|
I genuinely think this is my favourite thread to go to for laughs.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 02:02 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:35 |
|
It's got all the posts of d&d with all the one could wish for.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 02:21 |
|
Not to mention watching someone's brain slowly melt out of their ears due to chronic lyme disease and probable mercury poisoning.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 03:18 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Not to mention watching someone's brain slowly melt out of their ears due to chronic lyme disease and probable mercury poisoning. goldmine?
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:22 |
|
I kind of think we should gold mine the thread just so any time someone shows up and goes "Man, ya'll sure are mean to that JRod guy," we can go "Let me educate you," and then post the link.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:53 |
|
Maybe goldmine the original Jrod thread and keep this one open for Jrod to post his rambling responses?
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 04:57 |
|
hellban all of us so that only jrode can see our posts, and we can only see his
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 05:55 |
|
Buried alive posted:I kind of think we should gold mine the thread just so any time someone shows up and goes "Man, ya'll sure are mean to that JRod guy," we can go "Let me educate you," and then post the link. I can't recall anyone saying that, and I assume if they said that, they'd probably be a pretty big troll too. Most of my posts towards JRod tend to be "You already said this and this is what I said last time" or me trying to help him not say racist things. And I'm pissed off about his recent racist spat. I was proud of how I showed that a lbertarian society could not tolerate babies, but no, that line of argument had to be overlooked because he proposed racial profiling as a reasonable solution to some of life's problems.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:14 |
|
GunnerJ posted:Hoppe has a rather more elaborate and revealing answer here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/ This is amazing. HHH posted:How to determine who owes whom how much and of what? And how to implement this restitution scheme in the absence of a State, and without thereby trampling on someone else’s private property rights? This poses the central intellectual problem for any self-styled left- libertarian. Being nice to people is a scarce resource, apparently. If you're too nice to blacks and gays, you'll run out of niceness and you'll uncontrollably start hurling slurs at white heterosexual males and then where would we be. Every time I restrain myself from yelling n****r at a black child I have to work out my rage by punching a white baby, why do you want to see babies get hit statists? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Feb 11, 2016 |
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:26 |
|
This whole thing of trying to shove everything into econ101 scarce resources and supply-and-demand curves is so weird. Reminds me of jrod's argument that UHC is unaffordable because not-having-cancer is a scarce resource so UHC will just encourage people to get cancer so they can hog all the free treatment.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:33 |
|
VitalSigns posted:This is amazing. I think it's pretty hard to top this: quote:Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:36 |
|
How did you not bold thisquote:Indeed, many if not most of our activities are conducted alone and in silence, without any direct interaction with others, as when we prepare our meal, drive our car, or read and write. How I drive doesn't affect anyone. As long as I haven't literally run you off the road I haven't violated the NAP.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:43 |
Triple H's argument there would certainly give him a great reason to not spend a lot of time around people he hates. I don't think anyone begrudges the cranky old man who hates the blacks his house, his porch, and his privacy. However, it also takes energy to sarcastically express your disdain at government employees, so maybe... don't go spend time around them, more than you have to! "Ignore and be ignored," as the Palainians say. Oh, and pay your drat taxes on time and in full. Also, lol, "interpersonal conflicts are always about scarce things."
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 06:54 |
|
Muscle Tracer posted:hellban all of us so that only jrode can see our posts, and we can only see his That would literally be Hell.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 07:13 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Man, I keep chomping at the bit with that Jazz music question since I loving love Jazz music and sincerely wish Jrode could see past his blinding racism to appreciate it. I'm most certainly no racist as anyone who knows me in real life would certainly attest, but I know that discussing who is and who isn't a racist between anonymous internet posters is rarely a productive exercise so I'll just not engage with that point. Actually, I don't know too much about Jazz music so I doubt I could mention that many Jazz artists regardless of their race. I still carrying around a massive case of cds, which might be absurd but I like the tactical feel of having a disc to play. If I had to count the non-black artists in my collection, I could probably count them on two hands. I'd guess that easily 90% of the music in my collection is by black artists. Kind of a weird ratio for a supposed racist, but I won't belabor that point. I'd actually love to get more into Jazz music so if you could recommend some artists to me I'll certainly check them out. Even though I haven't listened to them much, I am certainly aware of big names like John Coltrane, Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong. Actually, I do know that my parents played some Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis when I was little so I remember being around Jazz music to some degree as I was growing up. I don't know if this would surprise you or not, but I've actually been a huge hip hop fan since I was in high school. I've got several hundred rap cds, many of which I consider to be classics of the genre. Rap is a misunderstood form of music because, although it has produced some great artists and iconic records, it's also produced some of the worst crap in music. The best current rapper in my estimation is Kendrick Lamar. Hands down, no question about it. Probably his latest album "To Pimp a Butterfly" will win Album of the Year at the Grammys, which would be only the third time in history that a hip hop album took the top honor and I think it would be well deserved. I'll give you a list of what I think of as some of the best rap albums of all time, to give you a glimpse of my musical taste. Nas - Illmatic Raekwon - Only Built 4 Cuban Linx Outkast - Aquemini Wu Tang Clan - Wu Tang Forever Public Enemy - Fear of a Black Planet Boogie Down Productions - By Any Means Necessary Immortal Technique - Revolutionary Vol. 2 Outkast - ATLians Besides hip hop, I tend to dig artists that stray outside of conventional genres. I like what Janelle Monae does, for example and I think it's a real shame she doesn't sell much more than she does. I really enjoyed D'Angelo's latest album and I'd like to see more of a resurgence of RnB and Soul music that is both modern and forward thinking, yet also a throwback to when that style of music was more musically accomplished. I hope you don't consider this statement to be "racist", which it won't be unless you consider liking a particular race to be racist, but it almost seems to me that black people tend to be better at music period. This is an absurd generalization to be sure, and probably speaks more to my personal preferences than it does anything else. Nevertheless, I think it is nearly impossible to deny that blacks have made a contribution to the American music scene that is far out of proportion with their percentage of the population. And for that, I am genuinely thankful.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:09 |
|
But if a black teen gets stalked and shot that's on him.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:31 |
|
Hey guys *dog whistle* let me tell you about how *louder dog whistle* not racist I am. Like I'm all about freedom for *increasingly shrill, obnoxious dog whistle* everybody! *dog whistle begins to rattle the cutlery* But see, some people just have a poor *dog whistle is replaced by an unbearably loud air horn* time preference so it's their own fault if they suck. America is a *air horn becomes a fog horn and the neighbors call the police* perfect meritocracy after all and nobody gets to benefit from having rich parents *fog horn somehow begins to spout racial slurs* or anything like that. All schools are exactly the same because *slurs begin to drown out all other noise* if somebody goes to a bad school they can just go to the library afterwards. But that won't do them any good because a job would *nothing else can be heard over what appears to be a mix of racially insensitive words and farting obliterating all other sounds* *fog horn somehow begins to poo poo itself* *somewhere a watermelon gets hosed*
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:41 |
|
Wolfsheim posted:Are you guys seriously surprised that jrode is as ignorant of the Middle East as he is economics/medicine/everything else? I almost wonder why it hasn't come up sooner. What have I said about the Middle East is ignorant? I don't think I've said much at all, if only because I have a suspicion that we'd have much to agree on and I tend to focus on the things I think we'd disagree on the most. But allow me to say a few words on the Middle East, at least in relation to US foreign policy and let's see what we can agree on and what we won't. I find it to be nigh impossible to evaluate the problems that exist in the Middle East, whether it be the rise of ISIS and radical terrorism, geopolitical instability and the behavior of dictators without considering the constant role of United States meddling into the internal affairs of these countries and their cultures for decades. I believe that a responsible policy that the United States should undertake immediately, is to start to disengage militarily from the Middle East. Remove all troops and contractors from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and every other country in the region and permit the self determination of each sovereign land. In the short run, there might be an escalation of violence. But we ought to allow moderates in the region to try their hand at fighting ISIS and/or confronting and reforming their corrupt governments. We cannot pretend to be the worlds policemen and we should allow Muslims who actually live in the Middle East the opportunity to work out their own problems unmolested for a few decades and see how things shake out. Provided there is no direct threat to US National Security, it is frankly none of our business what sort of conflicts rage on in that part of the world. Furthermore, it is incredibly important that we recognize the work of Robert Pape. Are you familiar with that name? He is an accomplished political scientist that compiled a comprehensive study and database of every single instance of suicide terrorism in the world from 1980 to today. He presented his findings (among other places) in his book "Dying to Win: The Strategy Logic of Suicide Terrorism": http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380 The findings support what Ron Paul, and many others including a substantial number of academic Leftists, have been saying about the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States. What Pape found is that the overwhelming motivation for suicide terrorism was simply foreign military occupation. An occupied populations grows very resentful of a foreign nation with a foreign culture imposing its will upon them and their people and they strike back any way they can. What Pape finds also, is that when the foreign power removes its troops, bases and overall presence from the foreign lands of the "terrorists", the attacks stop completely. Contrary to Neo-conservative and Neo-liberal mythology, people are generally NOT willing to sacrifice their life, abandon their family and launch an attack on a foreign land for some vague difference in religious or cultural values. Despite what Marco Rubio might want you to believe, no Muslim is going to launch an attack on the United States because we let women vote and go to college. Even Osama bin Laden made his motivations for the 9/11 attacks crystal clear, but the American people couldn't hear over the deafening war propaganda that was propagated though the major media in the wake of those terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, we need to heed those warnings about the motivation of those that would do us harm. If we would take away the motivating factor that encourages people to join radical groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, we would make Americans much safer and do more to prevent terrorist attacks than anything else. Bin Laden said that it was Bill Clinton's policy of sanctions on Iraq which caused the death of some 500,000 women and children who were denied food and medical care and the continued occupation in Saudi Arabia, which they considered "holy land". Madelain Albright famously said that the cost in human life from the Iraq sanctions was "worth it". This sound bite was played and re-played in the middle east for years and served as a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. There will no doubt continue to be internal problems in the Middle East just as there has been for centuries. But clearly decades of military intervention by the United States haven't improved the quality of life for the Arab populations who live in that region and it certainly hasn't made Americans any safer. In fact, it has drained our resources and made us far less safe as we create more terrorists than we kill and create great resentment towards us by those who live there. Our military policy, including the drone strikes and regime chance operations continually undertaken by the Obama Administration practically guarantee more and more terrorist attacks against Americans in the future. The American voters think that these politicians are keeping us safe by "taking the fight to the terrorists", talking tough and dropping bombs, but in fact they are putting these same people in needless danger. This is what I'd want a presidential candidate to say, because it is the unvarnished truth. There is mountains of empirical evidence behind it (see the aforementioned Robert Pape and his studies). Yet, since Ron Paul retired from Congress, there hasn't been a single political figure that I am aware of and certainly nobody currently running for president who is making this argument. Even Bernie Sanders doesn't make this argument. Yes, he voted against the Iraq War and good on him for that. But he continually voted for each and every appropriations bill that kept the war funded, and he supports continued drone strikes against supposed "terrorists" (never-mind all the civilians killed by mistake) and talks tough about taking the fight to ISIS, not once mentioning the motivations for terrorist attacks against us. I am hoping many of you will agree with me on this point at least. Even those who don't agree with him on much, concede that Ron Paul made an important and pivotal contribution to our political discourse by opening speaking about the motivations for suicide terrorism and asking the eminently sensible question "how would we like it if a foreign nation did to us what we do to them?"
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 10:46 |
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:What do you think about this post? From the Jrod quarantine thread. I think it does a good job laying out the contemporary history behind libertarianism's intertwining with some pretty awful political elements. I agree that for the average Joe and Jane, appeals to libertarian ideology provides a masking veneer to more blatant sentiments and does try to serve as an end-run around government power. Conversely, of course, it may also serve as a prerequisite to compel the government to act a certain way. I don't think most of the groups you mentioned are really that committed to libertarian sentiment or ideals, so much as they're just really pissy about taxes and welfare and undeserving minorities and poor moochers. It's basically in line with that graphic that's been posted in these threads, where libertarians predominantly fit a general demographic of being white, middle-class, youngish men who overwhelmingly seem to vote Republican in the end anyway. Libertarianism does two things for them by being a political philosophy that provides a sense of intellectual rigor to the base motivations behind their bellyaches, while also being more of an intellectual preen and "hip" deflection from the staid, boring, and decidedly killjoy monolith of traditional conservatism."We're not haters, we're just principled!" and all that. Generally speaking, I think any group that cites the US Constitution, or gets nitpicky about regulations and founder intent, isn't really that deep into libertarianism despite all protestations to the contrary. That said, my broader point was on what I believe to be the kernel of genesis to libertarian ideology, and also its much-desired end state (perhaps in the long game sense). I think that maybe it's something we don't look at, or that we forget to acknowledge. Like, it seems as if much of the ideological basis we operate in (from a US perspective at least, and perhaps the broader West in some facets) is that the philosophical and social thoughts and institutions of medieval European feudalism were cleanly cleft and chopped apart by the Enlightenment, the rise of capitalism, the French and American revolutions in the 18th century and the European turmoil of the mid-19th, the writings of Marx, and so forth. What was left from the medieval period was either relief at it being dead and buried under progress, or silly romanticism. Yet the residue remained, partly due to that romanticism; some of the original US colonies (South Carolina, at least, I'm pretty sure of) were founded to be replications of the old nobility tradition in England, complete with titles. Southern plantation life was very much in the lord/serf model (though, of course, the enslaved peoples were viewed as literal property rather than vassals or whatever), and this persisted in the sharecropper model. We also see the company town in this vein, and the rise of wage slavery instead of the more generalized bonds of serfdom. So while the medieval model didn't necessarily go into hiding, or survive intact, it's not as if the autocratic drive that marks lords, kings, and the like was stamped out. If we parallel the development of civilization with that of more liberal values, then that has been the norm for centuries, if not millennia. I believe that we shouldn't ever forget that, or grow complacent about it. This isn't to say that Ron Paul and his ilk literally want to wear gold crowns and ermine coats and sit on thrones receiving and dispatching orders by falcon (at least, I don't suspect as much), but I suspect they want a society based around an aristocracy, with them being the aristocrats - or at least, the lords and/or bureaucrats of it all. And certainly, in Atlas Shrugged, we see the modern incarnation of the deserving god-king in all the industrialists and lone geniuses that the world revolves around. So absent any sort of egalitarian society and government that is supposed to represent everyone regardless of status or creed, they believe their true merit will naturally shine through. Maybe through money, maybe through gab, maybe through people realizing their oh-so-obvious wisdom. They will be blessed with the wealth and power that is otherwise being deprived to them by weaklings / moochers / takers / inferior people using the power of a government to go against the natural state of affairs. And I think this spills over into all that "dark enlightenment" / HBD / whatever alt-right nerd nonsense, albeit in a more explicit monarchical fashion (because, LOL, loving nerds). Just world, baby - the virtuous are being held down, and the undeserving are being propped up, so we need to clear the table and then let natural law sort it out. Strangely, this sorting never seems to factor in that a gaggle of Silicon Valley geeks does not stand good odds against raiding rednecks, veteran Crips, or an army of rioting, disaffected suburbanites. Maybe we should develop the "Kalashnikov test" for philosophies and ideologies - what policies and ideas, when practiced, will generally prevent the most people from shooting other people with AK-47s? If your philosophy has no concrete measures to keep that from happening, then it fails the Kalashnikov test and will probably fail in real life, too. I can't help but suspect that anything Jrod or the "thinkers" he claims represent his views would fail the Kalashnikov test, myself...
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:05 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:It's weird - Libertarians are so obsessed with state violence and the use of force/aggression, but are strangely silent when it comes to economic coercion. To them, it's merely a conscious choice or "ethnic time preference" to work minimum wage jobs and are confused (or worse, give tacit approval of) when you bring up things like income inequality or poverty traps as things that exist. We're only "silent" because you haven't read the literature to have a fuller picture of the libertarian position on workers rights and other economic matters. It's humorous how you throw in the word "ethnic" when mentioning "time preference" as if the entire concept of a time preference in economics was dreamed up as a way to discriminate against minorities. Time preference is a part of virtually all human choices and a correct understanding of the phenomenon illuminates many otherwise obtuse economic phenomenon. There is a reason that when you get a loan you are expected to pay interest on the loan. Everyone prefers the use of money and scarce resources now rather than the use of the same amount of money or the same resources sometime in the future. So if I voluntarily part with some money I saved or a scarce resource I acquired for several months or several years, then I obviously don't have the ability to use those resources while you are using them. The only way this makes sense is if you pay me an interest for the loan. People will abstain from consumption in the present if they stand to get more resources or money in the future by putting those resources to use or lending them out. What do you mean by "economic coercion"? Let's not play loose with words and definitions now. "Coercion" actually has a definition. Suppose I go up to you and say "hey, I've got a job offer for you. It pays $6 an hour. Will you accept it?" Explain how this is coercion. I don't think you'd ever accept this offer because you, if you are employed, are probably making much more per hour than the $6 I'd offered you so you'd never seriously consider my offer. Unless, there are some side benefits to taking on the job that would compensate you for accepting a lower wage. Or maybe you'd take it on as a second job to get another mark on your resume and connect with more people and learn different skills. Or perhaps you could be offered a low wage in place of what otherwise would be an unpaid internship? In such a case, the main reason for taking the job is that you'd learn very valuable skills that will in the near future help you to apply for a job which pays many times that much? There are jobs that are not hiring at present. Abolishing the minimum wage would allow you to make a lowball offer to a potential employer. You could say "I know you are not hiring at present, but I want a chance to prove my worth for a six week stint. I just ask $5 an hour compensation and after the six weeks is up, if I have proven my value, I'd like to apply as a full time worker making the market wage for this type of work." You are not permitted to do this under today's law. How could these voluntary choices ever be considered "coercion"? This would require a perversion of language. Coercion is almost a synonym for "aggression" and voluntary economic contracts cannot, by definition, be aggression. There are many libertarian authors who have written extensively about how, in a genuine free society, there will be many more economic opportunities available for people and it will be MUCH more feasible to start a business for yourself or with a number of colleagues. Without occupational licensure requirements and other regulations, opening a business and selling your services on the market becomes a much more viable option. And even if you don't go into business for yourself, the very fact that so many more OTHER people will be able to, will create millions more jobs who will all be competing for good laborers and so your choices as a wage earner will expand substantially. The idea you are proposing that millions of lower-class people will be somehow "coerced" into take very low wage employment because they literally have no other options is really a fallacious scenario that is unlikely, or far less likely than in any State-run alternative, to exist in a truly free society. Nobody said the poor choose to be poor. But there are two types of poor people. There are those of reasonably sound mind and body who are capable of working and acquiring the skills necessary to earn a decent living on the market. Some of these people were unfortunate enough to be born into poverty, or to a broken home, or some other unfortunate circumstance. For others it is a result of a temporary fall from middle class due to either bad luck, or drug problems or whatever the case may be. For these people, there is clearly hope and the ability for them to acquire the skills to earn a reasonable standard of living. For these people, society (by which I mean communities, churches, mutual aid societies, charities) should focus on helping these people to find good employment, or help them get the training necessary to find good employment. The second class of poor people is much smaller, but the prognosis is much less optimistic. There are those people who have a significant mental or physical handicap which renders them unable to earn much on the market due to a low productivity that is unlikely to get better regardless of how much training they receive. These people are likely to need some sort of ongoing help in some capacity. There is a moral, but not a legal, obligation for people to help out these truly desperate people who have mental disability or handicap so severe that their employment prospects are very slim. I sincerely think that everyone who is able should have an occupation of some sort, even if they are not able to earn as much as someone without any significant limitation. But ongoing help for this small number of poor who genuinely need it on an ongoing, not temporary, basis is the obligation of mutual aid societies, charities, communities, churches, neighborhoods, and so forth. In a very prosperous society, having the resources to take care of the mentally and physically handicapped and others unable to acquire significant marketable skills would not be a significant issue. And if you want to talk about a "poverty trap" there is none more fiendish than the Welfare State which has trapped people into a cycle of poverty and dependency. Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance. Poverty-aid in a free society would be focused on helping people find employment and move up into a comfortable middle class existence so they no longer require charity, rather than encouraging people to remain dependent on hand outs for long periods of time. I sincerely don't think that a compassionate person, if they are familiar with the facts, could honestly support the Welfare State when they understand the sort of harm and perverse incentives it creates for those unfortunate enough to be dependent on them. Humans ARE capable of taking care of their fellow man without State aggression. For whatever reason, peoples imaginations have been castrated by the media and public schools into thinking social progress and social welfare can ONLY come about through politics. Politics, in my estimation, is precisely what is holding society back and entrenching these social problems.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:25 |
How do we define "politics," Jrode? Would you not say that - for instance - a decision that we will abandon what appear to be semi-natural (not to get too ) networks of kin support and mutual obligation in favor of enclosing the lands and forcing people to be alienated from the fruit of their labor... is political, in that it involves the exercise of power? If I am Immortan Joe and I control the water (and can protect it from other claimants due to accidents of geography and my half-life War Boys) - do I not possess political power over the wretched masses below, even though there was no "voting" involved? Perhaps you are using the term "politics," not as a descriptor, but as a way to try to de-legitimize the exercise of certain forms of power which you personally disapprove of? If humans are so capable of taking care of their fellow man, how did socialists get started? Evil As for economic coercion, let's have a thought experiment. You are trapped on a piece of land because I have purchased all areas around it, sealing you in. I have no interest in allowing you to trespass on my property in order to cross to another zone. Eventually your supply of tactical bacon and Ramune runs low. I offer you an exciting proposal after you've shed a few dozen pounds -- "I've got a job offer for you! Sign yourself into permanent servitude and I'll guarantee you I'll feed you a bland but nourishing diet and provide basic shelter and clothing!" Or perhaps "Give me your land, and I'll give you this big bowl of delicious food!" Where is the coercion in this example, jrode? Surely we are all just freely engaging in a market exchange. You would have the right to refuse my bid. Or, in principle, to contact others, perhaps with telepathy or radio signals, in order to rescue you... but of course, they would have to cross my land to do it, meaning you would be initiating aggression, which is a big no-no.
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:50 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Nobody said the poor choose to be poor. No but you're about to jrodefeld posted:But there are two types of poor people. There are those of reasonably sound mind and body who are capable of working and acquiring the skills necessary to earn a decent living on the market. Some of these people were unfortunate enough to be born into poverty, or to a broken home, or some other unfortunate circumstance. For others it is a result of a temporary fall from middle class due to either bad luck, or drug problems or whatever the case may be. Ah yes, I forgot America was a perfect meritocracy jrodefeld posted:The second class of poor people is much smaller, but the prognosis is much less optimistic. There are those people who have a significant mental or physical handicap which renders them unable to earn much on the market due to a low productivity that is unlikely to get better regardless of how much training they receive. These people are likely to need some sort of ongoing help in some capacity. "The poor are either those who aren't poor for that long or physically/mentally handicapped"
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:54 |
Perhaps we can call the first group "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and the second group "useless eaters" or perhaps "life unworthy of life," and strongly imply that members of the first group who don't swiftly succeed are actually the second group. That might help distract them from doing something like collaborating to control the supply of labor and thus increase wages.
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:56 |
|
Hey champ, you should address my question on birth in the US their Jrod.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:57 |
|
I don't believe Jrod listens to immortal technique, I.T. hates on economic inequality in his music
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 11:59 |
|
jrodefeld posted:
In all your years of posting this is the first time you've ever sounded like an actual human being. Kudos. Just gonna leave this here since I already had the link copied: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKTTkpQtxo President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Feb 11, 2016 |
# ? Feb 11, 2016 12:00 |
|
President Kucinich posted:In all your years of posting this is the first time you've ever sounded like an actual human being. Kudos. I'd be happier about it if he absorbed the messages of the music he supposedly listens to. Call me skeptic but I think this is a wild distraction from his "culture" comment.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 12:06 |
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm most certainly no racist as anyone who knows me in real life would certainly attest "Why I have several black friends, good sire." jrodefeld posted:I've got several hundred rap cds Oh hey so it's not just Chinese blu-rays that you pirate. Expanding the business, nice.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 12:58 |
jrodefeld posted:Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance. Like loving who? What politician brags about the number of people on the dole as if it's a good thing? My country's politicians have spent years going after the disabled, putting them though tests to prove they're not *really* disabled and driving some to suicide all in the name of breaking the 'trap' of benefits.
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 12:59 |
|
You are not going to reply to this because it includes substantative responses along with making fun of you for being an ignorant bitch baby, jrodefeld, but it feels good to take some aggression out on lovely sociopaths.jrodefeld posted:We're only "silent" because you haven't read the literature to have a fuller picture of the libertarian position on workers rights and other economic matters. I have read enough to know that you don't give a single gently caress about worker's rights because you've never had to deal with that, you incompetent manchild. jrodefeld posted:It's humorous how you throw in the word "ethnic" when mentioning "time preference" as if the entire concept of a time preference in economics was dreamed up as a way to discriminate against minorities. You know what's humorous? How you claim poo poo like: jrodefeld posted:You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I want to caution people that somehow think that I am somehow obsessing about race, that you all do fine obsessing about race without me. The reason I react so strongly to this character assassination attack against me, is that I personally focus a great deal on the systemic racism and discrimination that the State and private citizens inflict upon minority communities in the United States. This is a passion of mine. I love black culture, black music, black comedy and so forth. And I'm not just saying that. Since middle school, I've idolized black role models and I've identified with civil rights causes as long as I was ever politically aware. But weirdly, in that very same post: jrodefeld posted:But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent? And in your history: jrodefeld posted: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 You know, also citing a whole bunch of incredibly racist people as huge influences on you... and then backpedaling anytime you get called out on being a racist piece of poo poo. You're a racist piece of poo poo, jrodefeld. You're just either in denial, or you are too loving stupid to be able to understand that the movement you support lies in bed with white supremacists for a reason. You goddamn watermelon-loving shitlord. jrodefeld posted:What do you mean by "economic coercion"? Let's not play loose with words and definitions now. "Coercion" actually has a definition. Suppose I go up to you and say "hey, I've got a job offer for you. It pays $6 an hour. Will you accept it?" Well jrodefeld, people don't suggest that someone offering me, someone who is making more than $6/hr, is coercion, you dishonest little weasel. However, if I did not have a job, and my choices were between the following: • 6 dollars an hour, which is well below the value I bring to a company • Starving and dying Guess what? I'm gonna take the job, even if I know it's a lovely one that I will hate and will be bad for my long-term health, because being dead is significantly worse for my long term health on account of being loving dead, you goddamn idiot. Would I normally take that job? No. But that's what loving economic coercion is, and I know for a fact that you've been told about this before, and once again you've opted to magically forget about it because you can't retain any information that you didn't read straight off mises.org. jrodefeld posted:Unless, there are some side benefits to taking on the job that would compensate you for accepting a lower wage. Or maybe you'd take it on as a second job to get another mark on your resume and connect with more people and learn different skills. It is posts like this that make me absolutely loving certain, jrodefeld, that you have never actually worked a minimum wage job in your loving life, and you've probably spent most of it mooching off your shitheaded libertarian mom and your too-kind grandparents. NOBODY GIVES A gently caress ABOUT JOB SKILLS YOU GOT AT A MINIMUM WAGE JOB Guess what? Subway does not care that I am the best loving sandwich artist ever; I'm still going to get paid like the average sandwich artist. If I want to get another job using my sandwich artistry... well, my choices are other food places that are also paying minimum wage! I can't go from sandwich artistry to office filing! That actually looks worse on my resume! Not that you would know that, because you've never done anything that isn't working for your mother. jrodefeld posted:Or perhaps you could be offered a low wage in place of what otherwise would be an unpaid internship? In such a case, the main reason for taking the job is that you'd learn very valuable skills that will in the near future help you to apply for a job which pays many times that much? I think unpaid internships are also lovely and should be done away with. jrodefeld posted:There are jobs that are not hiring at present. Abolishing the minimum wage would allow you to make a lowball offer to a potential employer. You could say "I know you are not hiring at present, but I want a chance to prove my worth for a six week stint. I just ask $5 an hour compensation and after the six weeks is up, if I have proven my value, I'd like to apply as a full time worker making the market wage for this type of work." What is to prevent an employer from just shuffling through people every six weeks if all they need is vaguely competent bodies, like most minimum wage jobs? There are far more people who fulfill the criteria of "vaguely competent" and "need a job" than there are positions. jrodefeld posted:You are not permitted to do this under today's law. How could these voluntary choices ever be considered "coercion"? This would require a perversion of language. Coercion is almost a synonym for "aggression" and voluntary economic contracts cannot, by definition, be aggression. I literally just explained how this is coercion. Coercion is, by definition, using force to convince someone to do something they wouldn't normally do. Just because "the threat of starvation" is not direct force does not mean it's not force. You loving moron. jrodefeld posted:There are many libertarian authors who have written extensively about how, in a genuine free society, there will be many more economic opportunities available for people and it will be MUCH more feasible to start a business for yourself or with a number of colleagues. Without occupational licensure requirements and other regulations, opening a business and selling your services on the market becomes a much more viable option. And this would not result in a decrease of safety, just like the Gilded Age, how? jrodefeld posted:And even if you don't go into business for yourself, the very fact that so many more OTHER people will be able to, will create millions more jobs who will all be competing for good laborers and so your choices as a wage earner will expand substantially. jrodefeld_mercury_filling_powered_fanfiction.txt jrodefeld posted:The idea you are proposing that millions of lower-class people will be somehow "coerced" into take very low wage employment because they literally have no other options is really a fallacious scenario that is unlikely, or far less likely than in any State-run alternative, to exist in a truly free society. jrodefeld_mercury_filling_powered_fanfiction.txt THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED, ALREADY, IN REAL LIFE, YOU INCOMPETENT loving MANCHILD. jrodefeld posted:And if you want to talk about a "poverty trap" there is none more fiendish than the Welfare State which has trapped people into a cycle of poverty and dependency. Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance. jrodefeld you're literally making poo poo up you dishonest fuckface. Did you forget when Caros brutally loving smacked you down about mutual aid societies and how the reason welfare exists is because people didn't have money in your "free society"? Is your lovely mother proud of having raised a dishonest, lying idiot who claims that all his hard work is the reason he's ahead in life, who mooches off of other people's work to sell loving pirated blu-rays? Do you think your grandparents ever regret giving you money instead of forcing you to live with the consequences of your actions for once in your lovely selfish life?
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 13:03 |
jrod, what's your opinions on climate change, bitcoins and the fluoridation of water?
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 13:19 |
|
bitterandtwisted posted:jrod, what's your opinions on climate change, bitcoins and the fluoridation of water? Statist conspiracy, fantastic investment opportunity, statist tyranny.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 13:56 |
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you mean by "economic coercion"? Let's not play loose with words and definitions now. "Coercion" actually has a definition. Suppose I go up to you and say "hey, I've got a job offer for you. It pays $6 an hour. Will you accept it?" Here's the thing about coercion, Rodimus. It doesn't require a willful coercer! If my options are "work for a pittance" or "make no money," I am compelled to take the first option even if I think it's a poo poo deal. And the boss who's offering a pittance doesn't know or care that I'm being forced into it! He just knows that he has thirty-six qualified candidates and that he can offer a wage so low that thirty-five of us refuse without worrying about it. It's not a one-on-one negotiation between a boss and a potential employee, it's a prisoner's dilemma with potentially dozens of other participants. If they think one of them will screw the others and lowball his requested wage, they will all have to do the same, or lose the job and step another day closer to starvation or homelessness. Now, theoretically the equation could be flipped, with multiple jobs competing for the same candidate, and this does occur in fields where being qualified requires an enormous amount of training. But this will never happen in normal manufacturing or service jobs, because there are simply too many people capable of doing the job. Our society does not require everyone in it to be working to make all the stuff that people need, so there's always going to be a supply of excess labor. This was a known problem back in Marx's day, and automation sure as poo poo has not improved the situation. In fact, the boss himself is being squeezed by his bosses to keep expenses like payroll as low as possible lest he lose his job, who are in turn being squeezed by their shareholders to keep profits high lest their stock prices go down, and so on. The market system is unbelievably brutal in how it treats people like commodities, "human resources," to be swapped out like equipment when they've outlived their usefulness. It's a huge system built around treating people as a means, rather than as ends in themselves. [still keen on playing Kantian?] Though I have to say, if this is your take on coercion when it comes to economics, I would love to hear your thoughts on feminist theory.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 14:37 |
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:This isn't to say that Ron Paul and his ilk literally want to wear gold crowns The hell he doesn't! You know as well as I do how much goldbuggery Paul the Elder ascribes to.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 14:51 |
|
Tactical Jazzpionage Hiphoperations
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:10 |
|
And JRode continues his Gish Gallup of the softballs, never responding to the posters who actually have a good grasp on philosophy and post substantive critiques. Nope, gotta talk about music preference and spew Econ 101 bullshit about scarcity.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:11 |
|
I just love that he takes a week off after the balls got too tough for him to handle and then returns to randomly prattle on about the gold standard.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:14 |
|
jrodefeld posted:You are not permitted to do this under today's law. How could these voluntary choices ever be considered "coercion"? This would require a perversion of language. Coercion is almost a synonym for "aggression" and voluntary economic contracts cannot, by definition, be aggression. Coercion and aggression are not synonyms. gently caress you. Coercion invalidates 'voluntary' economic contracts, not the other way around fuckface. The coercion is "get paid minimum wage for this poo poo job or you don't have any job and you are hosed" Just because the employer doesn't say it out loud doesn't make it not true.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:18 |
jrod if you were trapped in a burning car and I offered to save you in exchange for all your worldly possessions, would that be a voluntary economic contract?
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:24 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:35 |
|
quote:This would require a perversion of language. I am out of the house, but please imagine that I posted evergrowingironicat.gif. TIA.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 15:27 |