Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›850 »

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

paragon1 posted:

Sell their blood.

You joke, but I had friends that donated plasma two or three times a week to meet rent.

gently caress capitalism.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 04:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 21:15

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Who What Now posted:

You joke, but I had friends that donated plasma two or three times a week to meet rent.

gently caress capitalism.

I wasn't joking. The plasma donation place around here has homeless people fill up their slots for the whole day at the start of the day every day.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 06:14

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

And here I was donating blood to the Red Cross for free like a rube.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 06:29

Bueno Papi: May 10, 2009

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Hell that's even a pipe dream in America, especially in light of "everybody." What does a disabled person that literally can't work and has to live on only disability do?

Purchase accidental death insurance and and use an exitbag. But that begs is libertopia capable of producing large interconnected financial markets that won't wholly capture whatever DRO has oversight?

# ? Feb 26, 2016 07:58

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

StandardVC10 posted:

And here I was donating blood to the Red Cross for free like a rube.

I'm banned because I get catastrophic blood pressure drops when I give :saddowns:

I guess there is no place for the weak likes of me in glorious Libertopia if I ever lose my job!

# ? Feb 26, 2016 11:17

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

Normally when I find something embarrassing a libertarian idol said, I like to dump it directly into the thread with little to no lead in. Your average weird diatribe by Crazy Uncle Murray has the best impact as a suckerpunch. However, both because it's necessary and because it will make the hateful old fucker spin in his grave, I'm going to preface this one with a :siren:

Trigger Warning: :siren:

this one's about date rape. I can't stress this enough, you should probably skip this post if you aren't prepared for a heaping helping of pure-strain repugnance to kickstart your day.

Anyway, Murray Rothbard is a huge piece of poo poo:

quote:

'Date Rape' on Campus
By Murray N. Rothbard
First published in the February 1991 Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

A lot of strange things are happening on college campuses these days, and one of them is a great deal of kvetching about the alleged epidemic of �date rape.� William Celis 3rd�s special report to the New York Times on the subject (Jan. 1) is best summed up by its subtitle: �Agony on Campus: What is Rape?� To a libertarian, or indeed to any sensible person, there is no problem: if the sex was coercive, and took place against the will of one of the parties, then it was rape and if not, not. If it was, you call in the gendarmes, and if it wasn�t, you don�t. So what�s the big problem?

But to the current generation of college students, things are very different. One says; �it�s such a fuzzy topic,� and another adds, �it�s easy to look at sex and second-guess.� There follows a lot of guff about how the feminist movement has succeeded in alerting countless coeds about this terrible problem. But why should it take feminist theoreticians to inform a girl that she has been raped? Why is this topic �fuzzy,� when to this reactionary it appears clear-cut? What�s going on here?

Reading on, we find that many men are confused about these rising protests by college females. The guys charge that �women with whom they have had sex did not say �no� and did not physically resist, yet later complained of date rape.� Other �angrier� men claim that �in some cases women have encouraged their advances.� But the feminists lash back that these are �after-the-fact excuses.� Instead, �sexual intercourse, they argue, should proceed from clear mutual consent.�

Now we�re getting somewhere. For whether or not �encouragement� took place, it strikes me as crystal-clear that if the girl did not say no and did not physically resist, then sex did indeed take place by �clear mutual consent.� What do the feminists want? Will they only be satisfied if (a) the two parties sign an express consent form before the act, and then (b) sign another one immediately after? And have them both notarized on the spot, with forms sent in triplicate to their respective attorneys and to the county clerk? If so, the notary publics in college towns are in for a thriving business, plus some Peeping Tom (or Tomasina) opportunities on the side.

The point is that, as in so many other aspects of human �relationships,� the feminists are setting out to destroy romance (if that word is not yet obsolete), which thrives on spontaneity, and on implicit, non-verbal mutual understanding. Which is also the problem with the current mania for condoms and other elaborate birth-control machinations.

A clue to the peculiar fuzziness of the current analysis of rape can be found in the assumptions of the famed Koss study, headed by the shrink Mary Koss, now of the University of Arizona. In trying to find out the extent of rape on the college campuses, Koss defined sexual assault as the use of force or �intercourse as a result of intentionally getting the woman intoxicated.� And we find various references to women being reluctant to report the �rape� because one or usually both parties were �drunk� at the time.

Well, now, drinking indeed! Are we now to include in rape any sex taking place after liquor is imbibed? Isn�t everyone familiar with the old poem and the social reality it reported: �Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker?� Everyone is responsible for whatever he or she imbibes, unless the guy spiked the girl�s drink without her knowledge (not mentioned in any of these cases) and everyone is responsible for their own actions, liquor or not. Come off it, ladies; �date rape� my foot!

Ah, now we see what is going on here. For generations now, girls, while consenting implicitly to sex, have wanted to assuage their guilt by being able to tell themselves afterward that they had not planned the action, and that they were merely �swept off their feet� by the charm of the guy and/or the magic of the moment. Hence, as all implicitly consenting parties have been long aware, the use of liquor is a marvelous catalyst of this feet-sweeping. Now, along comes our baneful feminist theoreticians who have been able to use their besotted theories to (a) free girls, once and for all, from guilt for their actions, and (b) to load that guilt onto the poor, hapless male population.

The New York Times article details one of the cases. During a brainwashing re-education dorm lecture on date rape at Lehigh University recently, a male student was asked by a dorm official if he had ever committed rape. First saying �hell, no,� the student was later talked by the lecturer into �realizing� that he had, and that �not saying no� was not sufficient to establish consent. (There was no notarized agreement!) Later, the poor guy, admitting that he was �very confused,� wrote a self-criticism article to the student paper confessing his sins: �I was uninformed and incorrect in my actions,� he groveled. Yeah, and I bet he now loves Big Brother (oops sorry, Big Sister). Poor Orwell never knew the full depths of Political Correctness when he fashioned his dystopia.

There are several ways by which this terrible crisis on the campus can be solved. One, we can go back to the prohibition of alcohol, which our culture is almost ready for in any case. Two, we can go back to the good old days of campuses before the 1950s, especially in the South: not only the banning of coed dorms, and abolishing coeducation altogether, but insisting on official chaperons for girls on every date, on dance-cards filled out in advance and cleared with the chaperon, on boys being barred from the entire girls� campus except the official room, etc. And finally, why not go the whole hog toward Left Puritanism and define all sex as per se coercive? That would clear up all the fuzziness and sex, or at least hetero-sex, could be outlawed completely. Or is that the point, after all?

# ? Feb 26, 2016 14:33

Ravenfood: Nov 4, 2011

God loving drat it

# ? Feb 26, 2016 14:44

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

After reading that I am without a doubt that Rothbard is an unconvicted rapist.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 14:54

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

Thanks to Libertarians, whenever anyone, anywhere, calls anything 'Puritan', I immediately begin to scream and bleed and hate.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 15:14

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Now, I'm not saying that all libertarians, including jrod, have committed or are very likely to commit rape if given the smallest chance to do so. But I am very heavily implying it.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 15:20

ungulateman: Apr 18, 2012; pretentious fuckwit who isn't half as literate or insightful or clever as he thinks he is

Those poor watermelons.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 15:47

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

Hbomberguy posted:

Thanks to Libertarians, whenever anyone, anywhere, calls anything 'Puritan', I immediately begin to scream and bleed and hate.

The Puritans get a bad rap, but since I have heard over the years that they vehemently opposed things like date rape and pedophilia, I have to say they've been treated somewhat unfairly by history.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 15:48

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

So, my friend who has been going more and more radicalized, hostile and libertarian is leaving Brazil. Hes tired of the local socialist oppression, corruption and hostility to free enterprise, and its shameful assistencialism making poor people dependent and weak.

Where he's moving to?

Canada.

He was all happy last night going on about how Quebec really welcome immigrants and offers rench language classes and he'll have amazing healthcare. I pointed but that the country is exactly the kind of place he professes to despise, with high taxes and subsidized healthcare/education, and he basically said "No it isn't." I actually played the jerk and called up a few facts on my cellphone, and he basically shrugged and admitted that they don't have brown people draining the assistance that should go to blue-eyed types like his fine self.

So yeah, good riddance. It galls me that he'll go enjoy the socialism he claims to despise, but I'm done. Hopefully he'll bump into Caros and gain a clue via osmosis.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 17:09

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

"You should have contracts for everything."

"Wait what do you want, contracts for sex? If she doesn't fight me that's all the contract I need."

# ? Feb 26, 2016 17:28

Stinky_Pete: Aug 16, 2015; Stinkier than your average bear; Lipstick Apathy

ToxicSlurpee posted:

"But there are so many college educated snake people! The average wage of college educated people is *above average amount* dollars. Why don't they buy anything?"

I might be wrong but tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt that you can't get rid of in any way at all might have something to do with it.

Right?

It couldn't possibly be that they're smarter and more financially prudent than their parents were at that age (except for the most ostentatious and therefore visible ones), meaning they don't cream their pants over getting in even more debt

Also, "average salary" absolutely means "typical salary." Everyone who didn't learn math concepts because their curriculum was based on memorization knows that.

I basically treat my student debt as a 50% premium added to my rent just for the privilege of having the skills that I use to make money for other people, and I'm the one whose parents took most of the loan burden. For people in less fortunate circumstances it's probably more like a 100% premium.

GunnerJ posted:

The Puritans get a bad rap, but since I have heard over the years that they vehemently opposed things like date rape and pedophilia, I have to say they've been treated somewhat unfairly by history.

lol if you think they had a reason other than "it is sex" for opposing it and lol if I missed :thejoke:

Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 26, 2016

# ? Feb 26, 2016 19:08

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Stinky_Pete posted:

Right?

It couldn't possibly be that they're smarter and more financially prudent than their parents were at that age (except for the most ostentatious and therefore visible ones), meaning they don't cream their pants over getting in even more debt

Also, "average salary" absolutely means "typical salary." Everyone who didn't learn math concepts because their curriculum was based on memorization knows that.

I basically treat my student debt as a 50% premium added to my rent just for the privilege of having the skills that I use to make money for other people, and I'm the one whose parents took most of the loan burden. For people in less fortunate circumstances it's probably more like a 100% premium.

lol if you think they had a reason other than "it is sex" for opposing it and lol if I missed

"Typical salary" in America is actually "poor." Most Americans are considered poor currently based on household income but average income is middle class. Average doesn't mean much if you have people throwing it off by, say, earning 500 times what their employees earn.

Another issue is that people aren't willing to loan money as much as they were in the past. There's a ton of issues screwing millenials over; they're also assuming that millenials can even find jobs in the first place. Half of people graduating college don't find jobs relating to what they majored in. A significant percent never finds a job at all after graduating. Unemployment among the young is absurdly high but when the people screaming that millenials aren't spending enough are told "hey maybe you should loving hire them so they have money" they're like "...but I have to pay for that!"

It's typical rich person bullshit; "just give me more money because gently caress you."

# ? Feb 26, 2016 19:16

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Sephyr posted:

So, my friend who has been going more and more radicalized, hostile and libertarian is leaving Brazil.

*muttering quietly under own breath while sweating and trembling slightly*: don'treferencethatbitcoinstory, don'treferencethatbitcoinstory, don'treferencethatbitcoinstory.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:05

Strawman: Feb 9, 2008; Tortuga means turtle, and that's me. I take my time but I always win.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

*muttering quietly under own breath while sweating and trembling slightly*: don'treferencethatbitcoinstory, don'treferencethatbitcoinstory, don'treferencethatbitcoinstory.

What bitcoin story?

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:11

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Hello bitcoin my old friend
Gone down the toilet once again
Because a frenchman softly creeping
Left his seed while I was sleeping

And the blockchain that was panted in my brain
Still remains

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:18

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Speaking of contractual sex, one of the libertarian bitcoiners came up with something like "sexcoin" with the concept being that you and your prospective partner would have to buy sexcoins, submit transactions on the sexchain to a mutual wallet, wait for confirmations, and then that would be a permanent record of both of you consenting to having sex.

Yes it was as half-baked as it sounds.

Strawman posted:

What bitcoin story?

Since this isn't YOSPOS I'll just link to it

brazil.txt

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:26

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

Bitcoins will save your life if you jerk off on naked girls in their beds in the night

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:42

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Strawman posted:

What bitcoin story?

"She asked me how her sister towel could smell like sperm."

# ? Feb 26, 2016 20:49

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

Stinky_Pete posted:

lol if you think they had a reason other than "it is sex" for opposing it and lol if I missed

Mostly missing the joke (that "Puritan" is a lame way of countering charges that one supports sexual predation, as if being against sexual predation makes one a prude), but while I am not an expert on the Puritans I am pretty sure they did not consider rape to be as bad as any and all sex outside of Christian monogamy.

GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Feb 26, 2016

# ? Feb 26, 2016 21:29

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Meanwhile in Kansas, cool x-rad individual rights have quickscoped dumb lame public safety whiners. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article62645617.html

quote:

Kansans who refuse to submit to a breath or blood test in DUI investigations cannot be criminally prosecuted for that refusal, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court found unconstitutional a state law making it a crime to refuse such a test when no court-ordered warrant exists.

In its 6-1 ruling, the court found that the tests were in essence searches and the law punishes people for exercising their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Under Kansas law, anyone who operates a motor vehicle in the state has given implied consent to submit to such testing.

But the court ruled that the implied consent is not irrevocable and withdrawal of that consent cannot be criminally punished.

...

The state�s �compelling interest� in combating drunken driving and prosecuting DUI offenders, does not outweigh the fundamental individual rights protected by the constitution, according to Friday�s opinion.

I love the smell of freedom in the morning. I guess SCOTUS might be taking a similar case soon too.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 00:39

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

DeusExMachinima posted:

Meanwhile in Kansas, cool x-rad individual rights have quickscoped dumb lame public safety whiners. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article62645617.html

I love the smell of freedom in the morning. I guess SCOTUS might be taking a similar case soon too.

Having lived in a farm state (NoDak) this is the dumbest poo poo ever. Cool, you shouldn't be charged with a crime for refusing to blow, but when Ole Ericsson is being pulled over for his fiftieth DUI, his rear end should be thrown in the back of the cruiser, not waved on and allowed to find some poor family to crash into because he said no.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 01:48

Caros: May 14, 2008

DeusExMachinima posted:

Meanwhile in Kansas, cool x-rad individual rights have quickscoped dumb lame public safety whiners. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article62645617.html

I love the smell of freedom in the morning. I guess SCOTUS might be taking a similar case soon too.

Blood test I get. Getting an order before drawing someone's blood seems a pretty low bar considering you have a decent window to do it in most cases.

But breath testing? Come the gently caress on. It's noninvasive and takes all of ten seconds. Get hosed Kansas.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 03:29

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

DeusExMachinima posted:

Meanwhile in Kansas, cool x-rad individual rights have quickscoped dumb lame public safety whiners. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article62645617.html

I love the smell of freedom in the morning. I guess SCOTUS might be taking a similar case soon too.

Presumably they can still revoke your license for a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, they just can't criminally charge you for a refusal. I'm OK with that if that's the case

# ? Feb 27, 2016 05:14

Anubis: Oct 9, 2003; It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.; Fun Shoe

Caros posted:

Blood test I get. Getting an order before drawing someone's blood seems a pretty low bar considering you have a decent window to do it in most cases.

But breath testing? Come the gently caress on. It's noninvasive and takes all of ten seconds. Get hosed Kansas.

Only about a dozen states actually have it as illegal. It's not like drunk drivers are just getting away scott free everywhere else, this isn't as bad as you're thinking.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 06:15

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

That gets into some touchy territory; one issue was that apparently some states were waiting on starting the blood test then doing a little math to fudge the numbers (well see it was legal when the blood was drawn but that was two hours after the traffic stop so we *bullshit bullshit bullshit* and it was clearly almost fatal when the person was driving!). Blood tests are also kind of invasive compared to breathalyzers and, well, you can breathalyze somebody on the spot.

Some states used a refusal of a blood test as an admission of guilt. Even if you were stone sober saying "no, you don't get my blood" got you a DUI anyway.

I think. I haven't read about it in a while but some nasty bullshit happened with the blood tests.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 06:26

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

When I first got my driver's license (in Florida), I remember it was an automatic 3 or 6 month revocation of your license if you refused to blow, but the cops couldn't charge you with anything for not doing it (unless they had some other way of proving you were drunk). Not sure if that's changed.

But yeah, I could see that being an issue in regards to blood testing; sounds a lot like in Ohio a cop doesn't have to necessarily tag you with a radar gun to nail you for speeding; if they think you were speeding they can fine you for however fast they think you were going.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 13:47

The Larch: Jan 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

YF19pilot posted:

But yeah, I could see that being an issue in regards to blood testing; sounds a lot like in Ohio a cop doesn't have to necessarily tag you with a radar gun to nail you for speeding; if they think you were speeding they can fine you for however fast they think you were going.

Wait, what?

# ? Feb 27, 2016 13:52

Dreddout: Oct 1, 2015; You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you.

The Larch posted:

Wait, what?

Ahh Kansas, all the fun of a police state without any social safety net! :911:

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:12

Caros: May 14, 2008

Walter Block posted:

Another type of pinching or sexual harassment is that between a secretary and her boss. Although to many people, and especially to many people in the women’s liberation movement, there is no real difference between this pinching and the pinching that occurs on the street, the fact is that the pinching that takes place between a secretary and her boss, while objectionable to many women, is not a coercive action. It is not a coercive action like the pinching that takes place in the public sphere because it is part of a package deal: the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job and especially when she agrees to keep the job. A woman walking along a public sidewalk, on the other hand. can by no means be considered to have given her permission, or tacitly agreed to begin pinched. The street is not the complete private property of the pincher, as is the office. On the contrary, if the myths of democracy are to be given any credence at all, the streets belong to the people. All the people. Even including women.

There is a serious problem with considering pinching or sexual molestation in a privately owned office or store to be coercive. If an action is really and truly coercive, it ought to be outlawed. But if pinching and sexual molestation are outlawed in private places, this violates the rights of those who voluntarily wish to engage in such practices. And there is certainly nothing coercive about any voluntary sex practices between consenting adults. The proof of the voluntary nature of an act in a private place is that the person endangered (the woman, in the cases we have been considering) has no claim whatsoever to the private place in question, the office or the store. If she continues to patronize or work at a place where she is molested, it can only be voluntary. But in a public place, no such presumption exists. As we have seen, according to accepted theory at least, the public domain is owned by all, women included. It would be just as illegitimate to assume that a woman gave tacit agreement to being molested on the public street because she was walking there as it would be to assume that she gave tacit agreement to an assault in her own house, because she happened to be there.

There are many other cases of actions taken against women that are not strictly speaking, coercive. Or more exactly, there are many other instances where many women feel put upon, but where there is no coercion at all involved such as referring to women with sex organ-linked expletives. the sexual double standard mores; many rules of etiquette such as the ones concern who proceeds whom out of the elevator. the encouragement of the mental capacity of boys and discouragement of girls, the societal opprobrium of women participating in “men’s” athletic activities; the pedestals that women are placed upon. There are two important points to be made with regard to these insults and other exacerbations which do not constitute coercion. 1) Although considered reprehensible by many, none of these actions actually constitute coercion, therefore it would be illegitimate to outlaw them. Any attempt to outlaw them would involve the mass violation of rights of other individuals in the society. After all, it is the right of free speech that gives us the right not to utter things that everyone agrees with – which do not need free speech protection in any case, but the right to utter reprehensible things, things in poor taste, boorish things. 2) To a much greater degree than realized by many, certainly to a much greater degree than realized by many who consider themselves advocates of women’s liberation, these reprehensible but non-coercive actions are engendered by reprehensible coercive activities. Were these coercive activites to cease, the free market would tend to rid us of many of these reprehensible but non-coercive acts.

Let us consider the case of bosses pinching secretaries and see how the market would tend to eliminate such unwanted activity, were the coercive and reprehensible activity of taxation to support government bureaucracy eliminated. In order to see this, we must first understand what the labor economist calls “compensating differentials”. A compensating differential is an amount of money just necessary to compensate an employee for the psychic losses that go with a job. For instance, consider two job opportunities. One is in an air-conditioned office, with a good view, with pleasant surroundings and pleasant companions: The other is in a damp, dank basement, surrounded by evil smelling fellow workers. Now there is some wage differential large enough to attract most people into accepting the less pleasant job. This will vary for different people, depending upon their relative tastes for the working conditions in the two places. There might even be a negative compensating differential for those who prefer the basement job. They would be willing to take a salary cut rather than move to the office job.

The same analysis can be applied to the case of the office pincher. On the assumption that all women would prefer not to be pinched, and that bosses vary in their desires to so indulge, there will be a whole range of wage rates paid to otherwise equally productive secretaries, depending on the proclivity of their bosses to engage in sexual harassment. There will be a positive relationship between the amount of sexual harassment and the wage rate that the bosses find thay must pay. But now contrast the boss of a private business with the boss in a government bureaucracy. Even on the assumption that both bosses on the average have the same proclivity to engage in sexual harassment, it is clear that the private boss will have to pay for his little gambols, while the public one will not. The secretaries of both private and public pinchers will have to earn more than the secretaries of the non-pinchers. The compensating differential. The main difference between the private and the public pincher is that the extra money comes out of tax monies for the latter and out of his own money for the former. Even in the case of a private boss-pincher who is not the ultimate owner of the business, the same applies, only now slightly more indirectly. The ultimate owner of the business, in addition to losing money if he himself is a pincher, also loses money if any of his executives are pinchers. So in addition to having a monetary incentive to cut down on his own pinching, he also has a monetary incentive to try to stop all the bosses in his company from so doing.

This might not seem like much of an incentive to stop pinching. But it is an improvement over the public case where these disincentives are completely lacking. This way of looking at the problem, however, has more merit than might be readily apparent. One reason pinching does not come to an abrupt end even in the private market is because many women are by no means unalterably opposed to being pinched, as we have been assuming. But the analysis can be applied to the more realistic cases where women are being harassed and mistreated and do object.

Presented without comment.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:32

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

"She's not complaining ~~because she'll get fired if she does~~ because she likes being harassed by her boss! The system works!"

Is there no bad behavior that libertarians won't attempt to justify?

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:46

Caros: May 14, 2008

I think at this point it is fair to call Walter Block pro-sexual assault.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:49

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

quote:

The street is not the complete private property of the pincher, as is the office. On the contrary, if the myths of democracy are to be given any credence at all, the streets belong to the people. All the people. Even including women.

I want to single out this line because it is just choice.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:51

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

I can't wait for the Earth to be divided up into private fiefdoms wherein continued physical presence is tacit consent to sex with the owner.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:54

Caros: May 14, 2008

"Consider the economic and legal 'harassment' which continually occurs between an individual and state...while objectionable to many libertarians, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the citizen agrees to all aspects of citizenship when he/she agrees to live in the state, and especially to stay in the state. The state is, after all, public property. The citizen does not have to remain if the 'coercion' is objectionable."

Oh Walter you make this so easy. :allears:

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:59

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Come to think of it, there's a lot of office space that's leased rather than owned. Does the boss still get to freely grope his secretary if he's paying rent each month, or is that a privilege reserved for the landed gentry?

# ? Feb 27, 2016 21:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 21:15

Hbomberguy: Jul 4, 2009; [culla=big red]TufFEE did nO THINg WÌ¡RAÌ¸NG[/read]

"In defense of pinching my secretary"

Libertarians are continuing to invest their time and political ideology wisely.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 21:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›850 »