|
Alright you ignorant fucker. I've got two things to say to your dumbass self, and I'll start with the simpler one. In the last two weeks, I have broken two peoples' ribs, electrocuted another man seven times, assisted while a friend slit someone's throat open, completely chemically paralyzed four people two of them for long-term periods, physically restrained someone against their stated will (but they also thought the bugs were going to eat them, so...) chemically restrained multiple people to prevent them from self-harm, watched four people die while being perfectly capable of helping them (more that I couldn't), and have stabbed a completely unknown amount of people with needles, many of whom were not able to consent and, in fact, never did. Oh, I drilled a bigass needle into a person's shin without their knowledge or consent too. Uh, lets see, there's more. I've shoved tubes into stomachs, down mouths, down noses, up asses, and ditto urethrae. I'm sure there's more crap I've simply forgotten about by this point. And somehow, the police aren't knocking on my door, and its because we decided, a while ago, that some things are okay for some people to do that others cannot. Second, I had a long, long post typed up about cancer and the treatment thereof, but I deleted it because you won't read it. Let me just say that I think that giving false hope to a dying cancer patient (or the family of a dying patient) is one of the cruelest things I have ever seen someone do to another human being. And the times I've seen it, the person had the best intentions, genuinely wished for them to get bette,r and couldn't face the very clear picture in front of them. Letting someone knowingly give that false hope, for the purpose of profit, would be so far beyond the pale that I frankly have lost any ability to come up with creative invective. Its so utterly reprehensible to me that I do not know how to express it in words. People are not rational when it comes to end of life decisions for themselves and that applies even more strongly when we are discussing end of life decisions for loved ones. And while I started typing this post filled with a vague rage and desire to just yell at you in amusing ways, I'm giving up and sitting quietly, defeated by the blind, banal evil of your idea of an ideal healthcare system. Less than two weeks ago, I had to tell a family of four that their mother had died. They had just come from their father's funeral. And it was your words, jrod, that left me speechless. I cannot express my contempt and disgust enough.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait I'm confused, I thought Libertarianism was exuberantly pro police brutality against Certain People, may I quote one of your self-described most influential role models on the subject? We don't need cops. We only need... Judges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you suggesting that colonialism has something to do with libertarianism? The same libertarians who hold up Switzerland as the model of how a society ought to interact with the rest of the world (complete neutrality, non-intervention)? Switzerland is unique that it CAN even be nuetral. The natural defense, political maneuvering, the loving bunker under the swiss alps, and heavy experience of their armed forces at mountain combat allow them to get away with it. You know a country that tried to be neutral too? Poland. For the last two and a quarter centuries the Polish nation wanted not much to do except live on their land. The Polish nation has been dissolved and recreated 5 times in that span. Switzerland has not had to re-create its since its nation came into being around the late 19th century. Shoo heathen, away with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" You are kinda... proactive on insulting your opponents, mate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Jrod, answer my question Jrod! Is there a reason leaving the United States is not an option for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember how Occupy broke up the big banks and lobbied for all those bills to reform Wall Street? Me neither. Remember that time Libertarians did loving anything? Me neither.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:You are kinda... proactive on insulting your opponents, mate. You'll note that, much like the melon thing, he didn't deny the underlying accusation. Who What Now posted:Yeah! Why should "Black Lives Matter" try to improve the lives of blacks?! They should focus only on what I, a white man, deem acceptable for them. Black subordination to white rule is advocated to one degree or another by many of his self-described heroes, after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah! Why should "Black Lives Matter" try to improve the lives of blacks?! They should focus only on what I, a white man, deem acceptable for them. Minimum wage increases absolutely hurt low skilled laborers and especially black laborers. I will cite some relevant facts and studies, so pay attention. And I hope you’ll forgive me for supposedly “not thinking for myself” but this topic requires evidence so I will provide it. A review of the contemporary literature on the minimum wage, by David Neumark and William Wascher, points out: quote:Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf?new_window=1 In fact, even the Congressional Budget Office, which has every incentive to downplay the disemployment effects of minimum wage increases, estimate that increasing the minimum wage nationally to $10.10 per hour will cost 500,000 jobs: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995 Another recent study by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither looked at the effects of minimum wage increases during the recent Great Recession. According to them, minimum wage increases that occurred between December 2006 and December 2012 “…reduced the national employment-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points.” For those not good at math, this amounts to 1.4 million jobs. They also found that “… binding minimum wage increases significantly reduced the likelihood that low-skilled workers rose to what we characterize as lower middle class earnings.” http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~mwither/pdfs/Effects%20of%20Min%20Wage%20on%20Wages%20Employment%20and%20Earnings.pdf Mark Perry is a scholar at AEI and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus. He studied the effects of the minimum wage hikes between 2007 and 2009 on teenage unemployment, when it increased by 41% during that period. http://www.aei.org/publication/lets...-2007-and-2009/ Take a look at this graph in particular: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/minwage3.jpg The issue is even bleaker when we focus on low skilled minority workers. Modern minimum wage laws have had explicitly racist origins, as the economist Walter Williams notes in his great book “South Africa’s War Against Capitalism.” http://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-War-Against-Capitalism/dp/027593179X In the book, Williams quoted a white union leader as saying “… I support the rate for the job (minimum wages) as the second best way of protecting white artisans.” Unskilled black workers have been devastated by minimum wage hikes. Economist Thomas Sowell wrote: quote:In 1948 … the unemployment rate among black 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was 9.4 percent, slightly lower than that for white kids the same ages, which was 10.2 percent. Over the decades since then, we have gotten used to unemployment rates among black teenagers being over 30 percent, 40 percent or in some years even 50 percent. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth Did you get that? Black teenage unemployment was 9.4 percent in 1948 and don’t try to tell me that society was LESS racist back then than it is today. Clearly the astronomical black youth unemployment rate can be attributed to the minimum wage laws which function largely like the racist South African unions intended. The sad part is that it is actually presumably well intentioned Progressives who are inflicting this harm on societies most vulnerable. And exactly how familiar are you with the Davis-Bacon Act, which was a Jim Crow era minimum wage law which explicitly was intended to harm blacks and keep them out of the labor market. This is history that we really ought not to forget. For further reading on this important subject: http://fee.org/freeman/davis-bacon-jim-crows-last-stand/ All this should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with economics. Demand curves slope downward don’t they? If the cost of labor is raised, wouldn’t employers not hire as many new workers? If the price of oil goes up, would you expect people to drive less? Would you expect them to buy more fuel efficient cars? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you correctly comprehended one of the principle rules of supply and demand. Everyone knows this, at least intuitively if not from economic literacy, but people seem to think that the ONE exception to this rule is in labor markets. Why would this be? When I discussed the minimum wage with you all before, you tried to convince me that even though all the “old” empirical studies seemed to show a negative employment effect from minimum wage laws, and economic textbooks taught that there was a negative employment effect, and economic theory would demand that this is so, new studies overturned all that old wisdom and purported to prove that there is no disemployment effect from minimum wage hikes. Such “studies”, if they are truly to be taken seriously as dispassionate research into labor markets and not political advocacy masquerading as science, are deeply called into question when one further examines the literature. I’d ask you all to carefully consider the three recent studies I’ve liked to on this page and explain to me why they are wrong and why, for some reason, demand curves don’t slope downward in labor markets. http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~mwither/pdfs/Effects%20of%20Min%20Wage%20on%20Wages%20Employment%20and%20Earnings.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf?new_window=1 http://economics.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/files/events/Meer_West_Minimum_Wage.pdf And, for good measure, why not explain why black teenage unemployment was at 9.6% in 1948 but has fluctuated between 30% and 50% for decades?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If they wanted to improve the lives of blacks, the LAST thing they should do is advocate raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage hurts low skilled workers mmm yes i agree the people who don't qualify for skilled labor should work for as little as possible oval office
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Did you get that? Black teenage unemployment was 9.4 percent in 1948 and don’t try to tell me that society was LESS racist back then than it is today. Clearly the astronomical black youth unemployment rate can be attributed to the minimum wage laws which function largely like the racist South African unions intended. The sad part is that it is actually presumably well intentioned Progressives who are inflicting this harm on societies most vulnerable. Yes! It must be the minimum wage! What other reason could there be for black teenage unemployment being at 9.4 in the 1948 during the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
jrode i literally cannot get a job that pays more than minimum wage how much do you think i should be paid to do my job
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I'm not explaining poo poo to you because it's been laid out exactly how you are objectively wrong about this multiple in the past. So what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
He's got a point; black unemployment was close to 0% when the minimum wage was zero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yes! It must be the minimum wage! What other reason could there be for black teenage unemployment being at 9.4 in the 1948 during the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history? Just think of those poor black people today, forced to waste their most productive years on "kindergarten" and "basic literacy," it's a goddamn crime I tell you as a man who sympathizes with the following list of great thinkers who by some strange coincidence all supported Apartheid, some quite viciously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Jrod sees a major problem with 14 year old black kids being in school instead of picking cotton. Is anyone else surprised by this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:words... What good is working a job if the wage isn't suitable to sustain a minimal standard of living? I'm going to take this to mean you 100% support a guaranteed minimum income.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Hey Jrod, are you trying to save our souls or what? Seriously, if you're trying to be a missionary you're doing a remarkably lovely job of it. You might look up how other religions do it - steal some of their techniques. 1000101 posted:What good is working a job if the wage isn't suitable to sustain a minimal standard of living?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the price of oil goes up, would you expect people to drive less? Would you expect them to buy more fuel efficient cars? No and no. My driving needs have not been affected by the change in oil price. I don't suddenly lose my need to drive to work because gas is expensive, grocery shopping doesn't go away because gas prices went up, etc. I might review my schedule to see if I could maybe cut down on redundant trips, but without an alternative to driving I still need to drive everywhere I needed to go. People will not sell their cars and buy new more fuel efficient cars because of an increase in oil prices. It would take a long time for the initial investment of the new car to get made up for by the savings in gas bills. In that time, my capacity to spend, need to spend, or options on what I can do to reduce my gas bill will change drastically, even ignoring the interruptions to my life of switching cars. The same applies to minimum wage and workers. If my factory needs 500 floor workers to operate, raising the minimum wage doesn't suddenly mean I only need 300 floor workers. I will still need every person I already have. I might review my company's organization to see if I have any redundancies I should have cut anyway, but overall the bulk of my labor needs do not change. In addition, spending an insane sum now to (in a few years) possibly make up for an increase in labor costs doesn't make any sense. Either I was going to do that anyway and the increase in cost at worst only speeds up my timetable, or that's still just as risky and problematic of a change to make. Please learn basic logic Jrod 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
1000101 posted:What good is working a job if the wage isn't suitable to sustain a minimal standard of living? Straight up, the suffering of the poor does not matter. The sanctity of private property and its protection from any kind of tax or regulation is literally the only metric for morality in JRod's world. Deontological ethics mean never having to say you're sorry (for starving your workers).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Straight up, the suffering of the poor does not matter. The sanctity of private property and its protection from any kind of tax or regulation is literally the only metric for morality in JRod's world. Deontological ethics mean never having to say you're sorry (for starving your workers). Again, deontic ethics and the tradition of Kant gave us Rawls. jrod's ineptitude can't be blamed on overzealous adherence to a particular moral principle, but rather on the lack of any such principle. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A review of the contemporary literature on the minimum wage, by David Neumark and William Wascher, points out: The Neumark and Washer study you're citing is old (2006) and critiques of their methods already exist https://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf quote:Meanwhile, Neumark and Wascher (2006, 2007) conducted a qualitative review of the research since the early 1990s on the employment effects of the minimum wage in the United States, other OECD countries, several Latin American countries, and Indonesia. In their summary remarks, focusing on Meta-studies showed that the minimum wage studies with the strongest statistical power were clustered at or near zero employment effect, for example  If you're going to post old studies at least be aware of subsequent results and criticism of those studies. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod maintains that he is a cool and handsome adult. His actions paint him to be a scrawny, awkward early 20-something at best who probably still lives in the bedroom he grew up in. I'm going to defend living in a parental home as a perfectly reasonable economic decision, especially if you're A) socioeconomically impoverished (he probably ain't) or B) willing to eat the moderate but nonzero social consequences of doing so in modern America. with a lot of caveats like it being an rear end in a top hat thing to do if the parents want to sell it and downsize / move elsewhere, but whatever
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm going to defend living in a parental home as a perfectly reasonable economic decision, especially if you're A) socioeconomically impoverished (he probably ain't) or B) willing to eat the moderate but nonzero social consequences of doing so in modern America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
1000101 posted:What good is working a job if the wage isn't suitable to sustain a minimal standard of living? You forget that jrode is someone who believes no one in America is really poor, like destitute starving poor, just lazy. Anything that falls outside his firsthand experience of 'not having enough money to buy that game that one time' doesn't really exist for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
  quote:Encourage increased options for the treatment of Lyme Disease and provide local physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required. Couldn't find any bigger images , sorry
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:You forget that jrode is someone who believes no one in America is really poor, like destitute starving poor, just lazy. Anything that falls outside his firsthand experience of 'not having enough money to buy that game that one time' doesn't really exist for him. Eh that's not true, if the poor really need money for necessities like healthcare for chronic illnesses, they can ask gramps and gran for the cash and get it no problem, that will ensure they're not spending on frivolous pursuits like drink and cards and burlesque.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Black people: We'd really like it if the jobs that we disproportionately have actually paid enough so that we could live-- White Libertarians: SHUT UP, YOU'LL BE FREE ONCE YOUR BOSS PAYS YOU EVEN SMALLER SCRAPS, THANK ME LATER! Jrod, how would you respond to the fact that polls suggest African-American support for minimum wage increases is much higher than support among whites? Blacks not knowing what's good for them, or state-conspiracy to trick blacks into supporting minimum wage increase but the state-conspiracy forgot to let whites know it's all for them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
How does a minimum wage price black workers out of a job? Are you saying that business owners are racist and will pay black people less money for equal work on the free market? How does that match up with the claim that civil rights legislation is unnecessary because the free market punishes racism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Are you aware that that theory has been thoroughly discredited by not only libertarians but most mainstream economists as well? I do indeed subscribe to Labor Theory of Value. I've already come out as a Marxist in this thread, so this should not be news to you. Also, as both Caros and Tesseraction have noted, while LToV is most definitely controversial among economists, it's certainly not been 'thoroughly discredited'. The argument is still on-going, for a whole host of reasons which range from the purely ideological to actual critiques of the theory itself. jrodefeld posted:The question was specifically "where do profits come from", and the answer that consumers dictate the profits is not in anyway belittling to the work of the entrepreneur and his or her employees. In fact it is the role of the entrepreneur to make forecasts about future consumer demand and risk his or her capital on that forecast. This takes a great deal of skill and foresight. And yet, mysteriously, you gave no credit at all to the effort put into the company by the employees, and you still don't. At best, you're giving some - half-hearted - credit to Carl by talking about the 'entrepreneur' here, but what I'm trying to get across to you is the fact that the laborers in this case are absolutely vital to meet consumer demand. Carl could have 'forecast future consumer demand' perfectly, but without employees willing to work for him, that would've gotten him precisely jack and poo poo. jrodefeld posted:The only correct theory of value is the Austrian Subjective Theory of Value, which has been largely accepted by many mainstream and non-libertarian economics circles. Value is subjective and exists only in the minds of consumers on the market. There are MANY incredibly labor intensive and difficult endeavors that would simply yield no profit in a market because consumers see no value in that product or service and would not voluntarily part with their money for it. As Caros - again - already pointed out, the fact that Austrian Economics steal terms and ideas from better, more respected schools of economics doesn't make their fever-dreams more accepted. It means they're trying to piggy-back on more respectable traditions and claim credit for ideas that other, more reflected thinkers before them have come up with, as their own. Much like you and your attempt to claim Lysander Spooner as a Libertarian, actually. Furthermore, trying to claim that value is utterly subjective and only existing in the mind of the consumer in this context is not even wrong. This has been an inherent part of Marxist critique of capitalism since Das Kapital. I mean, for gently caress's sakes, one of the critiques Marx levels at capitalism is that it promotes a system where profits become a game of "How much is the consumer willing to pay" versus "How far can we slash material- and labor-cost to increase profits". Videlicet: Karl loving Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1, Chapter 1 posted:The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value. I know the English is a bit obtuse to a modern reader, but what he's saying here is that Use and Exchange Values of a given commodity to a given person is wholly divorced from the Labor that went into its production, and therefore, by extension subjective! Their exchange-value can fluctuate against one another, much in the way, oh, 10 yards of linen are less useful - and thus less valuable - to a freezing man than a coat, and he'd probably be willing to pay quite a bit more for the coat than for the linen. It has a higher Use Value to him than the linen does, and thus the Exchange Value rises accordingly. In short, we've known about this for a while. Marx's point is that there is one form of Exchange Value that is constant for every commodity, that of the value of the labor going into its production, since Labor itself has become a commodity in capitalism. Do try to keep up. jrodefeld posted:If people want to engage in non-profitable work then that is their prerogative but the effort will come at their own expense. A business, by its very nature, is a profit seeking enterprise. Yet you seem to think that merely due to the fact that a business owner and his or her workers work very hard they are somehow owed a profit. But how could this be? If consumers don't want to purchase their product or service, they won't make any profits regardless of the work put in by the workers. Congratulations, you've just missed the point by a mile. I haven't said that anyone is owed a profit. What I have said, is that discounting the efforts of labor in making a profit is a tremendous blind spot in your world-view that shows with terrifying clarity that you don't actually think of laborers as people, or for that matter, vital to the economic process at all. jrodefeld posted:The question of whether workers ought to have certain rights, or be more appreciated, or whatever else is a separate question to the one you posed. Okay, actually, that's fair. So. Explain again how Qatar and the UAE are more economically free than Europe and the US? jrodefeld posted:You asked about the origin of profits. Profits are realized when the entrepreneur correctly anticipates consumer demand and satisfies it. The value of the product is based upon the subjective value scales of consumers and NOT the amount of labor put into the production of the product or service. Bull and poo poo. Profits are realized when the cost of materials and the cost of the labor going into the production of a commodity or service is lower than the subjective value said commodity or service has to the consumer, and to refute it is laughably easy: Outsourcing. Why do you think that happens? Why are companies moving tech-support from, say, Des Moines, Iowa to Kolkatta, India? Because all other things being equal, the cost of labor in India is lower than in Iowa. They gain a higher profit by slashing the price of a commodity - labor - that goes into providing a service for others. The value of the commodity/service has neither increased nor decreased, but profits are still up. Edit: Okay, actually it could be argued that the value of the tech-support has decreased somewhat, due to language-barriers and - potentially - a greater number of less skilled laborers in the labor-pool in Kolkatta. That, however, seems to be a trade-off the companies doing the outsourcing are willing to make. Further examples where the cost of labor are directly responsible for outsourcing are: Cloth-manufacturing, electronics-manufacturing, the aforementioned tech-support, car-manufacturing, steel-manufacturing, etc. etc. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
In which we learn that even the meaning of terms like "profit" escapes this Randian ubermensch. We have no use for semantics where we're going!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:In which we learn that even the meaning of terms like "profit" escapes this Randian ubermensch. We have no use for semantics where we're going! Nor for syntax, really, judging by his prose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Jrode, it seems awfully like your economic theory isn't even so much "for" anything as it is "against" laborers. Why do you hate them so much by adopting such a hateful thesis? Do you feel they are lesser? Do you feel they are, perhaps, life unworthy of life?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Perhaps labor is the voidable Non? Is that it, JRode? Does Mises fill you and do you grow turgid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Perhaps labor is the voidable Non?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
jrod doesn't understand the labor theory of value? What's that? no libertarian does? And you couldn't get that understanding into them no matter how much lube you used?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
I can't believe Jrod pretended to be supportive of BLM after posting poo poo like this:quote:what about Trayvon? We know he had a history of getting into fights, he was suspended multiple times and was a drug user, and not just marijuana. He was a regular user of "Lean" or "Purple Drank" which, as anyone familiar with southern rap music could tell you, is a drug that contains codein, a soda of some sort and candy. In fact the skittles and sody that Trayvon bought that night were intended to make some Lean Thanks to VitalSigns for saving that quote because I don't have archives, but I remembered him being pretty vile in that thread. edit: woah two pages of posts I didn't notice somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I can't believe Jrod pretended to be supportive of BLM after posting poo poo like this: lmao 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 ... unless the person using the drugs is black, in which case, shoot the fucker
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I can't believe Jrod pretended to be supportive of BLM after posting poo poo like this: Ahaha I forgot about that thread. Let's Play "what's different?" 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? jrodefeld posted:Yeah, I know my drugs though I don't partake anymore (except for weed on occasion). Gun him down, he has all the ingredients necessary to make street drugs except the actual narcotic VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 08:45
|
|