|
archangelwar posted:LeJackel LeJackel LeJackel LeJackal: I believe that there may be net benefits to society from some hypothetical forms of regulations on the ownership of firearms!
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Say it with me now: Good guys with guns. Good guys with guns. Good guys with guns.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
This argument of what "self made" means does seem to carry on too much about literal definitions and not the affects of the use of the term. "Self made man" does mean someone who got their wealth by working or happening upon the right idea at the right time; and that their wealth wasn't inherited. The problem is this; often "self made men" were able to be successful because prior to being "self made" they had the right combination of connections and capital to make their idea work. The term is then used to brow beat anyone who says that a poor person cannot become rich without outside help, because we often ignore that the "self made" millionaires and billionaires all came from well-to-do families anyways. Then the "self made" men and their families are paraded around as examples of why we shouldn't raise taxes, raise the minimum wage, create/fund social programs and safety nets, or even provide more public funding for colleges. If a poor person, from a poor family, stumbles upon a great billion-dollar idea, it's worthless because they don't have the connections or the capital to even start trying to make their idea a reality. Likely, if they do manage to get their idea into the wild, someone else who is already better off than the poor person will take that idea and make the money for themselves, and the poor person is still poor. Even getting a start-up loan would be impossible for the poor person, because he doesn't have the assets to secure such a loan, and even if they did grant him a loan, the bank would likely impose higher interest rates on him because he is poor, and thus, higher risk. A poor person, by virtue of being poor, will almost always stay poor. An upper-middle class child, thanks to the social network and benefits his family can support him with, can very easily jump over the now diminished hurdle between "middle class" and "rich". "Self made man" at this point only really means "Did not inherit their wealth"; it says nothing about how much effort, luck, or outside influence/help the person received. Donald Trump is considered "Self made" and started his business with a "small loan" of $1,000,000 from his father. That's the problem with the term, it obfuscates the realities of these people's lives for the benefits of diminishing those who are struggling, just to say "Maybe you're not working hard enough." CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 03:31 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:If a poor person, from a poor family, stumbles upon a great billion-dollar idea, it's worthless because they don't have the connections or the capital to even start trying to make their idea a reality. Likely, if they do manage to get their idea into the wild, someone else who is already better off than the poor person will take that idea and make the money for themselves, and the poor person is still poor. Even getting a start-up loan would be impossible for the poor person, because he doesn't have the assets to secure such a loan, and even if they did grant him a loan, the bank would likely impose higher interest rates on him because he is poor, and thus, higher risk. Even if poor people had exactly the same likelihood as middle class people to be rich, it wouldn't change the fact that most people will never be rich and that the income distribution is always and will always be a goddamn inverse pyramid. This is the sort of weird "lean-in" liberal capitalism that seems to think that as long as we get to 50% of billionaires being women and 13% of them being black, then horrible inequality and reduced social services would be ok. It's literally a non-sequitur, a bullshit tactic that attempts to substitute a moralizing anecdote for an actual analysis of social dynamics and demographics. It also does nothing to change the corrosive effects of extreme wealth on governance and the public good. I don't care how Bill Gates or Oprah or the Koch Brothers made their money, that they have that amount of money at all is the problem. E: Not saying you're saying this, but the whole quibbling about what constitutes a self-made man is literally just this argument. Attempting to quibble over what constitutes self-made is pointless, since in doing so you are accepting the implicit point that being "self-made" has something to do with discussions of income inequality. Don't accept to argue on their terms, think about what is being implied. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
It's also stupid because it gets twisted into "taking from one to give to another" and the like. A rich person's wealth absolutely loving always required the labor of others to help build it. Gates didn't build Microsoft on his own. How many employees does Trump Tower have? Even if these guys did have mega awesome brilliant ideas actually bringing them to fruition requires help. The problem is that that help is often brutally exploited, especially in the case of low wage workers. "You're just telling people they can't be rich," some say. Well, no; there can be inequality and rich people. The problem is that things are so ludicrously unequal right now and workers are being exploited harshly. In America in particular wages are stagnating like crazy but the people who own everything are just piling on rents, expenses, and extra fees as often as they can to nickle and dime the poor to death. At this point it is literally impossible to afford a decent place to live on minimum wage. Living wage jobs are becoming increasingly scarce and it just gets shittier and shittier for the working class every year. What people are saying is "pay your loving employees, Richy McMoneyton." If your fortune relies on paying people starvation wages to get the work done then you don't deserve your loving fortune. And really, what's so wrong if somebody isn't super ambitious? Most people, last I checked, are totally OK pulling 40 hours, leaving their job at work when they clock out, getting a paycheck, and otherwise splitting their time between raising whatever kids they have and screwing around with their friends. This idea that "life = work" is absurd. Then again quotes like "find a job you enjoy and you will never work a day in your life" get tossed around with "be positive and learn to enjoy your job!" Well if what you're saying is "enjoy being paid a starvation wage while you struggle to keep the lights on despite working 60 hours a week" then I have no sympathy for you when the pitchforks finally come people come after you. Which is, I think, one thing the rich fail to see; the working class is absolutely goddamned furious right now and that...uh...leads to problems.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Even if poor people had exactly the same likelihood as middle class people to be rich, it wouldn't change the fact that most people will never be rich and that the income distribution is always and will always be a goddamn inverse pyramid. This is the sort of weird "lean-in" liberal capitalism that seems to think that as long as we get to 50% of billionaires being women and 13% of them being black, then horrible inequality and reduced social services would be ok. It's literally a non-sequitur, a bullshit tactic that attempts to substitute a moralizing anecdote for an actual analysis of social dynamics and demographics. It also does nothing to change the corrosive effects of extreme wealth on governance and the public good. I don't care how Bill Gates or Oprah or the Koch Brothers made their money, that they have that amount of money at all is the problem. Right, I think the idea of the "self made man", like I said, is to obfuscate and ignore the underlying problems facing those who are poor; to create a smokescreen so they can argue "if Rich rear end in a top hat made it, so can you! Stop complaining about how hard your life is, start working hard, and you can be a millionaire, too!" It's a strawman made of money. It's the "poor people" version of the "Irish immigrants were treated horribly, too, but they're not complaining! Why do black people keep complaining about what happened to their ancestors?" racist bullshit that I've seen from Conservatives and Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:You didn't really address my point that halving someone's obscene wealth—heck, let's throw in stagflation eating into their wealth, too—doesn't bring rich people to ruin. They're still rich. Right, which is why I hope an army of useful idiots never repeal inheritance taxes. 65% of everything after five and a half million and a primary residence, or whatever it is now, is still a shitload of money, enough for anyone. Then economic forces destroy dumb money every few decades, filtering more out. Then you've got people's kids or kids of kids setting fire to the account because they lack any sense of value, preferring to "live rich" than "be rich." Curvature of Earth posted:Nope. The page I linked also gives the arithmetic average, which is 11.4% over the last 87 years. The geometric average I gave is correct, at 9.5%. I didn't click the link until now. It's nice to see it's not just equities in the data set. But what I'm saying is that while the arithmetic is correct, the United States has now developed. American companies can still grow in the developed world, growing the U.S. economy by proxy, but you shouldn't expect a second industrial revolution. The larger the boat, the slower it turns. That's what I always find funny when people on the Internet talk about min-maxing their investments so they can be "financially independent" and "retire early" or whatever nonsense, projecting things out decades. Their math is all based off the faulty assumption that history will repeat itself exactly, that the industrial revolution will happen again, that the United States will again be the factory of a Europe repeatedly destroying itself. Curvature of Earth posted:That can also mean minimizing losses. A rich family whose net worth is technically shrinking in the face of a stock market crash, high inflation, and high interest rates will still come out of any recession vastly wealthier than practically anyone who entered the same recession without much wealth in the first place. I don't disagree with that, but the reason to diversify your wealth among different asset classes, instead of keeping it all in cash, is to survive cash's greatest point of failure: inflation. At least if you throw your cash out there, it might boomerang back large enough to offset the pressures of time. DeusExMachinima posted:Triglav, your point is very clear and obviously not a "all men are islands" point IMHO. Of course people are presented with opportunities that are out of their control. What you're saying, if I'm hearing you correctly, is that there are still strategies that are more effective than others in the realm of business/making fat stacks and it's possible for someone to independently squander their opportunities, whatever those openings may be. Exactly right. If it were possible to conduct a series of lifelong A/B tests on controlled populations, which is impossible given the unlimited number of control factors that this thread has spent the last few pages enumerating, I'm confident the group that put effort into succeeding at whatever objective was being tested for would on average statistically out-perform the group that didn't. Whether that out-performing group would be happier having gone farther is beyond the scope of the test's concern.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Triglav posted:If it were possible to conduct a series of lifelong A/B tests on controlled populations, which is impossible given the unlimited number of control factors that this thread has spent the last few pages enumerating, I'm confident the group that put effort into succeeding at whatever objective was being tested for would on average statistically out-perform the group that didn't. So what. Even if you could perfectly control everyone's environment in a laboratory setting, which you never could, the results wouldn't apply to everyday life because in real life the amount of 'effort' someone is willing and able to put into an objective is a function of their environment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Triglav posted:I'm confident the group that put effort into succeeding at whatever objective was being tested for would on average statistically out-perform the group that didn't. That is boring and obvious, I'd rather go back to talking about the definition of "self-made" (I know a couple of really good self-made landscapers if you need your lawn mowed this weekend). Your original suggestion was that most billionaires are "self-made" and that you'd wind up with incredible wealth disparity despite a forcibly-leveled playing field. But some degree of wealth disparity isn't a problem; the problem is when the less wealthy are significantly disadvantaged by what is effectively random chance.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
The problem really is that it doesn't matter how much effort you put in, depending on where you were born the best you might get is slightly less bullet holes in your torso.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Effort is a skill just like any other and being able to put effort into something is purely a function of luck. The only reason we accept effort correlating with wealth is that we want to disincentivize working at less than maximum effort (because the harder others work, the less we have to). Otherwise it would be as silly as saying it's okay someone is rich because they're tall.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Market socialism is actually an attempt to blend decentralized/competitive economics with worker ownership of the means of production. So, for example, a system where companies aren't owned by the state, but rather are owned by their employees (as if every employee owned one share). They all share equally in the profits, and there's probably some kind of Workplace Democracy in place, but these worker-owned firms are free to rise and fall in the market like a privately owned company in capitalism. Sounds like it's got a lot in common with libertarian socialism. Would corporate decisions be made by a vote? Is there any law preventing this from hypothetically being common in the U.S. or other countries? quote:And out of curiosity, what is your definition of social democracy that you think is iffy? I'm a social democrat myself, so I'm curious. I mean it's iffy in the sense that different people mean different things by it. Some people would think basic income is SOCIALISM whereas to Bernie Sanders it means Medicaid for all, etc etc. I'm for a negative income tax (so's Bernie IIRC) because I think it's both more humanitarian and fiscally conservative at the same time in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:04
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's also stupid because it gets twisted into "taking from one to give to another" and the like. A rich person's wealth absolutely loving always required the labor of others to help build it. Gates didn't build Microsoft on his own. How many employees does Trump Tower have? Even if these guys did have mega awesome brilliant ideas actually bringing them to fruition requires help. The problem is that that help is often brutally exploited, especially in the case of low wage workers. Exactly, half the time "self-made" means socializing the true costs of doing business, privatizing the gains, and having the first foot in the right door.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Triglav posted:That's what I always find funny when people on the Internet talk about min-maxing their investments so they can be "financially independent" and "retire early" or whatever nonsense, projecting things out decades. Their math is all based off the faulty assumption that history will repeat itself exactly, that the industrial revolution will happen again, that the United States will again be the factory of a Europe repeatedly destroying itself.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sounds like it's got a lot in common with libertarian socialism. Would corporate decisions be made by a vote? Is there any law preventing this from hypothetically being common in the U.S. or other countries? I mean, it's not really a defined thing in that much detail, but off the top of my head, I'd say it would work like a modern company, with the body of the employees acting in place of the shareholders, electing board members and the like. As for what's preventing them now, it's not law as much as money. No capitalists means no capital. You'll see small-scale employee owned companies like local co-ops, but company growth on the scale we're used to seeing requires large scale cash infusions, and investors aren't interested if they don't get to own a stake. quote:I mean it's iffy in the sense that different people mean different things by it. Some people would think basic income is SOCIALISM whereas to Bernie Sanders it means Medicaid for all, etc etc. I'm for a negative income tax (so's Bernie IIRC) because I think it's both more humanitarian and fiscally conservative at the same time in the long run. That's fair. It's a pretty nebulous term that way.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I'm guessing jrodefeld puts mises screeds on those pirate blurays:
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's also stupid because it gets twisted into "taking from one to give to another" and the like. A rich person's wealth absolutely loving always required the labor of others to help build it. Gates didn't build Microsoft on his own. How many employees does Trump Tower have? Even if these guys did have mega awesome brilliant ideas actually bringing them to fruition requires help. The problem is that that help is often brutally exploited, especially in the case of low wage workers.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What it comes down to for me is, in a hypothetical Galt's Gulch (or if society collapsed to preindustrial levels) a farmer or craftsman is more valuable than someone whose "genius" is telling a team of other people to invent things. That alone gives the lie to the idea that civilization is sustained by the genius of a tiny elite. Nurses aren't ambitious enough, they all should quit to invent Uber for dogs. That's the path to a good standard of living.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Right, this is true if you want to be absurd. It's really not absurd, it is not possible for a person to will value out of the ether, either they are born into wealth, have wealth thrust upon them, or they are not wealthy. The idea of the bold and mighty individual striding forth creating wealth where there was none is patently absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Nurses aren't ambitious enough, they all should quit to invent Uber for dogs. That's the path to a good standard of living.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I would like to share this blog with you all, so that you may be filled with the same urge to kill and kill and never stop killing. What did I just read?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I would like to share this blog with you all, so that you may be filled with the same urge to kill and kill and never stop killing. Fewer inexplicable changes in font size and color than I would have expected from a webpage like that. edit: quote:Vast man-made empires have been toppled by a single event—the storming of the Bastille, the signing of The Declaration of Independence. These individual events are what change looks like in Extremistan. I almost choked on my drink laughing when I got to this part. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Your original suggestion was that most billionaires are "self-made" and that you'd wind up with incredible wealth disparity despite a forcibly-leveled playing field. But some degree of wealth disparity isn't a problem; the problem is when the less wealthy are significantly disadvantaged by what is effectively random chance. Right, my original suggestion relied upon the succinct use of an idiom commonly understood in popular culture, cribbed from the legend of a chart describing the percentages of billionaires who "inherited their wealth," "inherited a portion of their wealth but grew it," and "did not inherit their wealth but were still lucky sperms because they weren't born deformed and retarded in an uncontacted aboriginal tribe deep in the Amazon rainforest." Other people's arguments over the validity of an idiomatic descriptor that could actually fit in a chart legend has seemingly been an exercise in stating the obvious and public masturbation. DACK FAYDEN posted:The typical math is that they can lock in 4% drawdown a year long enough to die, do you think that's unrealistic? That drawdown math is a best practice because it's withstood testing, but I believe the premise behind the research that went into it came from the assumption that someone would only live on it for a decade or two more. There are a bunch of uncertainties. An average is smoothed by nature. The market doesn't move in a smooth exponential 7% curve up. It rallies and breaks, one year might be -15% while the next might be +25%, still positive on the whole, but in a down year, you're still withdrawing 4%. The Fed might have a mandate for 2% annual inflation, but it could be anywhere from -1% and 4% each year. Withdrawing increases losses and caps growth. If you have enough liquid funds that you don't need to withdraw 4% annually, it doesn't matter when bad hands are dealt, just wait a couple years. But if you're actively withdrawing, those effects matter. That's why retired people generally move over to fixed-income assets when they start withdrawing, or why people average more heavily into bonds as they age. But by doing that, they may preserve their capital, but they reduce their exposure to risk premiums. With less growth and an assured 4% loss to overcome, the portfolio won't survive as long. Goon Danton posted:I mean, it's not really a defined thing in that much detail, but off the top of my head, I'd say it would work like a modern company, with the body of the employees acting in place of the shareholders, electing board members and the like. Right, there's nothing standing in the way of people starting common-stock corporations. Shared ownership is what they were built for, and employee profit sharing plans and restricted stock awards aren't uncommon (for employees of publicly traded companies, anyway). Employees can often buy shares at some discount to market (10–20%), though perhaps with a holding period of a month or two. Even terrible-rear end companies like Wal-mart issue stock awards to retail employees now and then. The idea is employees invested in their company beyond a paycheck work harder. The only thing that sucks is that when the company starts falling apart from a series of poor business cycles, fringe benefits are often the first cut. As for what's standing in the way of people writing their corporate bylaws to be a genuine cooperative, with equity distributed equally among all employees, nothing but the founders themselves. I think seed-investor fear is the reason it doesn't happen more often, though. The best way to make that work would perhaps be a holding–operating structure, with the operating company having majority interested in the holding company, with funds for the operating company coming through the holding company, or an operating company under an employee-owned management company under a holding company. Either that, or funding solely through IOUs or promissory notes, not equity or convertible bonds.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Employee stock programs are not market socialism, for the exact reasons you outline. As for "the founders themselves" being the reason why workers' cooperatives don't happen, "the founders themselves aren't rich" would be more accurate. Don't mistake lack of resources for lack of will.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Right. I was agreeing with you that "employees acting in place of the shareholders, electing board members and the like" is currently possible, giving some examples of how corporations already do that or might structure themselves in that way. Unless you lack the currency to pay filing fees for the creation of an entity within your state, you don't need outside capital to write your bylaws. If you don't want or need limited liability, odds are if you're in modern democratic country you're already a natural person, able to enter into contracts, hold assets and liabilities, sue and be sued.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Right. I was agreeing with you that "employees acting in place of the shareholders, electing board members and the like" is currently possible, giving some examples of how corporations already do that or might structure themselves in that way. I don't know about you, but I'm a boat.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I almost choked on my drink laughing when I got to this part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm guessing jrodefeld puts mises screeds on those pirate blurays: I thought Libertarians would love Frieza seeing as he was the embodiment of lovely 80s-90s businessmen that caused the Asset Price Bubble and Crash? Motherfucker enslaves races, kills them off, gains ownership of their home planets and sell them at a profit to another race until he likely kills off the planet's new inhabitants and repeats the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:I thought Libertarians would love Frieza seeing as he was the embodiment of lovely 80s-90s businessmen that caused the Asset Price Bubble and Crash? Motherfucker enslaves races, kills them off, gains ownership of their home planets and sell them at a profit to another race until he likely kills off the planet's new inhabitants and repeats the process. Ah, but you forget: that would mean that Goku wasn't the c00l3st!!! guy ever. Here is the article by the way, it's rather great in it's basically Atlas Shrugged but with Going Goku rather than Going Galt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, but you forget: that would mean that Goku wasn't the c00l3st!!! guy ever. I was going to say I didn't think any more thought went into that than "I don't like feminists and Frieza is the bad guy" but then I went and started reading it and it's somehow even worse. What the gently caress.  (I probably should have expected the intersection of misogyny, libertarianism, and DBZ nerdism to be terrible, but drat.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is Son Goku? This is Son Goku speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you." The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind. You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty. You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish. Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man's mind. Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn't. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren't. While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow. *goes own way*
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, but you forget: that would mean that Goku wasn't the c00l3st!!! guy ever. quote:First, there was Cui. Rhymes with queer. Probably unintentional. What? No, it doesn't. That's not how rhymes work at all. What?! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What? No, it doesn't. That's not how rhymes work at all. What?! Yeah he has a very libertarian approach to how words work. I guess he means "sounds like" since it's pronounced kwee and queer is pronounced kweer but who fuckin' knows with these doofuses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I would like to share this blog with you all, so that you may be filled with the same urge to kill and kill and never stop killing. Hey wait if Mark Zuckerberg had a soccer mom then how come he didn't mediocre? Something seems off about this model
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
I keep expecting this thread to fill up with NAP talk. Like who broke the NAP - the 4 year old child who TRESPASSED into the gorilla enclosure, thereby violating its private property, or the gorilla for obviously VIOLENTLY handling the child and violating his personhood? Or should have the zoo keeper shot both? Where is the Mises article on this condundrum, hmmm? What a tragic situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:I keep expecting this thread to fill up with NAP talk. Kid's living in EXTREMistan. Like Gary Johnson, he doesn't give a gently caress about red lights or barriers, since they're just arbitrary measures that demonstrably had no impact on his safety 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Like who broke the NAP - the 4 year old child who TRESPASSED into the gorilla enclosure, thereby violating its private property, or the gorilla for obviously VIOLENTLY handling the child and violating his personhood? Or should have the zoo keeper shot both? Where is the Mises article on this condundrum, hmmm? The zoo broke NAP by imprisoning the gorilla in the first place. How dare you lock away a gorilla just because he didn't pay his taxes! And now if I start playing with/mauling a child who entered my habitat of his own volition, MEN WITH GUNS will come and shoot me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
The parents broke NAP by allowing their property to endanger the zoo's profits obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Just another example of the state murdering anyone it pleases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Triglav posted:Just another example of the state murdering anyone it pleases. Zoos are states?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:46
|
|