|
RuanGacho posted:Lock jrod in an empty city and observe what property rights he respects. Oh he already answered this one in a life raft scenario I believe. It's ok to break the NAP if you need to survive. However, it's still immoral and the NAP is the only moral way to conduct yourself even though following it rigorously would result in billions of deaths.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:Now hang on a hot minute there, are you claiming that the minimum wage going up didn't change the number of people needed to adequately staff the comic book store? The store didn't fire half its staff on the assumption that the higher paid workers would suddenly work 20 hour days? in fact he had to hire more people because he expanded and opened a store a couple hours away in a market that's underserved (or was, until we moved in) Nessus posted:I think the real argument is "once the minimum wage is abolished, think how much cheaper the comics will get!" Where even if the owner has soulless drones as laborers whose work is unaffected by the moral hit of finding out they just had their pay slashed, why would he not just take the difference as profit? well, no? that can't be the argument because that assumes that the guy selling comics sets the price and not the publisher, and lol at that poo poo. coincidentally, Diamond Comics Distribution literally has a monopoly on distribution in the industry and if you dont think there's something funny going on with prices so they get a nice cut you're high. and its wrong assuming that marvel/dc's costs plummet because they still have to pay people to, you know, make them, and those guys aren't making minimum wage Who What Now posted:Has Jrod ever acknowledged the fact that minimum wage work experience is basically worthless? I know he gets hammered with that fact every time it comes up. I guess it's not surprising he would ignore the one fact that destroys the lynchpin of his entire argument. he has only ever responded to me once, and it was when he challenged me to a fight. i post about my actual experience working for minimum wage as an unskilled laborer every time this comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
I want to see that fight jrod. Fight Dickeye jrod. Do it. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:This decision inspired a lot of activists, lawyers, and Activist Judges. They said, if the Supreme Court can get away with this, with no legal authority, then maybe they could just circumnavigate the usual legislative channels of the Republic, and impose all kinds of values on the country.... I love it when they give away the game like this. The Supreme Court forcibly imposed individual rights on the country by judicial fiat, whereas state governmentsd criminalizing abortion and enforcing Jim Crow were  peaceful discourse
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Strict Constitutionalist = Probable Segregationist edit: And, of course, the "peaceful state by state process" poo poo is ahistorical garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love it when they give away the game like this. The Supreme Court forcibly imposed individual rights on the country by judicial fiat, whereas state governmentsd criminalizing abortion and enforcing Jim Crow were
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love it when they give away the game like this. The Supreme Court forcibly imposed individual rights on the country by judicial fiat, whereas state governmentsd criminalizing abortion and enforcing Jim Crow were The dog is lunging for his pockets, so that young man probably has some skittles on him. No doubt he is on his way to make some Lean, or Purple Drink, as they call it. I think you'll conclude that this man was no angel, and that those valiant cops are just upholding our Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
If jrode does not answer my question, I'm going to engage him in memespeak until he does. 5/5 BRETTY GOOD! 
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I don't know why you guys bother we've gone over every single point he's made multiple times before and he never, ever acknowledges facts that contradict his suppositions Let me turn it around on you: your kind of post shows up every time jrod comes around, you've probably even written at least one of them. Do you expect the responses to it to have changed at all? Why did you bother?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Jrode has never really attacked one of the more substantive replies to him which we should probably write off as a victory
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Well he did engage the criticism of his study he asked for by deciding empirical evidence doesn't actually tell us anything after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Not even close. In a free society you can choose between three (really more than three but these are the obvious ones) means of making a living. You can become an entrepreneur and go into business for yourself. You can choose to exchange your labor for a wage to an entrepreneur and business owner. The third way, and one not discussed as much as it ought to by libertarians, is that you can form a commune with others and share resources, share profits and have a jointly owned and controlled business enterprise. I don't have any preference between these three options and I think any of them are valid choices one is free to make. Starting a business (on your own or communally) takes capital. Other than hyper-lean stuff like drop-shipping, there are startup costs, and even for low-overhead businesses like programming, you need an initial investment in skill. Even a self-sufficient commune needs to own land and housing to support its members. Entrepreneurship is significantly declining, especially youth entrepreneurship. Banks are not eager to finance new businesses, and getting the education needed to start a business leaves youth in significant debt. Access through capital through inheritance and wealthy families/friend networks is one of the biggest predictors of entrepreneurial success. There is a reason that countries with better social safety nets have higher entrepreneurship rates, too. In a country like the US, it is a huge risk to stake your savings into a venture where you could lose everything, especially considering that becoming self-employed often means losing access to affordable healthcare. The freedom to be an entrepreneur is meaningless to most poor Americans, who don't make enough above their cost of living to amass enough capital to start a business. I, for instance, don't have a meaningful choice to form a commune with members of my community, because I have negative capital and few people I know have substantial resources. But I'm glad that I instead have the freedom of not having to depend on luck and labor marketability for basic survival.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
I think Libertarianism is a very American ideology. The argument I just critiqued makes much more sense in a frontier mindset. If you can obtain unsettled land for essentially free, and go and work it and produce crops and housing and other capital assets through your labour with little capital outlay, then this idea of free entrepreneurship makes much more sense. Similarly, the Libertarian idea of "mixing labour with the land" posits unworked & unpopulated arable land, which in modern times is the American frontier (and that's only because it was forcibly depopulated and the prior inhabitants' labour unrecognized.) I'd be much more amenable to Libertarianism if an individual could be self-sustaining through their labour, but in a modern society with property rights, that's not the case. This isn't the frontier. If you don't have marketable skills or inherited wealth in the USA, you can spend your whole life trapped working just to keep yourself alive; student loans are an ostensible solution to this, but that system has its own huge problems. A substantial proportion of Americans have zero or negative net wealth. How is that freedom? It's just a larger-scale version of the company town.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. National Socialism is great on paper but bad in practice
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The difference between socialism and laissez-faire is that in a free society, you can construct a community that voluntarily lives in accordance with socialist values and I have absolutely no moral problem with that. You will be tolerated and, provided you don't use aggression against other people, your rights will be respected. That's a bald-faced lie. You absolutely have a problem with people who want to live in a socialist society. You constantly whine about these individuals and how their societies are inferior. Your entire posting history on SA wouldn't exist if you were accepting of societies that don't fully embrace your laissez-faire bullshit. Remember, you're free to leave society whenever you wish; no one is going to stop you. Go ahead and move to Sealand, you dipshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well he did engage the criticism of his study he asked for by deciding empirical evidence doesn't actually tell us anything after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
jrode you are a bucket of stale urine prove me wrong, working from the first principle that humans act
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:jrode you are a bucket of stale urine I'll prove you wrong: if you leave urine out long enough, it becomes useful for a variety of tasks
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'll prove you wrong: if you leave urine out long enough, it becomes useful for a variety of tasks
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Let me turn it around on you: your kind of post shows up every time jrod comes around, you've probably even written at least one of them. Do you expect the responses to it to have changed at all? Why did you bother? I find posts calling him a watermelon fucker more entertaining than people still trying to debate with him in good faith. Also it's a demonstrative act meant to passively chide him for being such a disingenuous gently caress, because directly addressing him at this point is giving him too much credit. i. e. I am shitposting
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'll prove you wrong: if you leave urine out long enough, it becomes useful for a variety of tasks Animals use urine to mark their territory, which may be the most libertarian thing I've heard of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
This entire mixing your labour with the soil business is just an Oedipal projection on the part of libertarians; They have a deep unconscious desire to have their "labour" (i.e. their penis) and the "soil" (i.e. mother earth (i.e. their mother)) "mixed" (i.e. intercourse). [edit] However, they are blocked from realizing this desire by the "state" (i.e. the father figure). Nosfereefer fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'll prove you wrong: if you leave urine out long enough, it becomes useful for a variety of tasks money doesn't stink
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:money doesn't stink it can
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:it can Larry David proves that it can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjUcMkRG7g#t=2m2s
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Saeku posted:I think Libertarianism is a very American ideology. The argument I just critiqued makes much more sense in a frontier mindset. If you can obtain unsettled land for essentially free, and go and work it and produce crops and housing and other capital assets through your labour with little capital outlay, then this idea of free entrepreneurship makes much more sense. Similarly, the Libertarian idea of "mixing labour with the land" posits unworked & unpopulated arable land, which in modern times is the American frontier (and that's only because it was forcibly depopulated and the prior inhabitants' labour unrecognized.) And while working the land is one way to generate wealth, it's 2016 and there are a heck of a lot of people who get their money--in some cases a whole lot of it--in other ways, so that for a lot of us the land is at best a necessary container for the buildings where people do the stuff that actually makes money. I'm a translator, and while owning a house would be nice (despite how unattainable it is these days), whether I have a 100-acre property or a small apartment makes no difference whatsoever to how much money I make. Of course, without the (publicly-funded) infrastructure of the internet I'd be a heck of a lot poorer because a lot of what I do would be at best vastly more cumbersome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:This entire mixing your labour with the soil business is just an Oedipal projection on the part of libertarians; They have a deep unconscious desire to have their "labour" (i.e. their penis) and the "soil" (i.e. mother earth (i.e. their mother)) "mixed" (i.e. intercourse). Libertarians' obsession with the second amendment comes from rifles reminding them of their father's penis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Why would libertarians need rifles when they have the NAP to protect them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would libertarians need rifles when they have the NAP to protect them? You know the answer to that. black people
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:National Socialism is great on paper but bad in practice Just because we're making fun of libertarians in this thread doesn't mean this kind of lovely post will go unchallenged. It's just too pointlessly dumb to be worth responding to with effort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would libertarians need rifles when they have the NAP to protect them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7uemm6Yo
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Hey jrode, here's what I think of your minimum wage crap. Anyone who has ever worked retail knows what kind of hell that sort of job is, and knows that retail experience is useless for anything outside of retail. Unless you're an actual store manager (and no, being an ASM/department manager doesn't count), it's usually better to leave retail experience off resumes. And let me not get started on the incestuous and nepotistic nature of trying to get into retail management. I tried to ride out the financial crisis (and the damage it did to the industry I studied at university for) by working retail/part-time/low wage jobs. I thought that by "keeping busy" I would show that I was willing to work. The reaction by one interviewer sums up how well that went best with "Do you know what you want to do?" as in, having all sorts of jobs and not a single one related to my degree, he thought that I didn't know what I wanted to do with myself as far as a career. But, last night I was at the bar and talking to friends, and the conversation drove into a subject near and dear to my heart: aircraft accidents. Which, if no other question jrode, please explain this to me: In your libertarian utopia, would there be an FAA? Who would regulate air safety? Who would investigate crashes to find what went wrong so we can not make that error again? I bring this up because, air travel is the safest mode of transportation, not because of the rigorous hard work and innovation of the private sector, but because it is a highly regulated industry (as in government regulations). Most private sector innovations come in the form of using exotic materials to lower weight, engine designs which use less fuel (a 1% increase in fuel efficiency is huge), and reducing crew requirements/pilot workload. Even that last one is still spurred on by the FAA because of too many accidents caused by information overload and poor CRM. All safety innovations are made at the discovery and recommendations of the FAA and NTSB investigating accidents. When I went to college, my professor impressed upon us a very important idea; if we get one thing wrong, people will die. This is something that everyone who works around an airplane have to keep in mind again and again. Unfortunately, people still cut corners. Tell me, how would libertopia prevent these accidents from happening again? Or will the rail barons reign supreme as the safety of those crazy flying contraptions plummets. After all, "if God had intended man to fly, he would've given us wings!" Or, I suppose the more direct question would be, Would an airplane built by Libertarians have square windows? CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Also, who will prevent organizations like Valhalla DRO from opening up their new "Valkyries" division that consists almost entirely of air piracy/protection from air piracy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
The planes would obviously never crash into each other because that would be aggression which is banned by the NAP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The planes would obviously never crash into each other because that would be aggression which is banned by the NAP. That wrench an engineer forgot in that passenger's planes engine turbine knows better than to become a tool for statist aggression and quietly ejects itself from the plane with no harm done. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Wait, is the shape of airplane windows really important?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, is the shape of airplane windows really important? In at least one instance it was - pressurizing and de-pressurizing the fuselage was causing metal fatigue that began at the corners of the square cabin windows, and it caused multiple crashes. e: it was on the de Havilland Comet, the first jet airliner, where this happened, and to be fair, it was a poorly understood scientific phenomenon at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, is the shape of airplane windows really important? stress concentrates at the point of the corners. this is bad on a plane because eventually it could give out while the plane is, for some reason, flying. here's a wiki article i found! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Comet_disasters_of_1954
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Well obviously libertarians would invent a super alloy that wouldn't have that problem and
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
What an absurd hypothetical; surely airplane manufacturers don't need men with guns telling them to make airplanes safer, they're obviously doing this of their own free will and at their own expense anyway. Clearly a free market would create even safer airplanes, and they'd be even cheaper! Proof, you ask? Deontological ethics is a sufficient explanation, now excuse me while I huff my own farts
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:56
|
|