|
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. I too would like to know who does this in America, where Jrode and I both live, so that I may vote for them and tell my friends to vote for them.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
I bet you the answer will be like "Obama brags about all those people on government subsidized insurance that's taking away their incentive to go out and make something of themselves so they won't die!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
So what happens when your charities and good will toward men do not fully meat the needs of the desperate and unemployed? Are they to lie down in a gutter and die? I can't imagine the types of wishful thinking going on for Jrod to think simply eliminating taxes and big government means people will be wealthy and altruistic enough to cover the cost of all the people currently on social programs. Of course libertarians don't dwell in the realm of facts, do they? What is it they say about praxeology and libertarianism- it cannot fail, it can only be failed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
In at least one case (the pre-WWI German empire) the wealthy people engaged in social programs through the government deliberately. And they did it of course in order to steal the Socialists' thunder. I suppose Jrode would like it if everyone would agree to not engage in agitation for such things, as a sort of agreed-upon moral evil, so he won't have to pay taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
In libertarian land, wouldn't stealing a piece of bread, even if not convicted, be enough to get you kicked out of your DRO thereby insuring your soon death? And of course you can't exactly shop the DRO exchange for a new one cause you are so poor and hungry you stole a loaf of bread? The best course of action would be to murder the baker and his family in cold blood, taking his property as your own. Hell, all you have to do after the murder is make a single crappy piece of bread to qualify the ol' homesteading argument. Then use some of the banker's Bitcoin to bribe your old DRO to let you back in and bribe the judge that the banker and his family just disappeared and you naturally mingled your labor with the land... And then of course you announce your new limited time meat-stuffed bagels since there is no regulatory agency or centralized law enforcement that can trespass on your property and discover that you peddle in human flesh.  Libertarianism is for savages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yo, jrodski: once again, you set the tone for the conversation here. If you don't want to talk about how racist you are, don't talk about race or address people talking about your racist views! I guarantee you that you have no "good reputation" to defend against these attacks on your character, you are an object of contempt and amusement but as long as you keep coming back here, try doing something more interesting than perpetually owning yourself on racism. Instead, consider responding to this! This is interesting and I was thinking about it today. It seems like we have some people in here who know their stuff, so about this for an assertion: The Catholic Church, as it existed at certain times in the feudal era of western (and eastern? A bit? Maybe?) Europe was a DRO with religious dressing. This mainly occurred to me because getting excommunicated is basically like getting kicked out of a DRO. Nobody else who counts him/herself as a member of the Church would bother doing anything at all with someone (possibly an entire nation of someone's) who'd been excommunicated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Caros posted:Valjean, at last, Before you say another word, Javert Before you tax me like a slave again, Listen to me, there is something I must- *vomits five hundred word diatribe, breaking meter while saying virtually nothing of worth whatsoever and simultaneously managing to praise the poverty-lowering effects of Pinochet-era death squads* Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:This is interesting and I was thinking about it today. It seems like we have some people in here who know their stuff, so about this for an assertion: The Catholic Church, as it existed at certain times in the feudal era of western (and eastern? A bit? Maybe?) Europe was a DRO with religious dressing. This mainly occurred to me because getting excommunicated is basically like getting kicked out of a DRO. Nobody else who counts him/herself as a member of the Church would bother doing anything at all with someone (possibly an entire nation of someone's) who'd been excommunicated. That's an interesting thought but I don't think it's a very strong parallel outside the basic similarity of both entailing some kind of shunning. One weird complication is that excommunication could be used as a political weapon against secular rulers; possibly this was its most common use because censuring someone prominent and powerful for an offense served as a better object lesson than doing the same to some random schmuck. I am not sure what the DRO analogue to that would be unless we're talking about some top-level DRO that has a vague and limited formal superiority to all the others. Another important difference is that excommunication is not anything like the commercial transaction in a market of service providers underlying DRO membership. It's a penalty applied to you until you repent of whatever specific sin provoked it. A DRO could have various bylaws and obligations its clients might have to live up to for which breach of contract results in dropped coverage but that doesn't prevent you from signing up with another DRO if you can afford it. You couldn't really join a new church to get out of being excommunicated any more than you could really just quit membership in the Church the way you can "choose" to opt out of a DRO. The Catholic Church also was not a provider of defense or security services. Rather, secular rulers did. That's why I speculated that its role would be more like a large, widespread mutual aid/charitable organization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:In libertarian land, wouldn't stealing a piece of bread, even if not convicted, be enough to get you kicked out of your DRO thereby insuring your soon death? It would depend on whatever suite of laws you agreed to follow when you signed up and the penalties this enables the DRO to levy. I think it is credible that a "one strike, you're out" model for all crimes, even petty theft, would make it difficult to retain customers. It seems more likely to me that you'd be fined for the value of the stolen item (this being repaid to the victim of the theft) and have some other fine or obligation applied just as a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
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? Wait. Wait wait wait. So stealing a loaf of bread if your family is starving and leaving the store owner with (at best) an uncollectable judgment against you, is the right and moral thing to do? And pursuing a judgment against a thief is the immoral thing to do?  Why would you want a legal system that punishes morality and protects immorality?Well I have a suggestion for you: what if we formalize this morality you're proposing and tax the store owners to give the poor people food stamps so they can buy the bread. Same outcome: the poor person eats and the store owner is still out the cost of the bread, only everyone benefits because store windows aren't smashed and nobody risks getting hurt or shot in food-related robberies all the loving time! You should seriously question the morality of your legal system if your answer to this and other lifeboat situations is "well people should just act morally anyway and then deal with the criminal consequences via the fool-proof legal strategy 'aw come on guys, don't be dicks about it' ". I mean really, that's your solution for poverty? The poor should just break in and steal and then hope that the people who didn't give them charity are all "oh don't worry about my smashed windows and lost inventory, it's fiiiiiiiiiine"?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Technically the bread merchant's probably ahead, assuming the food stamps get equal value for him as they do for the guy using them. Everyone, presumably, is paying into the food stamp fund.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
JVNO posted:So what happens when your charities and good will toward men do not fully meat the needs of the desperate and unemployed? Are they to lie down in a gutter and die? No apparently the answer to providing for the hungry and destitute without stealing from property owners via taxes, is for the poor to literally break in and steal from the owners, at which point we'll all sit down and agree that the thief was justified because he was very poor and no one will press charges. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No apparently the answer to providing for the hungry and destitute without stealing from property owners via taxes, is for the poor to literally break in and steal from the owners, at which point we'll all sit down and agree that the thief was justified because he was very poor and no one will press charges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No apparently the answer to providing for the hungry and destitute without stealing from property owners via taxes, is for the poor to literally break in and steal from the owners, at which point we'll all sit down and agree that the thief was justified because he was very poor and no one will press charges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
I wonder if Les Miserables is a bizarre and fantastical genre of fiction to Libertarians. Just like books about dragons and wizards and elves: to get into the plot you have to suspend your disbelief in the blatantly impossible narrative hook of a businessman actually pressing charges against a starving man but once you do it's a rollicking good time. Eh actually the whole book is so impossible one can't take it at all seriously, no rational businessman would fire a good worker just because she's an unwed mother: a competitor would scoop her up at a lower wage and then drive him out of business with lower prices borne of greater efficiency. Not to mention it never even discusses the consequences of the villainous Jean Valjean's role in encouraging a tuberculosis epidemic (by paying for Fantine's hospital treatment thus lowering the incentive for people to avoid TB if they too might be able to get free treatment from the mayor)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:In libertarian land, wouldn't stealing a piece of bread, even if not convicted, be enough to get you kicked out of your DRO thereby insuring your soon death? And of course you can't exactly shop the DRO exchange for a new one cause you are so poor and hungry you stole a loaf of bread?. Apparently not, because DROs would face immense social pressure to not press charges or recoup restitution from a poor thief. Probably they'd just indemnify the owner the amount in damages he's due in his DRO policy, then recoup the costs of paying out for random crimes with a small increase to everyone's premiums. The really business-savvy DROs would note that they'd achieve greater savings if they proactively distributed bread to the destitute poor to save on the costs of security and replacing broken windows, etc. Although really they wouldn't want to run their own duplicate distribution systems when stores already do that so they'd probably get together and issue to those who demonstrate sufficient need little coupons they can exchange for bread and which the store owners could redeem for cash. Thus since only socially-conscious DROs would be acceptable to consumers, and giving out these coupons-for-food is cheaper than paying for the consequences of theft, and anyone who refuses to pay DRO premiums would be violently robbed and murdered within like a second, everyone would be This is not a state however, because I won't be forced to live or work or go to school with black people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
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. No, it's true. And we have seen ample proof of it from the things you have posted in this thread. 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. Moral obligations that you don't follow through on aren't worth poo poo, buttercup. And we already know that you have the integrity of a hagfish and the morals of a tasmanian devil on meth, so we know exactly how much your bleating insistence on 'voluntary cooperation' is worth; about the same as a bucket of stale goat-cum. jrodefeld posted: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, this I'll give you. You're actually worse, because you dress your evil up as 'compassion' and 'liberty'. It's simply that to you, since other people aren't actually people at all, but things to be used and then discarded, you aren't capable of mustering any empathy for them. 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? ... And to repeat this a - what? fourth time now? - This is different from what happens now how exactly? Also, that part I've bolded? This is why I keep hitting that 'quote' button whenever you manage to crawl out of your den to vomit your bile out into the world. Furthermore, I absolutely stand by what I said earlier: TLM3101 posted: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. and I would add that the reason I now hold this view, jrode, the reason I'm this negatively inclined towards Libertarianism, is because of you; Your callous contempt for the lives of others, your butchery and twisting of language, your snide and condescending dismissal of the poor and the marginalized, but most of all, for your utter, sheer gall of trying to argue for depriving other living, thinking, feeling human beings of the only thing keeping them alive and the affront to basic human decency that it is to call your 'solution' compassion. Every single argument that you have made in favor of your position is - by any commonly understood definition of the terms - immoral, unfeeling, cruel, and evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Jrod doesn't deserve to listen to any Mingus, I'll close his ears with my fingers and keep the sound from getting in. I'm declaring him an unperson in my community because he believes in gay rights and declaring his ears a free good for me to use as I see fit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrod doesn't deserve to listen to any Mingus, I'll close his ears with my fingers and keep the sound from getting in. I'm declaring him an unperson in my community because he believes in gay rights and declaring his ears a free good for me to use as I see fit. I still advocate his listening of Chet Baker. Maybe that will plant a seed of empathy in his cold libertarian heart. From small seeds great trees can grow, and all that jazz. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
It's good to see Jrod's position is so weak that he'll immediately change the subject to something else. I tell you! I'm sold on libertarianism! Thanks for ignoring solid arguments Jrod! You've helped me determine that your worldview is pretty irrelevant!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Goodbye Porkpie Hat (because I sold it to afford my doctor visit)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
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. I'm not disputing that a hypothetical society could care for everyone in the absence of taxation. That's a distinct possibility, if you had like a society made of altruistic robots or if you had a society of people who were genetically engineered to have an overwhelming desire to help each other. The problem is that in reality (that place where we all live) people often suffer needlessly despite the ability of their neighbors to help. Mutual aid is not sufficient to cover the basic necessities of all of our neighbors, and it never really was even when mutual aid societies were massively popular. So your post begs the question, in your stateless society, what happens to the people who aren't sufficiently helped by their neighbors? Your "moral obligation to our fellow man" line also rings hollow, because you clearly believe that this moral obligation should be cast aside in order to protect an individuals property rights. Childish hypothetical: if a billionaire refuses to feed a starving man, I have absolutely no qualms with taking from the billionaire in order to feed the starving man. If you believe that we have a moral obligation to our fellow man, then you would agree that this is a just outcome; a moral cause has been served, and the only suffering caused was upon a person who did an immoral thing by ignoring their obligations, and the suffering was immaterial and possibly even unnoticed. If you agree with this, then you agree that some amount of taxation serving those in need is moral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your "moral obligation to our fellow man" line also rings hollow, because you clearly believe that this moral obligation should be cast aside in order to protect an individuals property rights. Childish hypothetical: if a billionaire refuses to feed a starving man, I have absolutely no qualms with taking from the billionaire in order to feed the starving man. If you believe that we have a moral obligation to our fellow man, then you would agree that this is a just outcome; a moral cause has been served, and the only suffering caused was upon a person who did an immoral thing by ignoring their obligations, and the suffering was immaterial and possibly even unnoticed. If you agree with this, then you agree that some amount of taxation serving those in need is moral. He does agree with this, because he's already said it's moral to steal in this situation (making GBS threads all over the NAP) and immoral to stop the thief or seek restitution or punishment. He just bizarrely wants a legal system to punish the moral person and reward the immoral person in this situation, handwaving away the obvious problem with this by counting on everyone to just ignore the law and "do the right thing". You may as well have pro-slavery laws or anti-sodomy laws on the books, hey it's fine because the jury can always decide to nullify them in each and every case so what's the harm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
You know, I have a great piggyback to the bread example. Apologies for being crass, but in libertopia, could there be a moral rapist? Perhaps even a "sexy" moral rapist? Hear me out. In my The long and short of it is this; would it be moral for me to rape this girl to save her life? Apologies for using the abomination that is Dominic Deegan for an example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Oh dear GOD I knew what was coming as soon as you said moral rapist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
That's just dumb. Like really dumb. But back to jrod's words, what's this "moral obligation to our fellow man"? How does this arise from the Right to Property, the only True Right ever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
Uh isn't rape already legal in libertopia since it's not against the law to rob, rape, and/or murderer anyone without DRO coverage (and this is a feature because it compels DRO coverage and the associated voluntary panopticon security apparatus)? Any girl too poor to afford coverage is fair game, although no doubt we can count on man's better nature and everyone will be good-hearted and never do it. Fake edit: And it's legal to demand your subordinates sleep with you to keep their job anc health insurance and DRO coverage during a recession but this isn't coercive because
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
So here's another question for Rodimus. If I'm a bakery owner and some poor person breaks into my shop to steal some bread, I'm entitled to damages for the window he broke as well, yes? But he's poor, so he presumably has no job where I can garnish his wages. He has no property for me to seize (except that he owns himself, but I'll presume I can't seize that because of reasons). So given that I have no other hope of recouping the damage he's caused by his aggression, is it moral for me to make him work for me until the debt is repaid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No apparently the answer to providing for the hungry and destitute without stealing from property owners via taxes, is for the poor to literally break in and steal from the owners, at which point we'll all sit down and agree that the thief was justified because he was very poor and no one will press charges. Taxes are theft, but theft isn't theft. Simple.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:So here's another question for Rodimus. If I'm a bakery owner and some poor person breaks into my shop to steal some bread, I'm entitled to damages for the window he broke as well, yes? But he's poor, so he presumably has no job where I can garnish his wages. He has no property for me to seize (except that he owns himself, but I'll presume I can't seize that because of reasons). So given that I have no other hope of recouping the damage he's caused by his aggression, is it moral for me to make him work for me until the debt is repaid? Simple, even a child could answer it: Fi fi fo fum I smell a theft by a homeless bum Be he alive or be he dead I'll grind his bones to make my bread
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
What's to stop Walmart from starting Walmart DRO, and insisting that if you want a job there, you have to quit your current DRO and join Walmart's? If Walmart DRO - which employer and employee both belong to - rule that Walmart not bothering to pay the employee doesn't violate the NAP, and charges the employee a fine worth one month's salary for wasting the DRO's time by bringing the complaint that they've not been paid, what recourse does the employee have?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Move to that DRO that provides social services and regulates industries and protects the citizenry and has a progressive
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Taxes are theft, but theft isn't theft. Simple. Nonono: taxation is slavery, but actual slavery isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Actual slavery are just "labor disputes". :psuedo101:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I can't stop responding to this dumb loving post help helpjrodefeld 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? Let's play the syllogism game! 1: Theft can be morally justified under certain circumstances 2: Taxation is theft 3:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I can't stop responding to this dumb loving post help help No see taxation is also used to help people who aren't so bad off that they'll turn to crime. Please ignore the fact that the only way they're not that bad off is due to the help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I miss Eripsa 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
 more likeBlack teenager gets caught stealing bread in Libertopia. Owner shoots him dead, says he was just defending his property against a dangerous criminal and libertarians hail him as a hero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
I am struggling to see what philosophical machinery jrod could possibly appeal to in order to say that we have a moral obligation to advance the well-being of our fellow humans, or to say that it would be wrong for the store owner to sue the bread thief for restitution. The only metaethical framework he hasn't outright rejected is the NAP, and the relevant moral conclusions just don't seem to follow from that principle. Seems like he's pretty much just using the NAP to justify ad-hoc whatever conclusions he already decided he likes. Guys, I think Libertarians might not be reasoning out their whole ideology from first principles after all! (gasp!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I miss Eripsa I'll give him this, Eripsa at least had the balls to stick around for more than two posts a month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 16:17
|
|