|
Hey JRode; free will doesn't exist. It's an illusion- our brains are bound by the laws of physics and chemistry such that they are only ever responding to input as a fairly complex biological computer. You cannot behave in a way you haven't learned or synthesized from other prior learning. So your philosophy couched on the assumption of buck stopping personal responsibility has no legs to stand on. Each and every one of us is a product of countless influences on our lives. It is not by my blood, sweat, and tears alone that I was able to make it to a PhD- but by the contributions of my parents and teachers and friends who nurtured my curiosity and equipped me with the skills to pursue such higher education. Along with the raw luck of being born healthy in a western country with parents who could support me. Nobody is a self-made man. It is a myth. Not everyone is equally capable of being successful, economically or otherwise. All of our successes or failures, when not traceable to distinct genetics and biological factors, are attributable to our culture at large and a bit of luck. And so have I benefited from this system, that I believe it moral to return to the system my investment in education and labour so that others may reap he benefits. So you may think, 'if there's no free will, is anyone worthy of blame or praise?' Perhaps not in the traditional sense, but certainly there's some admiration when all the pieces of the puzzle come together to produce an exceptional person (eg. Albert Einstein), and some horror when the same produce the opposite result (eg. Ted Bundy). 'Well if no one is responsible for their actions, how can you justify imprisoning a person?' Is the other typical objection, however this is a fallacy at best. If we knew of an impending geological disaster, such as a natural dam giving way that will flood an entire town, we would not simply toss our hands up and say 'oh well, it was meant to be!' We would our best to shore up the natural dam or build a new one. Certainly the townsfolk would prefer not to have their livelihoods washed away. Similarly, we aren't resigned to accepting medical conditions like poor eyesight merely because we were born with them- we can fix them, and there's no good reason not to. To this end, a justice system with imprisonment is more than justifiable, particularly if its emphasis is rehabilitation. I think we could all agree we'd prefer not to live in a society where murderers and rapists run free, so it is our collective interest to imprison these folks in the hopes of fixing or washing out whatever influences in their lives drove them to such actions. To reiterate I believe free will, at least as its traditionally considered, that each person is a master of their destiny and always has the freedom to 'choose' (and not some weak rear end compatibilist/incompatibility trick of simply redefining what free will means), is fundamentally untenable. And without free will, advocacy for libertarianism becomes little more than advocacy for the traditional institutions of power and wealth and concentrating privilege in the hands of those who need it the least. You are admitting people deserve to be rich or poor for factors that are ostensibly out of their control. Some people are simply better than others because of the l of a dice roll. It is an abominable and monstrous philosophy. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Feb 11, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted: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? It would be false advertising as we all know any of us would take the possessions then leave him in the car anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah, JRode seems to think it would be a choice whether or not I buy a $100 glass of water from the owner of a single oasis on a desert island. And he'd probably praise the owner for his business savvy too. Hint; it's not a real choice when the alternatives are death and starvation. That's economic coercion. Of course JRode would probably respond to this post rather than my more substantive critique of the underpinnings and assumptions of libertarianism above. We really need, like, an elected speaker for the thread to force JRode to stay on topic for more than one post at a time. Anytime there seems to be cracks in his confidence, he just races along to some other superficial post until we've all forgotten how lovely he did defending the more substantive issues. Then he just loops back around and repeats the same garbage. Seriously, we need a discussion moderator or a speaker because he will never, ever stay on topic otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
 Jesus. loving. Christ. You actually went there. You really went into Nazi-territory, full-tilt, and without even stopping. "If they can be of use, by all means, use them. But if not? gently caress it. If someone wishes to take care of the useless material, I'll graciously allow it. Otherwise, let them die." Your philosophy is a moral black hole of utter iniquity that debases, debauches and perverts every single good impulse of conscience, and blights humanity itself by its mere presence. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I think it's pretty hard to top this: Ignoring the recent dollops of poo poo that have landed in this thread to say—holy poo poo. When he says 'EVERY conflict,' that must include things like breakups, or fighting over whether the kids are gonna be raised Catholic or Jewish, or whether we're going to go on vacation to Iceland or the Grand Canyon. So is he seriously proposing making ownership of feelings, religion, and vacation individual and exclusive? no, he's unable to conceived of the actual lives of humans
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Caros posted:
The thing is that this discussion of economic coercion basically will never work because we are literally speaking a different language based on a completely different perspective. I've had this conversation before with libertarians and it never goes anywhere. When you start from this NAP-based view of rights as being allowed to do anything that doesn't involve threatening or attacking someone, the key question for determining whether a situation is coercive is finding the "wrongdoer." When you start from a view of determining ethical politics according to real-world outcomes, you will determine if a situation is coercive by considering the experience of the victim. You can hit them over the head with the fact that it doesn't matter whether anyone is holding a gun to my head, that if my options effectively boil down to "sign this contract or starve" then I am not making a free choice. They will still want to know "who" is doing the coercing, because situations cannot be coercive unless some person or persons is intentionally orchestrating them. (Of course, this is sort of what happens whenever businesses influence politics, but not every single employer is complicit in that so it's not necessarily the best counterpoint.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted: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? Cool thing about these thought experiments is that they annihilate any attempt to deny exploitation in any situation that can be called mutually beneficial. I mean, you've described a mutually beneficial exchange: you get his stuff, he gets to live, it's win-win!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
JVNO posted:We really need, like, an elected speaker for the thread to force JRode to stay on topic for more than one post at a time. Anytime there seems to be cracks in his confidence, he just races along to some other superficial post until we've all forgotten how lovely he did defending the more substantive issues. Then he just loops back around and repeats the same garbage. There's no point in trying to keep JRod on topic. he's too fixed in his ideology to be convinced of anything, and too hopelessly enmeshed in libertarian thought and language to convince anyone else of anything. When he's around this thread is about dunking on him, and nobody dunks on JRod harder than JRod. Let him talk about whatever he wants, and let us keep throwing his refusal to engage with difficult arguments in his face. Best to save your hope for intelligent discussion for when he slinks off again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I'm struggling with the fact that Jrod realizes Only Built 4 Cuban Linx is a great album.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The thing is that this discussion of economic coercion basically will never work because we are literally speaking a different language based on a completely different perspective. I've had this conversation before with libertarians and it never goes anywhere. When you start from this NAP-based view of rights as being allowed to do anything that doesn't involve threatening or attacking someone, the key question for determining whether a situation is coercive is finding the "wrongdoer." When you start from a view of determining ethical politics according to real-world outcomes, you will determine if a situation is coercive by considering the experience of the victim. You can hit them over the head with the fact that it doesn't matter whether anyone is holding a gun to my head, that if my options effectively boil down to "sign this contract or starve" then I am not making a free choice. They will still want to know "who" is doing the coercing, because situations cannot be coercive unless some person or persons is intentionally orchestrating them. (Of course, this is sort of what happens whenever businesses influence politics, but not every single employer is complicit in that so it's not necessarily the best counterpoint.) Yeah that was my point in a nutshell. Jrodefeld is literally talking moonspeak as far as the rest of us are concerned, because just as with 'aggression' his definition of coercion is so alien from the one used by the layman that any discussion is just going to be talking passed one another. I'm mostly just amused that he had the loving gall to try and pretend that it was us who was distorting the meaning of the word. While I'm rambling I wonder what jrodefeld thinks of the SS Blowjob regarding coercion: Lets say tomorrow I invite you out on my boat and we go thirty miles out to sea. You didn't sign any contract or anything because it's just us friends out on the water together. However once we are out there I tell you that you have to suck me off. Now you rightfully refuse (... This is an assumption) at which point I say, get the gently caress off my property if you aren't even going to be so good as to blow me. Is this coercion? I am not threatening you with physical violence, I am just using my property rights. You have an absolutely legitimate choice between two things you don't want to do, and for liability purposes it is the sea that will kill you, not I. Do you see how absolutely ridiculous it is to treat coercion as only being a direct threat of physical violence? Of course you don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm struggling with the fact that Jrod realizes Only Built 4 Cuban Linx is a great album. You know what? Jrod's managed to change my mind on an issue. After that loving stunning statement about the mentally and physically disabled, I am become a born-again fan of the second amendment, because god drat it, with people like jorde on the loose, I am feeling a powerful urge to be armed and at least go down fighting before the inevitable march to the ovens begin. Seriously, this is the first time I've actually been both livid and loving terrified by what his outlook on life would mean for the rest of us if some dread cosmic alignment of stars should actually give him and his ilk a chance to put their nuttery into practice. Titfucking Christ! [edit] - There was something here. It's moved down a bit. - TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
AwfulApp keeps eating my long rear end post, so here's the short of it. Moderates in the Middle East are already doing the vast majority of the infantry fighting against ISIL, you ignorant loving twat. But they are largely untrained and under equipped and rely on the US, and other nations, for financial, logistical, and especially aerial and intel support. Abandoning them out of nowhere is not going to suddenly "free" them to have a nice friendly sit-down with ISIL and just hash out their differences. It's going to leave them vulnerable to being conscripted, coerced, or convinced into joining ISIL either to survive or to get back at the nation that coldly abandoned them in their hour of need. I'm guessing mises.org doesn't have any recent articles about the situation because those are basic, commonly available facts that you're too loving stupid to look up for yourself. You ignore the goddamn reality of the situation to talk about how you think is and how it would go down in an alternate reality. Just like you ignore the reality of the poor and minimum wage, how 'bout that?! gently caress you uneducated dog's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah that was my point in a nutshell. Jrodefeld is literally talking moonspeak as far as the rest of us are concerned, because just as with 'aggression' his definition of coercion is so alien from the one used by the layman that any discussion is just going to be talking passed one another. I honestly don't think that he is, any more than you are or I am. The word just has different meanings depending on the ideology you apply. In his worldview, coercion is something that someone has to directly and intentionally apply. It does not suffice to just take advantage of (or, hell, just gain advantage from) an unfortunate situation. I'm actually not sure this is too far from a common understanding. I think most people would understand that scenarios like the car rescue or the SS Blowjob are unfair, that it is wrong for someone make these kinds of offers but not necessarily that someone is coercing someone else. I mean, in the scenario you outline, I think most people would look at it and assume that you intentionally invited your victim on a boat ride in order to make them perform sex acts, which would clearly be coercion by fraud, and I think there's a libertarian argument to make along these lines. But something like, I am just walking by and happen upon someone trapped in a burning house? And I offer to save them only if they agree to be my slave forever afterwards? There I am clearly not orchestrating anything, I am just taking advantage of an opportunity. For most people this would be an unfair scumbag move but not necessarily coercive because it's not like I set this person's house on fire. But at this point, whether something is "coercive" or not only matters if there is something special about coercion, strictly defined. For most people, situations like this being so unfair would be enough to justify treating such an agreement as legally and ethically unenforceable, and would support publicly funded emergency services to ensure that people have a way out of these situations. From there you have a justification for social safety nets, employment regulations, etc. Libertarian ideology places special meaning on coercion as an intentional, personal action against another person. That these situations are unfair even if not coercive doesn't matter. It's chilling but not exactly twisting the word's meaning. quote:While I'm rambling I wonder what jrodefeld thinks of the SS Blowjob regarding coercion: Sweeten the deal by dipping your dick in watermelon juice and this might have a different outcome than expected. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:You know what? Jrod's managed to change my mind on an issue. After that loving stunning statement about the mentally and physically disabled, I am become a born-again fan of the second amendment, because god drat it, with people like jorde on the loose, I am feeling a powerful urge to be armed and at least go down fighting before the inevitable march to the ovens begin. I'm honestly shocked that you're surprised. He's always had this mealy-mouthed viciousness to his opinions on welfare (and healthcare). We have no obligation to our fellow man in his mind. Oh sure, he'll call it immoral to abandon them in the cold, but it's worse to try make anyone do anything about it, because taxes are literally (literally) worse than poor people dying. Like Caros was saying, it doesn't count as a bad thing to be stopped unless you can point to a specific villain. But don't worry about his ilk gaining influence. They're occasionally useful bludgeons for the rich and powerful, but their opposition to things like fractional reserve banking and "fiat" currency and limited liability means that they would be a nightmare for the rich as well as the poor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm honestly shocked that you're surprised. He's always had this mealy-mouthed viciousness to his opinions on welfare (and healthcare). We have no obligation to our fellow man in his mind. Oh sure, he'll call it immoral to abandon them in the cold, but it's worse to try make anyone do anything about it, because taxes are literally (literally) worse than poor people dying. Like Caros was saying, it doesn't count as a bad thing to be stopped unless you can point to a specific villain. This is the exact thing I find disturbing. After talking about how "Oh gosh, it would just be terrible if these unfortunates starved to death in the streets, somebody should do something, surely!" he will pivot to "...no amount of personal misfortune justifies sending men with guns to shake me down for money and throw me in a cage if i don't hand it over!! PUT DOWN THE GUN" once you get any funny ideas about how to "do something" in a publicly funded way. It's like, under the surface, he realizes how lovely his Bastiat defense actually is, so he has to turn it around and act like the people who want to ensure that nobody suffers like that are the real monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm honestly shocked that you're surprised. He's always had this mealy-mouthed viciousness to his opinions on welfare (and healthcare). We have no obligation to our fellow man in his mind. Oh sure, he'll call it immoral to abandon them in the cold, but it's worse to try make anyone do anything about it, because taxes are literally (literally) worse than poor people dying. Like Caros was saying, it doesn't count as a bad thing to be stopped unless you can point to a specific villain. I should probably explain my rather... visceral reaction. I have two nieces, the eldest of which is... differently abled, shall we say. Thankfully, not very severely, but enough that she's going to have difficulty managing on her own as she grows up. Now, my nieces are the only children I can actually stand for any length of time, and the eldest's specific disability make her very social, very outgoing, and overall a bundle of pure joy and delight. There are, however, expenses associated with her condition. Medicines, a need for special education, and she will most likely never be a 'fully productive member of society'. And jrode, the smug, condescending, parasitic, worthless shitstain, has the loving gall to say that if she's not productive enough, if she doesn't fit his arbitrary definition of 'useful'? There's no real obligation for anyone to care about her. So yeah. That kind of brought it home in a very intimate fashion just how nakedly, unabashedly evil his outlook on life is. Hence why I blew up like that and why that hit me so hard. I'm only human, and he suddenly made it about family in the clearest way possible. And while I realize that he'll never actually have a chance to actually put his vile, twisted excuse for an ideology into practice, seeing it put so bluntly and utterly callously? That got to me. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I should probably explain my rather... visceral reaction. I have two nieces, the eldest of which is... differently abled, shall we say. Thankfully, not very severely, but enough that she's going to have difficulty managing on her own as she grows up. Now, my nieces are the only children I can actually stand for any length of time, and the eldest's specific disability make her very social, very outgoing, and overall a bundle of pure joy and delight. There are, however, expenses associated with her condition. Medicines, a need for special education, and she will most likely never be a 'fully productive member of society'. I don't think any of us can blame you there. His total lack of empathy moves in a lot of directions, and some of those hit some of us in very personal ways. Caros is the obvious example, but I had to walk away from the thread at one point over his opinions on child abuse (no, do not look them up). But take solace in the fact that scum like him will never get to make the call when it comes to your niece or people like her. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
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?" quote: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. You see, if people were able to take jobs on the merits of "is the position worthwhile" and were able to make cost/benefit analyses and come to enlightened conclusions, you'd have a point. But, somehow, oddly enough, your purported scenarios always manage to skip over a critical issue: How the gently caress do you eat while doing this? quote: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 always people looking for work and always unskilled positions. People will take these positions to survive. If you create a race to the bottom on wages, as your proposed plans do, people will still take the positions, if only just to be able to live. They will never acquire useful skills or transferable, marketable qualities. They will be bounced from one lovely position to another, falling deeper and deeper into debt just to survive, with no hope of anything improving. quote: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. theshim posted:I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist? quote: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. quote:Nobody said the poor choose to be poor. But there are two types of poor people. quote: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.  Just answer me this, jrod. Why? Why would some nebulous concept of "society" suddenly decide to aid the poor in your scenario, rather than continuing to view them as they do now - as leeches, parasites, people who are clearly less than they are? What, in short, would make people stop believing in a Just World? quote: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. Let me take a different tack on this. Suppose, in your society, charity ends up unable to cover some people who genuinely cannot provide for themselves. What happens to them? Surely you can't mandate a way to take care of them - that would require coercion and ultimately aggression, of course - so what happens to anyone who falls through the cracks? Or do you just handwave that away with: theshim posted:The thing about his perspective on these, as well as many other things (like healthcare, for example), is that they all rely on one simple assumption, and if you start with it, Jrod's only arguing the logical chain of events. quote: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. quote: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. Hah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm honestly shocked that you're surprised. He's always had this mealy-mouthed viciousness to his opinions on welfare (and healthcare). We have no obligation to our fellow man in his mind. I think this goes beyond the abstract for him; let's recall that he seemed honestly flummoxed by the phenomenon of a fellow libertarian changing their beliefs after a friend died from a lack of affordable health care. He sounded confused, as if the narrative made no sense to him. Why would something like that call libertarianism into question? What's the big deal? Jrode I hope you begin seeing a therapist before one is assigned to you by statist aggression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I don't think any of us can blame you there. His total lack of empathy moves in a lot of directions, and some of those hit some of us in very personal ways. Caros is the obvious example, but I had to walk away from the thread at one point over his opinions on child abuse (no, do not look them up). But take solace in the fact that scum like him will never get to make the call when it comes to your niece or people like her. Hell, I liked his post so much I emptyquoted the first part into a different thread. I can't blame TLM3101 for having a visceral reaction to such uncloaked contempt for humanity and compassion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Yay! Jrod actually responded to my posts in a timely manner!  Good job!  First, it is possible to be a closeted racist who goes under the radar among real life friends and polite company while simultaneously posting in a racist manner online. They are not mutually exclusive, you know. I doubt even a minority of Stormfronters or r/pol (or r/ChimpOut) Redditors or 4Chan "ironic" racists proudly wear SS thunder runes or totenkopfs around in public; anonymous online posting is a great (read: bad) way to vent anger and hatred and other bile where they wouldn't have an outlet otherwise. Just pointing that out. As for jazz suggestions, I'd be happy to! Here's a bullet list of a few great black jazz musicians off the top of my head, including some you've mentioned already: • Cab Calloway** • Jelly Roll Morton (technically creole) • Sidney Bechet • Miles Davis* • John Coltrane • Sonny Rollins** • Dizzee Gillespie* • Professor Longhair* • Fats Domino** • Thelonious Monk* • Charlie Parker • Count Basie • Wynton Marsalis • Charles Mingus * = I like these artists ** = I especially enjoy these artists, personal favorites! Louis Armstrong and Ray Charles, while still good musicians, are kind of overrated IMO in the way that Frank Sinatra is overrated. As for non-black Jazz musicians, I also strongly recommend Chet Baker, Dave Brubeck, and Bill Evans. Chet Baker in particular is my personal all-time jazz musician and his music (especially My Funny Valentine, Let's Get Lost, Almost Blue, I Fall in Love Too Easily, There Will Never Be Another You, and You Don't Know What Love Is) was huge in my development as a teenager and young adult, particularly in riding through difficult and melancholic times in my life, especially with romantic relationships. I'm kind of your typical cold DnD posting Goon at this point and not a lot really shakes me up emotionally, but Chet Baker songs are guaranteed to stir up my heart and possibly tears in my eyes when I listen to them. They are incredibly moving, powerful songs by a great sentimental trumpet player. Chet Baker gets my highest recommendation of all. If you like the kind of artists and their music I've listed, I recommend branching out into early to mid 20th century black blues and folk musicians like Muddy Waters. Their music formed the basis that 60s white Folk Revival artists such as Bob Dylan I hope that if we can't get you to budge on libertarian political or economic issues, we can at least expose you to more diverse forms of music. Maybe that way you can at least open your mind more to the world and maybe - just maybe - evolve from your lovely, garbage racist and sociopathic attitudes and grow into a more thoughtful and self-actualized human being. Namaste.  P.S., listing Fear of a Black Planet as one of your favorite songs gets the same reaction as Paul Ryan naming Rage Against the Machine as his favorite band, which is  . You are the white Fear they are talking about, and it's incredibly tone deaf (literally and metaphorically) and completely missing the message to say that you, with the views you profess time and again, are anything but the most casual listener of rap music. It's like being That White Guy who says "I'm not racist! I have (one) black friends!"
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
 Jrodefeld do you still standby your assertion that there are, primarily black, women who's sole purpose in life is to have as many children with as many fathers as possible in order to maximize the welfare they receive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
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. Automation is encroaching even on white collar fields previously seen as immune. Dismissing issues of employment with "it will be real easy to start a business" makes no sense: how do people get capital to do so in the first place, and why would that mean there are more employers if employing waged labour is less profitable than machine alternatives? You seem convinced that in Libertopia the only people whose labour will be priced at a wage insufficient to survive will be "mentally or physically handicapped", but you haven't given any reasoning behind that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
This "everyone can be an entrepreneur!" idea is really naive in its ignorance of the economies of scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Everyone in this thread who's tired of hearing JRod ranting about Men With Guns should be keeping tabs on the current Oregon militia surrender negotiations. The Violent Men With Guns have the patience of loving saints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This "everyone can be an entrepreneur!" idea is really naive in its ignorance of the economies of scale. It's also incredibly frustrating to hear it from conservatives like Mitt Romney who are intentionally misleading voters with simplistic logic and manipulation through co-opting the myth of the plucky self-made small business entrepreneur, and are also likely severely out of touch in terms of socioeconomic status and access to venture capital through their connections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
So Jrod, in your libertopia, what super successful business would you have, how many m/b/trillions would you make off it, and how much of it would you magnanimously give to charity? Also gently caress you for telling me I should have tried to subsist on charity when my mental disability is the type of thing people tell you to just man up and get over it. Luckily I got diagnosed by a medical committee who vouched for my disability being real and not just me faking it, and that way I could "steal" money from the government and also "exploit" services that brought me to the point where I'm now actually working after almost a decade where I barely left the house. Of course I'm a fool, because without a state I'd have been part of the 1% right now. e: heck, everybody'd be the 1%!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:It's also incredibly frustrating to hear it from conservatives like Mitt Romney who are intentionally misleading voters with simplistic logic and manipulation through co-opting the myth of the plucky self-made small business entrepreneur, and are also likely severely out of touch in terms of socioeconomic status and access to venture capital through their connections. It's like when an architecture school has a wildly successful architect come to their graduation ceremony: you think it's all gonna be roses. In fact, 90% of 'startups' fail, and 35% of small businesses in general fail in the first two years, and 50% by the fifth year. So yeah, anybody can be an entrepreneur, as long as they're willing to start a dozen companies between college graduation and being able to collect social security.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Like, is there any interesting pattern here: https://data.oecd.org/emp/self-employment-rate.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It's like when an architecture school has a wildly successful architect come to their graduation ceremony: you think it's all gonna be roses. But it's all because of the state. Without it they could cheap out on quality/wages/safety and profit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This "everyone can be an entrepreneur!" idea is really naive in its ignorance of the economies of scale. And ironically socially democratic welfare states with strong safety nets have the highest rates of entrepreneurship. HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. But who flips the burgers? Who cleans the bathrooms? Who sells you your groceries? Society has a lot of unskilled labor that needs to be done. More than one in ten Americans are retail clerks, cashiers, or in food service. Those are the most common jobs in America, and their share of the job market is significantly increasing over time. And across countries, regardless of level of market freedom, the market fails to provide a "middle-class" wage for fungible labor. The reasons here are completely obvious: even putting aside the concept of "economic coercion," there is no reason to pay a cashier a high wage, even the best cashier in the world, because there is a limit to how much profit a good cashier can produce. As an employer, I would rather hire the cheapest acceptable cashier. I don't care if that cheap cashier can comfortably self-sustain as long as they can stay alive in some way (if not by the government, then by a partner, family member, taking on debt, or merely living in grinding poverty.) You have this idea that it's possible that most people can comfortably self-sustain in the free market. How does this square with the economics here? I know your counterargument is probably that these are jobs for students, but a) increasingly university students are expected to have internships and independent projects/contests, which conflict with significant work, and b) there are more unskilled service jobs in the USA then there are teens and university students.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Hey jrode, while you were listing your favorite rap albums I couldn't help but notice that you failed to explain how "statist" countries has less income inequality than the US despite you claiming the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Like, is there any interesting pattern here: https://data.oecd.org/emp/self-employment-rate.htm "We should be more like... uhh... Greece! And... Colombia, and Turkey!" I'm sad they don't specify which Korea, although I'm sure it's just South.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:"We should be more like... uhh... Greece! And... Colombia, and Turkey!" When I get home I'll try to get some comparisons with other kinds of data because I'm honestly curious now about the relationship between this and wages, purchasing power, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah that was my point in a nutshell. Jrodefeld is literally talking moonspeak as far as the rest of us are concerned, because just as with 'aggression' his definition of coercion is so alien from the one used by the layman that any discussion is just going to be talking passed one another. The weird thing is that, in many ways, jrode's definition of aggression isn't even really that different in the libertopia he envisions. -You are born in America, but think its unfair that your tax dollars are used to build public infrastructure. Your choices are to permanently leave or MEN WITH GUNS will eventually THROW YOU IN A BOX. -You are born in Hoppe's Covenant Community, but think its unfair that racially mixed marriages are illegal. Your choices are to permanently leave or MEN WITH GUNS will eventually THROW YOU IN A BOX (or possibly execute you depending on the covenant's charter). I mean, I know this isn't even the biggest hole in jrode's arguments, but it's probably one of the most glaring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The weird thing is that, in many ways, jrode's definition of aggression isn't even really that different in the libertopia he envisions. The only moral men with guns are my men with guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The weird thing is that, in many ways, jrode's definition of aggression isn't even really that different in the libertopia he envisions. Might be the most fundamental though. Without a coherent definition of coercion everything else falls apart. That's the trouble with trying to work everything out from first principles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
It all dissolves into a social contract within a single generation. That's what I love most, I think, about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
property is theft, OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
