper. Feel free to try to quote mine them if you want. quote:Even the anti-State left, including anarcho-communists, Georgists and mutualists like the aforementioned Pierre-Joseph Proudhon have much more in common with myself than they do with you lot. Nobody gives a gently caress what you think about who gets to claim who, beyond going after you for laughable ideas like Pierre-Joseph "Property is Theft" Proudhon being on your side for anything. And for the most part we aren't anarchists, so we wouldn't be laying claim to Bakunin and Proudhon anyway. quote:The atrocities committed by the State on a grand scale are what you are blind to while you cling to your fantasies that this institution is, or could ever conceivably be given its inherent incentive structure, a noble provider of social welfare and charity. I've made this point before, but we aren't Statists, and there's not such thing as Statism. We don't blindly defend all state actions, and we disagree with quite a few of them! Maybe you should read something outside of ~*the Libertarian Tradition*~ to see what the people you're talking to actually believe. Start with Rawls! His writing style definitely isn't excruciating and this is not a trap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. You must support prohibition of alcohol also, right? All kinds of people develop alcoholism and drink way too much. Don't we need to protect people from themselves? The FDA is not perfect--albeit mainly due to capitalists fighting tooth and nail to influence it at the expense of consumers--but it's yet another one of those inconvenient things that we as a nation put in place because we were tired of industry pointlessly deceiving and killing human beings. I wouldn't say that people need protection from themselves so much as they need protection from capitalist enterprises that have demonstrated time and again that they are perfectly willing to deceive and kill human beings in order to make a bit more money. The backlash you earn when you suggest removing these protections is, for the zillionth time, because we've seen the death toll of going without them. The problem with the War on Drugs is that our prohibition on many drugs is based on faulty premises, it involves disproportionate sentences, and it persecutes minorities. It's not because they're keeping people from having crystal meth, it's because they're imprisoning a huge (and disproportionately non-white) number of people for non-violent crimes involving substances like pot that are demonstrably less harmful than many legal drugs. Ending the the drug war would also have the advantage that the legalized drugs could be regulated, and thus there'd be dramatically less risk of being sold a fake and/or poisonous product.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Karia posted:I generally agree with this idea: ethics should be universally applied. I don't see this as a contradiction, though: no individual may steal. However, the people as a whole can perform actions that individuals can't. Some individuals are therefore empowered to perform actions (collect taxes, for example) on behalf of the people and with the people's oversight. They still can't perform those actions on their own behalf, therefore it's not a violation. "The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. People can agree to act in a similar manner but their collective actions are only moral if they each individually have the right to act in that manner. You are presuming that agents of the State are permitted to act in aggressive ways that other individuals aren't simply because they operate under the guise of "democratic consensus". Even if I were to concede that State action has a majority opinion behind the individual actions of its agents (I don't) this still violates Universalizability. If this were a valid moral principle, then democratic consensus should be sufficient to justify aggression outside of politics. The racist Klansmen would be justified in their lynching of a black man if they had majority support for such heinous acts in their communities. Similarly, the less fortunate ought to have the moral right to break into Bill Gates home, find his wallet and remove the desired money against his will. Why would it be justified to do precisely this when done through the political process, but in doing so directly be a rights violation and crime? The entire fallacy of the State and the Ruling Class is exposed when you realize that its continued existence is based on violating the rule of universalizability. Their powers derive from the propagated mythology that they have the exclusive justified right to aggression but other individuals outside of politics do not. They, in other words, enjoy an enforced monopoly on acts of aggression. If acts of direct property theft were universalized as morally legitimate, then the entire system of private property and social order would be undermined. Society would not be sustained for very long if all people had the right to seize the property of their neighbor. Karia posted:
I didn't think you would support this, but I certainly do. The question is not whether we would want and desire "effective" healthcare being widely available. The question is whether the State ought to have the right to violently prevent you from determining which drug or medical treatment is effective and which is not. The FDA is under tremendous political pressure from lobbying groups for the Pharmaceutical industry and organized medicine to prevent the free availability of medicines and treatments that threaten their monopoly profits. Even assuming the best of intentions, the hurdles to getting FDA approval can at times be so onerous and time consuming that thousands upon thousands of people die needlessly because drugs and treatments are kept off the market. People can discover the most effective medicine by relying on agencies that review drugs and procedures for safety, and recommend to consumers which they ought to choose. The difference is that these agencies would compete freely on the market and they would advise people rather than threaten them with violence if they choose to purchase an unapproved medical service. This prevents the power of monopoly influence over any single agency, since none have the power to violently prevent consumers from making their own decisions. The whole argument that "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves" is a very dangerous argument since it justifies all manner of tyrannical Orwellian policies. I'd also like to mention that the idea that a single institution is capable of conclusively determining which medical services are effective and which are not is problematic. There will ALWAYS be contentious disagreements among doctors and medical researchers to one degree or another and having the power to forcefully prevent the free competition of medical services on the market because you, or a small group of supposed experts, determine that some treatment is not "effective" medicine is fraught with problems. Free competition of drug testing and medical review and certification services, with none having the ability to forcefully prevent the consumer with purchasing the service of their choice, will lead to vastly more effective medicine on the market. We would save literally millions of lives. There are still laws that would govern medical services, of course. If a doctor knowingly sells a patient a product that he knows will not work, or he lies about what it will do, then he has committed fraud and will have to compensate the patient. And, of course, lawsuits and the threat thereof will quickly remove dangerous and deadly drugs from the market. What would make you assume that a political institution like the FDA would be the best way to determine what medicine is effective and which is not? Such faith belies an almost comical level of naivete about the nature of the State and of politics more broadly. You may well consider something like homeopathy to be nothing but quackery, but do you really think the most humane and enlightened way of handling this is to kidnap people and throw them in cages if they engage in a voluntary transaction? Whether you like it or not, there are consumers who want to purchase homeopathic medicine and there are people who want to sell it. If both parties are voluntarily engaged in the transaction, then no third party has the moral right to interfere with violence. If you are truly concerned, then give the consumer the information with which to make an informed decision. Tell him or her that homeopathy isn't real medicine, that it's ineffective and that they shouldn't waste their money on such products. Maybe they'll listen and maybe they won't. This is how civilized people interact with their fellow man. They don't use aggression against people freely engaging in commerce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:"The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. You heard it here, folks! SOCIETY DOESN'T EXIST! You, sir, are so profoundly stupid I'm surprised that you can figure out how your feet work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Do you think your grandparents ever feel shame that they're responsible for two generations of selfish, cowardly, lazy Rodefelds?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Libertarians going on about "civilization" are very interesting to me because talking about who's civilized and who's not in any other setting has been about defining which societies (defined culturally) are superior according to which has effective government (rule of law), and has been used to justify all manner of oppressive paternalistic military actions, similar to the idea of "protecting them from themselves." Discourse on civilization, in other words, is almost always a discourse justifying the superiority of collectives organized by states and their use of mass violence to protect their power. If anything, libertarians should take up the banner of "barbarism" against the tyranny of the civilizing ethos, but this would require sympathy with the plight of those subject to the violence of colonialism and would eventually lead to some unfortunate conclusions about capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
It's fascinating how quickly the "fraud" part of "no force or fraud" gets abandoned once corporate profits are threatened. Nobody can lie to you to take your money! Oh, someone sold you fake medicine? Well, how do you know it's fake? Can we really be said to know anything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Changing the FDA to a recommendation agency would basically have taken the thalidomide disaster and amplified it by an order of magnitude. No thank you. The wicked already enrich themselves at the expense of the gullible and the desperate, and your proposal is designed to let them do that even better. Literally everything about your idea is bad from any perspective except from that of a drug manufacturer's. In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? If you are dying with cancer or some other horrible disease, what moral justification is there for preventing them from trying cutting edge, but yet experimental treatments? It takes a long time sometimes for new treatments to become widely acknowledged as effective medicine, especially if they are radically different from the prevailing orthodoxy. For example, in cancer treatment today, Chemotherapy is a mainstay of treatment. It is very expensive (ask Caros) and the providers can make a lot of money by selling it. Newer treatments that are in their early stages of development will do away with most, if not all, of radiation therapy towards a more targeted approach. Don't you think those who provide the current cancer drugs and chemotherapy treatments have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? So you're saying that the answer to that is to let pharmaceutical companies sell actual, literal poison and say "this will cure all diseases and make you live forever?" You have zero clue what you're talking about. As it stands a patient will be told what the treatment options are and are allowed to pick or just plain not. Nobody is forcing anybody to take a certain treatment; that's why there's a motivation to create less unpleasant/better treatments. The FDA really just says "OK this treatment is legal to use, you can go sell it." It's a check to keep bad treatments out and little else. You're advertising a system that would actually kill people and make it impossible to know which treatments would actually work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? Don't you have any concern for the millions of people who have died from diseases because the FDA wouldn't allow them to access medical treatments that are widely available in other countries? I'll start by treating this as more intellectually honest than it is, and I'll just accept the idea that the FDA is a corrupt puppet for the sake of argument (even though it's loving stupid). The problem in your scenario is not the political institution, but the well-connected companies. What stops them from bribing your small competing drug testing companies that doesn't also stop them from bribing the FDA? They can't compel the companies to deal with them, so the ones who don't play ball will go out of business because the drug companies will collectively boycott them, or even just start their own "independent" testing facilities. The solution is to curb the power of the bad actors, not to destroy the groups they manipulate. Okay, now that the good faith argument is out of the way, I'll treat you the way you deserve. I've heard this line of reasoning a thousand times, and it only leads in one direction. What quack treatments are you buying into, Rodimus? Are you just still salty at us for laughing at your filling drilling escapade, or are you jumping on the colloidal silver train? Homeopathy? Chiropractics? Come on you credulous dolt, tell us what snake oil you're blowing your pirated blu-ray money on!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Might be a bit hard to see the "potential" problem behind all the actual, here-in-reality solutions it brings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Jrod, do you understand what the FDA does and what clinical trials are for? Your posts only make sense if you think the scientific method is bunk, clinical trials are not for observing the effects of a drug but to pointlessly restrict its availability, the FDA has the authority to ban drugs for no reason other than "WE WANT TO HAHAHAH!!!", and there are no mechanisms in place to deal with bribery/corruption. Don't worry Jrod, if we just increase the funding and authority of the FDA a bit, they can keep you safe from conmen who pointlessly drill out your fillings, all without a War on Drug 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Your posts only make sense if you think the scientific method is bunk I can't stop posting this posted:Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:"The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. People can agree to act in a similar manner but their collective actions are only moral if they each individually have the right to act in that manner. You are presuming that agents of the State are permitted to act in aggressive ways that other individuals aren't simply because they operate under the guise of "democratic consensus". Even if I were to concede that State action has a majority opinion behind the individual actions of its agents (I don't) this still violates Universalizability. If this were a valid moral principle, then democratic consensus should be sufficient to justify aggression outside of politics. The racist Klansmen would be justified in their lynching of a black man if they had majority support for such heinous acts in their communities. Similarly, the less fortunate ought to have the moral right to break into Bill Gates home, find his wallet and remove the desired money against his will. Yup, it's moral to take his money and it'd be moral to cut his head off if he didn't give it up. I'll stop reading here. e: and nothing Klansmen do can be moral, but it's moral to kill them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Polybius91 posted:Today I learned that the government prosecuting those who knowingly profit from selling useless or dangerous medicine and lying about it is exactly the same as locking someone up for decades because they did a little weed. I've already addressed this but because you lack reading comprehension, I'll rephrase it. If someone knowingly sells a medical product or service that they know is useless and they don't tell the consumer, they are committing fraud. This would be illegal in a libertarian society. If someone sells someone something that causes serious harm and the risks are not explained and consented to, they have committed a crime and should accept full liability for their actions. People trying to sell poison as medicine would quickly and clearly be prosecuted and put out of business under a libertarian legal order. However, alternative and experimental treatments and procedures where both the consumer and the provider are open and honest with each other (no fraud) and voluntarily consent to a transaction, they should be left alone. Regardless of your personal view of homeopathy and acupuncture, consumers are generally not harmed by either and the information about the efficacy or lack thereof is abundant enough for the consumer to make an informed decision about whether or not they should purchase the service or product offered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Jrod you don't understand the categorical imperative. Stop misusing Kant's legacy. e: I mean, the most prominent modern Kantian political philosopher is Rawls. This should give you pause Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? how does "no regulation" solve that problem you oval office jrodefeld posted:
prosecuted by who you ignorant rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've already addressed this but because you lack reading comprehension, I'll rephrase it. So wait, if they sell something they know is useless without telling the customer, it's fraud. But if someone else (possibly could have) told them it's just a voluntary transaction and fine? How the gently caress are you supposed to actually get someone for fraud? Do the homeopathy companies have to say "hey buddy, this doesn't actually work and is actually based on woo woo magic" before they can sell it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
hey jrode fight me fight me come on bro fuckin fight me i got all these fake geek girls clamorin for my dick because im so pretty, and i just keep looking down and whispering no, i do not create joinder with your hooha coward
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod if someone sold me cancer medicine that turned out to be Zima, I would 100% want to go on a rampage and kill them and anyone who worked with them. Would it be aggression if I did that? Didn't they aggress against me first, basically trying to kill me for my money, so wouldn't I be within my rights to Again, you all are mixing up different things. If someone sells you something that they claim is cancer medicine, but turns out to be nothing of the sort, then they have committed fraud. Knowing deception in a supposedly "voluntary" transaction would be illegal in a libertarian society. The person who sold you the "medicine" has stolen your money because you never would have parted with it if you knew the truth about the product that was sold. If someone sold you something that they knew was dangerous and possibly deadly and they withheld that information from you, they could even be charged with attempted murder depending on the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, you all are mixing up different things. If someone sells you something that they claim is cancer medicine, but turns out to be nothing of the sort, then they have committed fraud. Knowing deception in a supposedly "voluntary" transaction would be illegal in a libertarian society. The person who sold you the "medicine" has stolen your money because you never would have parted with it if you knew the truth about the product that was sold. OK so it's illegal. How do you enforce it? Also what "circumstances" can that possibly be something other than attempted murder?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
What court system? Or are you saying we should go back to the late 19th-early 20th century in terms of government involvement with business?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've already addressed this but because you lack reading comprehension, I'll rephrase it. Or, the government can nationalize all health care, outlaw quack practices and clap sellers of unsafe "herbal medicines" in prison. Problem solved. No buying and selling any more, only bureaucrats to administer proven medications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I'm reasonably certain that it'd violate the Categorical Imperative, though. TLM3101 posted:TLM3101 posted: The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes. I don't know what point you had in mind, but if I had to guess you'd try to make the argument that his profit is at least partially due to the State in some way, and therefore he owes the State some of his property. Is that what you are driving at? I have plenty to say about this, but I don't want to spend time rebutting an argument I am attributing to you. I'd rather get your follow up and then respond to your actual argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes. Yeah maybe before there was real computing power. A properly administrated centrally planned economy would work just fine now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Jrod you don't understand the categorical imperative. Stop misusing Kant's legacy. Not understanding something has hardly stopped him from misusing anything else (like, say, cantaloupes as marital aids), why would he start now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, you all are mixing up different things. If someone sells you something that they claim is cancer medicine, but turns out to be nothing of the sort, then they have committed fraud. Knowing deception in a supposedly "voluntary" transaction would be illegal in a libertarian society. The person who sold you the "medicine" has stolen your money because you never would have parted with it if you knew the truth about the product that was sold. Homeopathy and chiropractics claim to cure all kinds of poo poo from diabetes to cancer to ADD. But they do nothing of the sort. Why do you try to defend them as anything but fraud?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, you all are mixing up different things. If someone sells you something that they claim is cancer medicine, but turns out to be nothing of the sort, then they have committed fraud. Knowing deception in a supposedly "voluntary" transaction would be illegal in a libertarian society. The person who sold you the "medicine" has stolen your money because you never would have parted with it if you knew the truth about the product that was sold. You, personally, want people to languish and die in agonizing pain because they were duped by charlatans and hucksters. You think that their deaths are a good thing, you believe that those people are necessary martyrs sacrificed to the alter of the Free Market. Sure, you might say that doing so is a crime and you might "support" prosecuting those charlatans and hucksters, but that won't bring their victims back from the dead. It won't console their grieving families. It won't do a single thing to dissuade the next con artist selling opium water as a miracle cure. We, on the other hand, want to prevent those deaths from occurring at all. Explain to me how we are the barbarians when you're the one advocating for gruesome deaths to be visited upon the innocent. You loving walking sack of abortion scraping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
But you see, this vast number of deaths that wouldn't have happened was moral
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Karia posted:Oh, wow. Oh, wow. A lot of people would agree with you that "drugs are bad". I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that judicious use of marijuana and other substances can have profound and sustained beneficial effects. But putting that aside, the fallacy is in thinking that things we would consider "bad" should be illegal. You accept that drug prohibition doesn't really deter drug use, but you ought to stick to a consistent moral principle. People own their bodies and therefore they have the right to put what they want into their bodies. Now I, or you, or society as a whole may try to persuade a drug user to stop using, or offer treatment. But using violence against him or the supplier of recreational drugs should never be tolerated. Mandatory drug treatment is fundamentally wrong. Many, if not most, people who use drugs recreationally don't develop an addiction problem. We have no right to kidnap them and throw them in some treatment clinic against their will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A lot of people would agree with you that "drugs are bad". I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that judicious use of marijuana and other substances can have profound and sustained beneficial effects. But putting that aside, the fallacy is in thinking that things we would consider "bad" should be illegal. You accept that drug prohibition doesn't really deter drug use, but you ought to stick to a consistent moral principle. People own their bodies and therefore they have the right to put what they want into their bodies. Should it be illegal to sell radium water?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
The only potential value of the "sue them if they maim or kill you" model is if it is a more effective deterrent than law. There is no reason to believe this, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The consumer is responsible for that profit. Profits and losses on a free market reflect consumer preferences and relay information to entrepreneurs as to where to best allocate scarce resources in capital goods and various production processes. holy poo poo it only took you two fuckin years to respond to this you weak-rear end fool
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:"The people as a whole" don't act, though. Only individuals act. People can agree to act in a similar manner but their collective actions are only moral if they each individually have the right to act in that manner. You are presuming that agents of the State are permitted to act in aggressive ways that other individuals aren't simply because they operate under the guise of "democratic consensus". This is not true, by the way. I have the right to use force against anyone who allows me to do so, and so by your reasoning, so can the government. That is the right "agents of the State" exercise when they enforce the law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
quote:People can discover the most effective medicine by relying on agencies that review drugs and procedures for safety, and recommend to consumers which they ought to choose. The difference is that these agencies would compete freely on the market and they would advise people rather than threaten them with violence if they choose to purchase an unapproved medical service. This prevents the power of monopoly influence over any single agency, since none have the power to violently prevent consumers from making their own decisions. These agencies run full clinical trials and then a bottle in a pharmacy gets an "approved by quackco.ltd" sticker right? Where does the money come from? Who pays for this if not the taxpayer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:41
|
|
