Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

Bryter: Nov 6, 2011; but since we are small we may-
uh, we may be the losers

Saeku posted:

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.

Retail employment is actually growing at a slower rate than the general workforce. Food service and retail workers are some of the least secure professions going forward.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 20:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 22:34

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Bryter posted:

Retail employment is actually growing at a slower rate than the general workforce. Food service and retail workers are some of the least secure professions going forward.

Obviously this is proof that all their job skills are going into workers, who are then moving into higher positions on the ladder of industry!

If widespread automation greatly decimated the ranks of the employed, jrode, do you feel that it would be moral to prevent the probable mass starvation and social upheaval with some degree of redistribution, or do you feel secure that praexology shows that you will inevitably get a huge upswell in new jobs and everything will be fine? If you feel the latter, how many firearms would you stake on the prospect?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 20:32

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

I'm genuinely looking forward to Jrod's thoughts on the jazz music suggestions as a ray of optimism, even if it's wildly off-topic from the thread's purpose. :unsmith:

# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:15

Saeku: Sep 22, 2010

Bryter posted:

Retail employment is actually growing at a slower rate than the general workforce. Food service and retail workers are some of the least secure professions going forward.

The source you've posted is theoretical, not descriptive, and seems to center around how likely it is that positions could be automated rather than how practical it would actually be to automate those positions. Based on all sources I've seen, food service, retail, and other low-wage/unskilled employment as a whole have grown at a much faster rate than the general workforce during the recession and the current recovery period.

It's true that retail is actually doing pretty poorly as an employment sector right now for the reasons you cited, but the broader category of low-wage unskilled labor that is dominated by retail and food service is still expanding disproportionately.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:27

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

I'm genuinely looking forward to Jrod's thoughts on the jazz music suggestions as a ray of optimism, even if it's wildly off-topic from the thread's purpose.

Irrational, illogical jungle rythms by and for genetic inferiors. Off to the gas chamber with you

# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:40

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

icantfindaname posted:

Irrational, illogical jungle rythms by and for genetic inferiors. Off to the gas chamber with you

Oh yeah, that Negermusik. My mistake.

(Depicted: Jrodefeld's internal conception of what black Jazz musicians look like)

# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:54

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

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.

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.

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

Because I oppose the Welfare State, you state that I think "we have no obligation to our fellow man"? This is just flat out wrong and completely dishonest.

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

So the claim that libertarians have black hearts, and secretly chuckle about the prospect of mass starvation and widespread suffering is worse than dishonest, it is downright abhorrent.

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 22:52

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

jrodefeld posted:

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

It's sad that you keep ignoring whenever anyone points out why this is dumb bullshit for-babies reasoning, but it's even sadder that people keep explaining it I guess since you have no intention of actually addressing substantive counter-arguments to your ideas.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 22:54

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

jrodefeld posted:

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

Then why does it not happen already? There are plenty of people with plenty of money, more than they could ever need, who lift not a finger to help those you say there's a 'moral obligation' to help and the state does nothing about these rich people.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 22:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

jrodefeld posted:

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Would applying those social pressures be considered initiation of force?

I mean, I'm just saying.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 22:59

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

What's the moral basis for any of this denouncement? If morality is built entirely on property rights and the NAP, what possible objection could you have to a shopkeeper defending his rights to deny bread to a starving man?

And if morality isn't entirely based on those principles, what is this second basis, and why does it not factor into your conception of how society should function?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:01

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

jrodefeld posted:

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

Because I oppose the Welfare State, you state that I think "we have no obligation to our fellow man"? This is just flat out wrong and completely dishonest.

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

So the claim that libertarians have black hearts, and secretly chuckle about the prospect of mass starvation and widespread suffering is worse than dishonest, it is downright abhorrent.

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

How the gently caress does the store owner make a federal case without a federal government to appeal to, you loving dipshit?!

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:02

Caros: May 14, 2008

jrodefeld posted:

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

Because I oppose the Welfare State, you state that I think "we have no obligation to our fellow man"? This is just flat out wrong and completely dishonest.

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

So the claim that libertarians have black hearts, and secretly chuckle about the prospect of mass starvation and widespread suffering is worse than dishonest, it is downright abhorrent.

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

Where does your morality come from jrodefeld?

You constantly talk about how your beliefs are objective and universifiable, but your own example here goes against that. If I steal that action is either right or it is wrong. If you argue that it is wrong but that we should accept mitigating circumstances then you are making one of two arguments. Either morality is subjective, and the same thing can be good, bad, neither or a mix of all three depending on circumstances. Alternatively you are arguing that morality is still somehow objective but that we will still somehow make exceptions to this morality based on social convention which is the same loving thing.

If it is moral (or effectively moral since you agree he should not be punished) for a man to agress to feed his family then why is it immoral for people to 'steal' (it isn't theft) to provide health care, or food for the poor, or whatever really?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:17

Bryter: Nov 6, 2011; but since we are small we may-
uh, we may be the losers

Saeku posted:

The source you've posted is theoretical, not descriptive, and seems to center around how likely it is that positions could be automated rather than how practical it would actually be to automate those positions. Based on all sources I've seen, food service, retail, and other low-wage/unskilled employment as a whole have grown at a much faster rate than the general workforce during the recession and the current recovery period.

It's true that retail is actually doing pretty poorly as an employment sector right now for the reasons you cited, but the broader category of low-wage unskilled labor that is dominated by retail and food service is still expanding disproportionately.

It's hard to talk practically or descriptively about the future, obviously. If you're banking on potential automation not translating into actual automation, you're probably going to be disappointed. It's a matter of when, not if.

From November 2007 to January of this year the US civilian labor force increased by 2.9%. In the same period, the number of employees in the retail sector increased by only 1.5%.

It's shortsighted to only look at the past few years though. It's a long term trend. Retail jobs increased as a share of total employment from the 50s until the late 80s, it's been declining since then.

Like agriculture and manufacturing, retail's share of the workforce has peaked.

Bryter fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 11, 2016

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:18

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Oh, what's the turn of the phrase here?

You don't oppose providing aid and support to people, you just oppose any and all effective means of doing so.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:26

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

jrodefeld posted:

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

Because I oppose the Welfare State, you state that I think "we have no obligation to our fellow man"? This is just flat out wrong and completely dishonest.

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

So the claim that libertarians have black hearts, and secretly chuckle about the prospect of mass starvation and widespread suffering is worse than dishonest, it is downright abhorrent.

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

So AGAIN, it's not that we think that you don't want poor people to be unable to avoid starvation, it's that based on all of the available evidence we're reasonably sure that the way you'd like to structure society would have that result. You may believe that there's a moral obligation to your fellow man, but the one truly effective way of providing an adequate safety net is a no-go for you because of your fantasies about Evil Statist Men With Guns.

We already have social pressure, and it does fuckall to stop rich people from demonizing and persecuting poor people. A store owner who gets a shoplifter sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread is not going to face much in the way of criticism for it, and whatever he does get will be met with plenty of people saying that the starving shoplifter obviously has plenty of welfare money and is a dirty thug who deserved to be arrested or worse.

Also, "Statism" just isn't a thing. It's an idiotic term that basically every non-libertarian either hasn't heard of or rejects. You can basically replace "statist" with "non-libertarian" and you'll have a more accurate and less condescending way of saying things.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:28

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

Wherein jrod stakes out a bold, but not unexpected, pro-Javert stance.

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:29

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Juffo-Wup posted:

Wherein jrod stakes out a bold, but not unexpected, pro-Javert stance.

So who is Jean Valjean in this, then? And what unexpected clemency will send jrod into the Seine?

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:32

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

M A R T I N F U C K I N G S H K R E L I

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:39

Caros: May 14, 2008

Juffo-Wup posted:

Wherein jrod stakes out a bold, but not unexpected, pro-Javert stance.

Valjean, at last,
You've broke the N-A-P
Monsieur le Maire
Do not agress on me.

:sureboat:

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:44

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

In Libertopia, usury laws will not exist, so you can just roll down to SpoonerBank and borrow your startup capital at 400% APR.

The world is your oyster, young entrepreneur! Look how far you've come: From selling comics and false vaginas for minimum wage, to having your legs broken by ImmortanDRO for not being able to pay back your usurious loan.

The system works!!

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:54

Caros: May 14, 2008

There, out in the darkness
A negroid running
Fallen from Hoppe
Fallen from race
Hoppe be my witness
I never shall yield
While he owns those skittles
While he owns those skittles

He knows his way in the dark
Mine is the way of the NAP
Those who follow the path of the stateless
Shall have their reward
And if they have
The purple drank
The flames
The sword!

... I'm not very good at this. :sigh:

# ? Feb 11, 2016 23:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I hate every State I see
From US-A to US-Z
No you'll never make a statist out of me!

*the inevitable governmental functions emerging from the network of dispute resolution companies emerge from the sand*

Oh my God, I was wrong
It was FORCE all along!
You finally made a statist...

(Yes, we finally made a statist!)

Yes you finally made a statist... out of me...!

(I love you, fellow statists!)

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:10

Anticheese: Feb 13, 2008; $60,000,000 sexbot

How is it we never had ImmortanDRO until now?

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:12

Caros: May 14, 2008

Nessus posted:

I hate every State I see
From US-A to US-Z
No you'll never make a statist out of me!

*the inevitable governmental functions emerging from the network of dispute resolution companies emerge from the sand*

Oh my God, I was wrong
It was FORCE all along!
You finally made a statist...

(Yes, we finally made a statist!)

Yes you finally made a statist... out of me...!

(I love you, fellow statists!)

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:14

DEKH: Jan 4, 2014

Caros posted:

There, out in the darkness
A negroid running
Fallen from Hoppe
Fallen from race
Hoppe be my witness
I never shall yield
While he owns those skittles
While he owns those skittles

He knows his way in the dark
Mine is the way of the NAP
Those who follow the path of the stateless
Shall have their reward
And if they have
The purple drank
The flames
The sword!

... I'm not very good at this.

This is wonderful and reminds me of the time my friends and I tried to rewrite Le Mis to be about Jean Claude Van Damme.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:23

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Anticheese posted:

How is it we never had ImmortanDRO until now?

Until now no one has had the cajones to try to compete with ValhallaDRO.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:28

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

Yellow! The gold of angry men!
Black! The skin of neighbors past!

Yellow! A DRO about to dawn!
Black! The state that ends at last!

jrodefeld posted:

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

So instead of an efficient solution to hunger, like say food stamps or food cash subsidies or state-run soup kitchens or just straight up guaranteed food minimum rations, we should have a nonsensically complicated system of people being sued for stealing bread we all agree they have the moral right to steal and so we in turn try the baker in a court of public opinion to force them to give up their lawful right to sue the poor person?

Is the free market normally this inefficient, or only when you realize how abhorrent your positions are?

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:48

Karia: Mar 27, 2013; Self-portrait, Snake on a Plane
Oil painting, c. 1482-1484
Leonardo DaVinci (1452-1591)

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.

Ok. Then I'm going to brag for them.

I work at a university to help train long-term unemployed people on modern CNC machines for manufacturing. Everyone's been out of work for months, some of them literally are off the street. Over the last seven or so years, we've trained hundreds of people, with a nearly 100 percent job placement rate in legitimately good jobs ($18+ per hour.) The economic impact has been calculated as something well over $100 million dollars, due to lowered welfare costs, them spending more money, additional profit for their employers, etc. This program is funded by government grants, and they get paid back by payroll taxes and lowered welfare in less than two months.

This is not the only program like this. We just helped set up a similar program at another school, and they just finished getting their first class of twelve students through. A lot of schools are actually doing similar things, though I can't provide numbers.

Do we need more of it? Absolutely. The US needs more people in manufacturing, and lots of people in the US need jobs. But the government is doing something, just not enough, and ignoring it shows a worrying lack of research.

Additionally, it is the absolute height of arrogance to suggest that the people who do not have the opportunity to enroll in programs like this deserve to starve and die in the streets. While we work on expanding these programs, we should absolutely provide food and shelter to those who can't afford it.

If we can get to a point where nobody needs welfare? Phase it out, I'm all for it. But until then, there is a moral imperative to take care of everyone who needs it.

And just before you suggest that the companies who are hiring people would gladly pay for this training on their own? They don't. It's been offered to them, and they've said no, and I don't know why, but unless the government was subsidizing this it wouldn't be happening.

Karia fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 12, 2016

# ? Feb 12, 2016 00:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Corporate America in general is violently allergic to all by the most elementary job training, I gather. Surely there's a free market wisdom in this, perhaps they are free-loading on all those rich blacks living it up on subsidized loans?

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:00

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Do you hear the people sing
It is the song of angry men
It's the music of a people
Who will not be slaves ag--OH poo poo

*gets kicked to death by emancipated slaves*

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:01

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Like, I know someone else brought this up, but still... when the gently caress do politicians brag about how many people their policies put on welfare? For loving real.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:06

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

GunnerJ posted:

Like, I know someone else brought this up, but still... when the gently caress do politicians brag about how many people their policies put on welfare? For loving real.

Imaginary Statistlandia.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:09

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Muscle Tracer posted:

"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.

Let's see...
Greece: Massively, massively hosed by austerity (I presume Jrod approves of this)
Columbia: Continuing to deal with the problem of drug trafficking, also the decades-long low-level civil war with FARC
Turkey: Dealing with literally millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq, and other places. The president is an giant authoritarian rear end in a top hat who restarted the low-level civil war with the PKK in order to get a majority in the government, thinks women are not equal to men, and is cracking down hard on journalism/freedom of the press.
South Korea: Probably the best off of the bunch, still that whole North Korea/DMZ thing that is kept in check by the US (which in Jrod's mind is of course a massive violation of NAP).

So I guess Jrod wants the US to have massive austerity and a low-level civil war. Sounds about right, actually. :v:

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:09

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

I work in construction and I can tell you straight up that there's not a ton of interest in training entry-level people because it's too long-term and also the market has a glut of over-educated people.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:10

Bryter: Nov 6, 2011; but since we are small we may-
uh, we may be the losers

jrodefeld posted:

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Yeah because people left to their own devices would totally give enough of a poo poo to a) find out the petty misdeeds of businesses and b) exert any "pressure".

To quote from the excellent non-libertarian FAQ:

quote:

One of the most consistent irrational choices people make is buying products without spending as much effort to gather information as the amount they care about these things would suggest. So in fact, the nonlibertarians are right: if there were no government regulation, people who care a lot about things like safety and efficacy would consistently be stuck with unsafe and ineffective products, and the market would not correct these failures.

4.2: Is this really true? Surely people would investigate the safety, ethics, and efficacy of the products they buy.

Below follows a list of statements about products. Some are real, others are made up. Can you identify which are which?

1. Some processed food items, including most Kraft cheese products, contain methylarachinate, an additive which causes a dangerous anaphylactic reaction in 1/31000 people who consume it. They have been banned in Canada, but continue to be used in the United States after intense lobbying from food industry interests.

2. Commonly used US-manufactured wood products, including almost all plywood, contain formaldehyde, a compound known to cause cancer. This has been known in scientific circles for years, but was only officially reported a few months ago because of intense chemical industry lobbying to keep it secret. Formaldehyde-containing wood products are illegal in the EU and most other developed nations.

3. Total S.A., an oil company that owns fill-up stations around the world, sometimes uses slave labor in repressive third-world countries to build its pipelines and oil wells. Laborers are coerced to work for the company by juntas funded by the corporation, and are shot or tortured if they refuse. The company also helps pay for the military muscle needed to keep the juntas in power.

4. Microsoft has cooperated with the Chinese government by turning over records from the Chinese equivalents of its search engine "Bing" and its hotmail email service, despite knowing these records would be used to arrest dissidents. At least three dissidents were arrested based on the information and are currently believed to be in jail or "re-education" centers.

5. Wellpoint, the second largest US health care company, has a long record of refusing to provide expensive health care treatments promised in some of its plans by arguing that their customers have violated the "small print" of the terms of agreement; in fact they make it so technical that almost all customers violate them unknowingly, then only cite the ones who need expensive treatment. Although it has been sued for these practices at least twice, both times it has used its legal muscle to tie the cases up in court long enough that the patients settled for an undisclosed amount believed to be fraction of the original benefits promised.

6. Ultrasonic mosquito repellents like those made by GSI, which claim to mimic frequencies produced by the mosquito's natural predator, the bat, do not actually repel mosquitoes. Studies have shown that exactly as many mosquitoes inhabit the vicinity of such a mosquito repellent as anywhere else.

7. Listerine (and related mouth washes) probably do not eliminate bad breath. Although it may be effective at first, in the long term it generally increases bad breath by drying out the mouth and inhibiting the salivary glands. This may also increase the population of dental bacteria. Most top dentists recommend avoiding mouth wash or using it very sparingly.

8. The most popular laundry detergents, including most varieties of Tide and Method, have minimal to zero ability to remove stains from clothing. They mostly just makes clothing smell better when removed from the laundry. Some of the more expensive alkylbenzenesulfonate detergents have genuine stain-removing action, but aside from the cost, these detergents have very strong smells and are unpopular.

4.2.1: Okay, I admit I'm not sure of most of these. What's your point?

This is a complicated FAQ about complicated philosophical issues. Most likely its readers are in the top few percentiles in terms of intelligence and education.

And we live in a world where there are many organizations, both private and governmental, that exist to evaluate products and disseminate information about their safety.

And all of the companies and products above are popular ones that most American consumers have encountered and had to make purchasing decisions about. I tried to choose safety issues that were extremely serious and carried significant risks of death, and ethical issues involving slavery and communism, which would be of particular importance to libertarians.

If the test was challenging, it means that the smartest and best-educated people in a world full of consumer safety and education organizations don't bother to look up important life-or-death facts specifically tailored to be relevant to them about the most popular products and companies they use every day.

And if that's the case, why would you believe that less well-educated people in a world with less consumer safety information trying to draw finer distinctions between more obscure products will definitely seek out the consumer information necessary allows them to avoid unsafe, unethical, or ineffective products?

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:18

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

Also this post said it better than I could:

Who What Now posted:

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.

Jrod, you don't know poo poo about the Middle East, don't pretend you do. The whole goddamn reason we intervened against ISIL originally was because ISIL was going to (and almost did) genocide the Yazidis. If we just drop everything and leave, ISIL would attempt to go back to what they were doing before; while I'm sure you'd feel better, the multitude of groups fighting against ISIL would be very unhappy at being left to be murdered.

There are legitimate questions about how, when, and to what level the US should intervene in various world affairs. However, you don't give a poo poo about discussing this, you start from the end and work backward:

jrodefeld posted:

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.

"In the short run, there might be an escalation of violence", yeah no poo poo there would be; ISIL (and every other group) doesn't play by NAP, not in the least. But not caring about leaving people to die is pretty much your MO, so I guess it's consistent with your worldview.

fade5 fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Feb 12, 2016

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:26

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Karia posted:

Ok. Then I'm going to brag for them.

I work at a university to help train long-term unemployed people on modern CNC machines for manufacturing. Everyone's been out of work for months, some of them literally are off the street. Over the last seven or so years, we've trained hundreds of people, with a nearly 100 percent job placement rate in legitimately good jobs ($18+ per hour.) The economic impact has been calculated as something well over $100 million dollars, due to lowered welfare costs, them spending more money, additional profit for their employers, etc. This program is funded by government grants, and they get paid back by payroll taxes and lowered welfare in less than two months.

This is not the only program like this. We just helped set up a similar program at another school, and they just finished getting their first class of twelve students through. A lot of schools are actually doing similar things, though I can't provide numbers.

Do we need more of it? Absolutely. The US needs more people in manufacturing, and lots of people in the US need jobs. But the government is doing something, just not enough, and ignoring it shows a worrying lack of research.

Additionally, it is the absolute height of arrogance to suggest that the people who do not have the opportunity to enroll in programs like this deserve to starve and die in the streets. While we work on expanding these programs, we should absolutely provide food and shelter to those who can't afford it.

If we can get to a point where nobody needs welfare? Phase it out, I'm all for it. But until then, there is a moral imperative to take care of everyone who needs it.

And just before you suggest that the companies who are hiring people would gladly pay for this training on their own? They don't. It's been offered to them, and they've said no, and I don't know why, but unless the government was subsidizing this it wouldn't be happening.

Thanks for the work you did.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:32

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

fade5 posted:

Also this post said it better than I could:

Jrod, you don't know poo poo about the Middle East, don't pretend you do. The whole goddamn reason we intervened against ISIL originally was because ISIL was going to (and almost did) genocide the Yazidis. If we just drop everything and leave, ISIL would attempt to go back to what they were doing before; while I'm sure you'd feel better, the multitude of groups fighting against ISIL would be very unhappy at being left to be murdered.

There are legitimate questions about how, when, and to what level the US should intervene in various world affairs. However, you don't give a poo poo about discussing this, you start from the end and work backward:

"In the short run, there might be an escalation of violence", yeah no poo poo there would be; ISIL (and every other group) doesn't play by NAP, not in the least. But not caring about leaving people to die is pretty much your MO, so I guess it's consistent with your worldview.

Now, now. There would be a short-term escalation of violence, as Jrod said, but once there are no more dissidents and ethnic rivals to be murdered, the graph levels out and peace is restored, without anything so crass and cruel as statist intervention!

You don't see violence against the Helvetii or the Caribs, do you?

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 22:34

Cemetry Gator: Apr 3, 2007; Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

jrodefeld posted:

So, to paraphrase Bastiat, if we don't support a thing being done by the State we don't support that thing being done at all? It's sad that Bastiat crushed this fallacy a century and a half ago, yet you keep parroting it without understanding how fallacious the argument really is.

Because I oppose the Welfare State, you state that I think "we have no obligation to our fellow man"? This is just flat out wrong and completely dishonest.

We absolutely, positively have a moral obligation to our fellow man. And this obligation can be carried out through voluntary cooperation in a free society and does NOT require State aggression. Most libertarians, whether you agree or not, believe that if you care about your fellow man and his or her well-being, you should reject Statism and favor peaceful assistance and mutual aid to our neighbor.

Somebody stole my argument, but why isn't this already happening?

But this also raises other questions. What do you mean by peaceful assistance? How are we violently assisting the poor. I haven't received food stamps, but I doubt we're shooting them at poor people, or we're forcing poor people to fight for their food stamps. Nor are we killing people left and right as we hand out food stamps.

It's a meaningless phrase that just raises further questions.

quote:

So the claim that libertarians have black hearts, and secretly chuckle about the prospect of mass starvation and widespread suffering is worse than dishonest, it is downright abhorrent.

You know what might help? Explaining your position instead of just asserting that it's right and moving on to other assertions. Maybe you could talk about why we should reject Statism.

quote:

Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression?

Jesus Christ man. Listen to yourself talk. You sound like a bad student. "Unjustified aggression?" Most people would say "theft" or "criminal activity." You know, something that isn't just jargon. That's all it is. Just loving jargon.

But here's the thing, you never answer the question.

A normal human being would say "no, they didn't not commit an act of unjustified aggression," and then promptly throw up for saying something so ugly. Why? Simple. Somewhere, society has failed to allow someone to get to that point. We failed. Whether we didn't offer enough assistance or opportunity, at that point, what difference does it make. Their options are to either survive and break the law, or die but at least do so without violating some law.

That's morality. Not your weird little "Hey, everything will take care of itself. BUT NO AGGRESSION PEOPLE!" You're not seeing the big picture.

quote:

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

Even if we recognize the legal right of people to behave in ways that we might find morally objectionable, that hardly means we need to remain silent on the issue. Decent behavior is encouraged through ostracism, social pressure, persuasion and, for some people, religious, ethical and spiritual teachings.

How does that differ from the world where we live today? We're not going to arrest the store owner. And if somebody were to make a big deal, people would react.

But you see, here's the problem - that's not a situation that the state needs to get involved in. But what about environmental matters where we can't count on the market to do what is best? What about something where you could be doing serious harm. But here's the thing, it would be almost impossible to prove that YOU'RE the one causing harm. After all, one coal burning power plant isn't going to cause significant problems.

And I said it before - but lifeboat scenarios are the true test of a moral code. Nobody needs to be told what to do or how to handle simple day-to-day interactions with people. It's when poo poo hits the fan that we need something to guide us. Don't be dismissive.

# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:49

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

«‹›115 »