Stinky Wizzleteats posted:

I have to say that before the Jrod saga began here I thought of Libertarians as goofy fat stage magicians and republicans who weren't so hosed up about gay people (and who could maybe be worked with, which I do still think about some), but now I'm pretty confident those people are just rubes and real-deal libertarianism at the think-tank level Jrod lifts from are closer to the madness of dark enlightenment people.

I'm also more convinced than ever that Jrod is some kind of unpaid mises institute activist evangelizing the internet because they love doing that poo poo. Their lovely wrong ideas can't perpetuate themselves through successful real-life historical or modern examples (or by simple logic) so they have to send a little rat gently caress like Jrod out to spread their defective bullshit meme. Impoverished by the decision of his handlers not to pay him for his passionate work also explains why Jrod had to resort to selling pirated blu rays and simulating the human vagina with a little hole carved into a melon.

Ratoslov posted:

Before this thread gets locked, I just want to say I enjoyed it and will miss it and all of you. Except for Jrod.

Tesseraction posted:

It genuinely saddens me that a fantastically informative but comedy gold thread is going to be closed.

HP Artsandcrafts posted:

Time after time Jrode you have proven one thing, Libertarianism is absolutely good for nothing. It can't and more importantly won't stop the ills that plague societies. Its attempts at any sort of correction is the the equivalent of slapping a band-aid on your gushing stump after you shoved your arm into the garbage disposal.

HP Artsandcrafts posted:

Time after time Jrode you have proven one thing, Libertarianism is absolutely good for nothing. It can't and more importantly won't stop the ills that plague societies. Its attempts at any sort of correction is the the equivalent of slapping a band-aid on your gushing stump after you shoved your arm into the garbage disposal.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

*Orchestra swells*
I had a dream this thread would be
So different from the sperg I'm reading
So different now from what it seemed
Jrod has killed the dream I dreamed

Nessus posted:

I think the long and the short of its appeal other than magical thinking is "we will legalize weed!" If and when the reefer becomes widely legal I expect they will either contract greatly or just become openly the racist party.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I don't think this thread is going places. How about a page of closing statements followed by closure?

YF19pilot posted:

The real tragedy of this thread is jrode's inability to actually respond. I know it's like twenty of us against one him, but there are some situations I'd really like to throw at a libertarian to see how they'd respond. For example, the horror of building code violations that is the apartment building that collapsed in Tainan (Taiwan) during the last earthquake we just had. How would a libertarian respond to this? Or would we never know because there'd be no regulations or investigators? How many more people would have died or still be trapped because of privatization of emergency services, and would those people saved now owe money to those services? Would the families of the recovered owe money for the retrieval of the deceased? Would there be any way to recover lost property or wealth, or would everyone be s.o.l.?

The only thing this thread had convinced me regarding property rights is that it should be an extension of human rights, not the other way around. Property rights should allow us to settle disputes in a fair and sane manner, but should always take a back seat when it comes in conflict with human rights.

Buried alive posted:

Anyone who built an apartment building not up to code would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants to live in an apartment building that would collapse on them, so there wouldn't be any shoddy apartment buildings in the first place. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good apartment buildings from bad is simply another problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another _{problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another problem for the market to solve, and anyone who ran a shoddy information service would quickly find himself bankrupt, as no one actually wants a shoddy information service. Any troubles that might exist with the retrieving and propagating of information in order to discern good information services from bad is simply another...}

Repeat ad infinitum.

Like, I want to believe really badly that there's some kind of solid basis to libertarianism, that there's some kind of burger to be had if I can just get through the bun, but the bun is all there is. It seems to break down along one of three lines. 1) Legalize weed! Anti-War! 2)Freedom! (without an understanding that freedom for some places obligations on others) 3) loving NIG-I mean-Freedom!

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Requesting a final closing statement from Jrode in lasting testament to how much of a punk rear end bitch he is.

Caros posted:

Closing arguments. If jrodefeld returns for even a single additional comment his general poo poo posting will have outlasted my marriage.

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?

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?

jrodefeld posted:

I've explained this to you many times over the course of this thread, but I'll try once again.

If your primary interest is the well-being of the most poor, then what you ought to support is a society in which the most prosperity can be generated. A more physically productive economy with higher economic growth and capital investment creates the conditions by which people can be taken care of. To create the wealth in society that would be needed to generate a comfortable living standard for the maximum number of people, as history has taught us, you need to embrace a free market economy, private property rights, and keep the State restrained to the adjudication of disputes and the defense of individual rights.

I've cited studies that rank the countries of the world in accordance with their adherence to economic liberty as defined by libertarians to bolster this position. There are many such studies that have been done by libertarian and free market institutions. Instead of understanding the larger point, all you replied with was "why are the United Arab Emirates and Qatar on the list?", "This just proves libertarians are really racists."

This is so staggeringly disingenuous. I never claimed to be any sort of expert in the policies of Qatar or UAE and my goal was simply to give a sample of the sort of literature that has been done on the subject of economic freedom around the world. If you would look at the broader picture, you would see a very strong correlation between adherence to free market principles and the general prosperity and living standards of the populations of those countries.

It has almost become conventional wisdom in the past twenty years or so that if we really want to uplift the poor of the world, the single best reform to advocate is economic liberalization. It has succeeded where foreign aid, charity and State controls have failed. Hong Kong is oft cited as a success story. The ease by which an entrepreneur can start a business and the legal defense of contract and property are critical to capital accumulation and investment which creates prosperity and enables a middle class to emerge.

If you deny that market liberalization and restraint of the State are necessary prerequisites for creating the prosperity needed to provide the poor with jobs and a decent standard of living, we only have to have a thought experiment. Take all your favorite Progressive policies, workplace safety regulations, minimum wage laws, occupational licensure laws, punitive high tax-rates on the highest income bracket and so forth and apply them to Malawi (one of the poorest nations in the world), see how much better you will make the poor in that country. The logical result will be, at best, no discernible effect on poverty rates, and more likely an even worse experience for the people who have to suffer in that third world nation.

Exporting "Progressive" policies to third world nations has actually been tried, with predictably disastrous results. Eliminating child labor in third world nations had the horrifying result of sending children into child prostitution and other more dangerous and degrading occupations. The reason should be obvious. Children don't work in poor countries because they want to, or that they all have horrible parents. They work because the economy is so poor and unproductive, they will starve if they don't. The most effective way to improve working conditions for the poor and eliminate child labor is to adopt policies that attract capital investment to make the economy more physically productive. This raises real wages and stocks store shelves with an abundance of goods that allow people to work less hours, have more leisure and purchase the needed products that allow for a comfortable standard of living.

The message here is that by moving towards greater economic freedom, making it easier for entrepreneurs to start businesses, eliminating occupational licensing, reducing tax rates and government spending which allows more capital investment, the predictable outcome will be greater economic productivity, which results in lower consumer prices, higher real wages and more economic opportunities for both wage earners and entrepreneurs.

The effect of these reforms would be that less people would need charity and there would be more disposable income to provide for those that still did. It is an absolute fallacy to think that the private economy would need to match, dollar for dollar, the amount spent by the State on social welfare. If observable reality about the way governments and the private market work has taught us anything, it is that private sector enterprises can produce equivalent or superior results at a fraction of the cost of the State.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that it is economic freedom and the market economy which is the engine by which prosperity is created and adopting policies which needlessly hinder free economic transactions and opportunities hurt all in society but especially the poor.

Even places like Sweden which have State-funded social programs so loved by the left are only able to finance them due to decades of relatively laissez-faire, free market policies which produced such a level of prosperity that their economies don't crumble under their weight.

It reminds me of the Progressives who argue that the general prosperity and healthy middle class that we observed in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States is attributable entirely to the GI bill and the high marginal tax rates imposed on the wealthy, somehow ignoring the century of relative laissez-faire economic freedom which permitted such a massive creation of prosperity, capital accumulation and physical productivity. THAT is the source of the vibrant middle class and the living standards we enjoy. The State interventions and programs piled onto this productive base only hinder the rising living standards and economic opportunities that would help out the poor and vulnerable.


I'd hope you'd agree with me that a good job with a good wage is more valuable to a poor person than being dependent on a State hand-out. I also don't believe that people are as helpless without daddy government as you seem to think. Free people, communities, charity, mutual aid societies, entrepreneurs and churches will be able to assist the few remaining poor people in a free society as well as any system could ever help them.

To think that only the State is capable to helping people is to someone assume that the motives of people in politics are somehow much more pure and altruistic than people in the private sector. You'd have to assume that perverse incentives don't exist in politics and social welfare programs are really designed to ultimately help uplift people rather than buying off people with bribes in exchange for votes. I'd really suggest you check out a field of study called "Public Choice Economics" which evaluates the motivations of public officials through an economic lens.

What you are falling victim to is the inevitable inertia of tradition. We've been taught for several generations that the only way to help out with social problems, take care of the elderly, provide medical care to people and help the poor is through government policy and democratic elections. Public schools inculcate these ideas in peoples heads and we lose the ability to imagine innovative alternatives. We assume they don't exist.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

jrodefeld, are you really going to present a wall of bald assertions as your closing argument for this thread?

jrodefeld posted:

jrodefeld posted:

Stupid bullshit written by a melon rapist

VitalSigns posted:

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"?!?!

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Jrod, are you coming back? Hopefully with some stats about Sweden instead of links to bullshit articles?

edit: since you've got time, you should talk about what you think this table is saying:



edit2: Before you ask, allow me to calculate average Capital ownership of the bottom 50% in distribution scenarios of 2010 America vs 1970-80 Sweden. I might have done this awkwardly, but the point is that even in a country with a GDP dwarfed by that of the USA, a distribution like that of 1970-80 Sweden is far, far better for those at the bottom.