|
QuarkJets posted:That'd be an apt comparison if that advertisement was about a product called Arizona Salsa It's a reference to this.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In Canada we have a chain of steakhouses called "Montanas" and a pizza chain called "Boston Pizza". neither of them have anything to do with the places in their names. And that's fine, because those are physical stores and pretty obviously aren't located in their namesake locations. But if you sell "Himalayan Salt" that's not related at all to the Himalayas, then that's deceptive advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:It's a reference to this. I recall those commercials, but did not recall the other product being labelled "Mexican Sauce."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:And that's fine, because those are physical stores and pretty obviously aren't located in their namesake locations. But if you sell "Himalayan Salt" that's not related at all to the Himalayas, then that's deceptive advertising. In libertopia of course no one would think to do that because they would get a bad reputation, and etc. e: on the other hand if the "Himalayan Salt" you bought turns out to be arsenic it's your own fault for not "researching" the guy in a van you bought it from. Polygynous fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
In libertopia you could sell cans of "Arizona Iced Tea" that actually contained random expired prescription drugs as it would be up to the consumer to choose weather to buy or not, and up to the market to decide if you need to change your labeling. If you can run a profit with what statists would call "deceptive marketing" then the market has spoken and in fact your perfectly informed consumer based has voted with their dollars that your product is good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I recall those commercials, but did not recall the other product being labelled "Mexican Sauce." Maybe it was supposed to be a reference to competing brand Old El Paso not being located in El Paso?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:To be fair, people on Fiji can go and gently caress themselves and their goddamn beautiful island. I've not spent much time in Ontario, but I will have you know that in Québec the summer is lovely... all 8 weeks of it. Jokes aside, it's short but mild and pleasant. Where I am now is so hot and humid it genuinely hurts, and I wish that I was back up north. La Saint-Jean* is this Friday and I am very sad that I won't be there this year. I won't be in Canada for the 1st, either. Very sad about that too. *Québec's provincial festival, named after Saint John the Baptist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
He's from Saskatchewan thought. That whole province is literally just waiting for another glacier to freeze over it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:He's from Saskatchewan thought. That whole province is literally just waiting for another glacier to freeze over it. And its main economic backbone is wheat and royalties from old episodes of Corner Gas broadcast on Armenian television.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also in case anyone is wondering I have it on good authority that jrod landed on his feet and has turned his attention to trying to convince hard right Conservatives that the Orlando shooting was an understandable result of US foreign policy and that they should all just become Libertarians.  Finally, his tirelessness put to good use!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:And that's fine, because those are physical stores and pretty obviously aren't located in their namesake locations. But if you sell "Himalayan Salt" that's not related at all to the Himalayas, then that's deceptive advertising. what about cheddar cheese and champagne?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Strawman posted:what about cheddar cheese and champagne? Champagne is a strictly-controlled name; sparkling wine not produced in the Champagne region is just called sparkling wine. Champagne has to be made with grapes grown in the Champagne region. "Cheddaring" is necessary for making Cheddar Cheese. The technique for making cheese in this way originated in the village of Cheddar. It would be false advertising to sell Mozzarella as Cheddar Cheese AriZona Iced Tea is named that way because one of the founders had an uncle who moved to Arizona at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:CNN hosting Libertarian town hall tonight: What a loving trainwreck this was. Cuomo seemed way more prepared to give libertarian answers. I've seen Johnson fumble answers but... good Lord I can't see how he even got to a governors position and not have an ounce of eloquence. Weld did alright, but I assume his law background is really a help here. WampaLord posted:
As GunnerJ said different taxes have different effects. The current landscape has been like throwing monkey poo poo at the walls without out any thought to maybe we should clean some of the poo poo off the walls first. Ex. For income tax... okay. This discourages reporting income. That's why some CEO's have $1 salaries and their worth is in stock. So we tax earnings from that, etc... did anyone stop to think that stock ownership would be a major incentive for anyone not just CEO's if we left it alone? They knock Millenials and their lack of company loyalty... of my fellow graduates I keep up with, the ones staying at companies have sizable vestments in the company. Also I view it as a bad thing to have all these revenue collection methods because it gives rise to abuse and it hides the real amount of taxation. It's already been said here that raising taxes is a losing platform to run on. If EVERY time the government passed something new and had to ask for a higher percentage that they'd probably get a lot more flak for spending? Golbez posted:This is a poor semantic argument. If you think you have a right and the government disagrees, what does that get you? You can fight for rights to be respected, but they aren't metaphysical things that have mystical power. You have exactly the rights and privileges that you can exercise. This also means that certain rights are not more or less legitimate than others, like the argument over "negative" vs "positive" rights. If you have a right and the government disagrees... you either don't have the right or you have tyranny. I don't believe in negative vs. positive rights though, it's either a right or it's something else. I know many of you disagree, but take healthcare and education. I'd say that's a privilege (or some other word), not a right. It may be a semantics, but it's a pretty drat important one. Goon Danton posted:Okay, so, you think that businesses that work with the general public should not be permitted to discriminate, but private clubs should be allowed to, but that we should strip their business licenses if they do, but that they should be allowed to re-register without penalty? I really don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Let me try to lay my position out better. If you are acting as a "public" business and violate the CRA you get your business license and tax ID stripped. The punishment/penalty is having to re-register. In re-registering you'd have to conform to a plan that doesn't violate the CRA or your ethics. In the example of a Jewish Baker being asked to bake a Nazi decorated cake, it could be as simple as not baking custom cakes anymore. If you were say a Jewish baker that says "I don't want to serve, spics, slant-eyes, and blacks"... you're pretty much boned. To me having a storefront, website, advertisements that doesn't expressly say "I won't serve ______" (opening yourself to public ridicule) is intent to be a public establishment and not "private". It would be incredibly hard to be "private". As I said above, I'd be in favor of one form of taxation and sticking to that. As much as I dislike the very idea of income taxes I think there's a stronger argument for it fund these "collective" issues than taxing businesses. Goon Danton posted:Urgent care clinics are just kind of a symptom of the immense weirdness of our current system. In our current situation I see single-payer as the best route out of a very hosed situation. Not that I agree with it much beyond that. There was a third option(s) before the ACA, but now everyone's getting on insurance plans and the cost is on a runaway while they try and find the equilibrium price that produces the profit they had before. VitalSigns posted:xwing, do you actually believe that taxation is theft? It sounds like you're a-ok with taxation if it's paying for a government program you personally agree with like single-payer UHC or enforcement of the civil rights act. But when you don't like something like state-subsidized university education (except for the exact amount of subsidy you received, natch) instead of making a case against it from a policy standpoint you just default to "taxation is theft". It takes money out of your pocket. I haven't used that word yet, theft, though I've heavily implied it. I think I could spend the money that would otherwise be in my paycheck in a more effective way. I'd like everyone to have that option. If you want to spend it on hookers and blow... more power to you but I bet you'll probably do something far more useful with it! Taxation is the harshest thing a government can do after physical force. It should be minimized and just because something might be a benefit doesn't mean it should be done. I acknowledge that government has the power to tax and that there are a few issues that it should exercise it in. Other than those few issues, we should seriously err on the side of individuals deciding and not government intervention. I seem inconsistent because as I've pointed out, I have positions based on the current political/social state and ones that are more principled that I may or may not fight for based on the previous. Mornacale posted:xwing are you the type of libertarian, like jrod, who thinks homesteading is sufficient to allocate property? I've said multiple times that there's plenty of Libertarians that would say I'm not Libertarian because I don't agree on some core principals... I don't think of homesteading. It's not a reality for our economy and population as a whole. If someone wants to "opt out" and go "homestead" more power to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:07
|
|
Why is it a problem when there are so many forms of taxes? If we lumped them all together into one and just called it "Tax" but it was equivalent to all the rest added up together would you be cool with that?
|
xwing posted:If you have a right and the government disagrees... you either don't have the right or you have tyranny. I don't believe in negative vs. positive rights though, it's either a right or it's something else. I know many of you disagree, but take healthcare and education. I'd say that's a privilege (or some other word), not a right. It may be a semantics, but it's a pretty drat important one. I'm still not seeing the importance of distinguishing government's powers from individuals' rights. I am really interested in this point, so for convenience I'll repeat my question: either way, you're asking "is it permissible for <entity> to do <thing>" whether the permissibility is from having a right to do <thing> or being empowered to do <thing>. So why are you insisting on this distinction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
xwing posted:If you have a right and the government disagrees... you either don't have the right or you have tyranny. I don't believe in negative vs. positive rights though, it's either a right or it's something else. I know many of you disagree, but take healthcare and education. I'd say that's a privilege (or some other word), not a right. It may be a semantics, but it's a pretty drat important one. So where do rights come from, and how do you decide what is a right and what isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
xwing posted:As I said above, I'd be in favor of one form of taxation and sticking to that. As much as I dislike the very idea of income taxes I think there's a stronger argument for it fund these "collective" issues than taxing businesses. Seeing as businesses are taxed on their profits, I'd say taxing both personal income and business profits is okay and good. I'll give my argument. We have SACo and LibInc, two healthy businesses with two different financial models. Both produce 1,000,000 in annual revenues, but different profits. To make math easier, let's pretend that taxes work out to about 20% for the business, and averages the same across all employees. SACo's profit is only $100,000, with 90% of revenues tied up in business expense. 50% of their revenues go to employees, so $500,000. *The US government would take $20,000 from the business, and $100,000 from the employees. In total, $120,000. -Taxing only business would get $20,000. -Taxing only employees would get $100,000. Now LibInc is all about dat profit, and low over heads. So, $1,000,000 in revenues, $500,000 in profits. Their employee costs are only 10% of revenues, so $100,000. *The US government would take $100,000 from the business, and $20,000 from the employees. $120,000. -Taxing only business would get $100,000. -Taxing only employees gets $20,000. With SACo's situation, it's arguable that taxing income would be better. But with LibInc, they're making a very disproportionate amount of profit compared to how they're compensating their employees. It would be more fair in that situation to tax the business. But you can't make laws that target individuals or businesses, so the best thing to do is just tax both business profits and personal incomes just the same for both companies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
xwing posted:I know many of you disagree, but take healthcare and education. I'd say that's a privilege (or some other word), not a right. "you don't have the right to learn or not die in the gutter" your ideology is trash and so are you
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:"you don't have the right to learn or not die in the gutter"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Two things. One, xwing, I don't know if you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you about "negative" vs "positive" rights. Libertarians are all about that distinction, how they're always for negative rights (the freedom to not have something done to you) rather than positive rights (the freedom to have something done to you). For example: The right to not be harmed is a negative right, because it requires no action on the part of others. The right to an education is a positive right, because it requires action on the part of others. And, according to most libertarians, is absolutely equivalent to chattel slavery. Not exaggerating. Second thing: Privileges versus rights. A useless distinction, I've come to think. There are no rights, only either privileges granted by society or principles you stand up for, but none of them are metaphysical and objective. Here is a list of privileges we enjoy in TYOOL 2016 in the civilized world: * Inspected food * A trained police force and military * Due process * The freedom of speech. Yes, this is a privilege afforded by the fact that we don't live in a bad country. * In non-US places, health care * Functional infrastructure etc etc etc. The argument over rights vs privileges (and negative vs positive rights) is useless and can only serve as a distraction, which may be why libertarians love it so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
He's making the same distinction. He just doesn't want to call positive rights rights, and instead prefers the term "privilege" The problem with this distinction is that you can arbitrarily decide to frame any proposed right as negative or positive. Like, you either have the right to not be killed by stabbing, or you have the privilege of access to police. You have the right to not die from the flu, or you have the privilege of access to health care. I think it comes down to the libertarian notion that bad things require intent in order to be bad. If the forces of nature or economics or whatever do something to you, then that's just tough cookies on your part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Floating behind all this is a bedrock assumption that as the only possible legitimate purpose of government is protecting citizens from other citizens, the government's functions are essentially that of a provider of justice. Hence, everything the government does is parsed as a reward or a punishment, usually with some equivocation between a moral and a psychological meaning of the terms (i.e., punishment is implied to mean retribution for wrongdoing and proved to be operative because it reduces people's inclination to perform the punished action). Although I suspect that the "government as justice provider" model is also based on a preoccupation with reward and punishment, social order as competitive game, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not down with this "You don't have a right to healthcare or education. Only the privileged (money-havers) get to learn how to read or not die of preventable diseases." Sounds like a recipe for a lovely society. Edit: Like, I'm pretty sure it's not a controversial opinion (and may even be a fact) that investing in Education for your populace is basically some of the best value for your money you can get. Without an educated populace your economy tanks and your country turns to poo poo. Why this is a problem for some people baffles me. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
xwing, what is the basis for your idea that healthcare is a privilege but state-provided protection from crime is not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:I'm pretty sure it's not a controversial opinion (and may even be a fact) that investing in Education for your populace is basically some of the best value for your money you can get. Without an educated populace your economy tanks and your country turns to poo poo. Why this is a problem for some people baffles me. Having an educated, healthy populace benefits literally everybody in a society. It's absolutely bizarre that lolbertarians are so opposed to the idea; they're unable to see beyond "government took my money!" even though they get it back through other (sometimes non-material) means many times over. Even a die-hard captain of industry should realise "I make more money when my employees are healthy and educated! It's worth paying a relative pittance to infinitely increase productivity!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
xwing posted:Ex. For income tax... okay. This discourages reporting income. That's why some CEO's have $1 salaries and their worth is in stock. So we tax earnings from that, etc... did anyone stop to think that stock ownership would be a major incentive for anyone not just CEO's if we left it alone? They knock Millenials and their lack of company loyalty... of my fellow graduates I keep up with, the ones staying at companies have sizable vestments in the company. I'll get to my normal line of questions later, but just as an aside, holy poo poo do not own significant amounts of stock in the company you work for. Don't own significant amounts of stock in the same industry as the company you work for. The same things that would cause their stock (and your portfolio) to tank would also end with you getting laid off, and then you're double-hosed. Diversify your risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Champagne is a strictly-controlled name; sparkling wine not produced in the Champagne region is just called sparkling wine. Champagne has to be made with grapes grown in the Champagne region. Or with grapes grown in California by a certain subset of wineries, as affirmed by treaty. QuarkJets posted:And that's fine, because those are physical stores and pretty obviously aren't located in their namesake locations. But if you sell "Himalayan Salt" that's not related at all to the Himalayas, then that's deceptive advertising. The real deceptive part is that they claim there's anything special about it. But the other deceptive part is indeed that most "himalayan salt" is from as much as a thousand miles away from the actual Himalayas, and very little of it is from the Himalayas proper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'll get to my normal line of questions later, but just as an aside, holy poo poo do not own significant amounts of stock in the company you work for. Don't own significant amounts of stock in the same industry as the company you work for. The same things that would cause their stock (and your portfolio) to tank would also end with you getting laid off, and then you're double-hosed. Diversify your risk. This. Also make absolutely certain that you network and make contacts outside of your preferred industry just in case poo poo goes sideways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'll get to my normal line of questions later, but just as an aside, holy poo poo do not own significant amounts of stock in the company you work for. Don't own significant amounts of stock in the same industry as the company you work for. The same things that would cause their stock (and your portfolio) to tank would also end with you getting laid off, and then you're double-hosed. Diversify your risk. I intend to answer others as well, but I can address this quickly... I totally agree. I brought it up though because the notion that "too much profit" is a "bad thing" kind of goes out the window if that profit is being shared as an employee benefit. It's only this nameless dirty 1%'er notion that drives that discussion. It is a strong motivator to stay at a company and have emotional investment in it doing well if you get "profit sharing". As I'm seeing it though you're doubly, sometimes triple getting hit, with taxes on that and that it's a strong motivator is IN SPITE of that anyway. EX. I'm in Florida and Publix supermarkets are almost cult-like in their following. They are employee owned and are doing pretty drat well. They have great employee loyalty outside of the complete grunt workers because there's huge incentive to move up and own more of the company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
xwing posted:I totally agree. I brought it up though because the notion that "too much profit" is a "bad thing" kind of goes out the window if that profit is being shared as an employee benefit. It's only this nameless dirty 1%'er notion that drives that discussion. Yes, it's almost as if the concept of a problem with profit is based on who is making it and how and who is not and why and the effects of this distribution, rather than a general objection to the possibility of producing a surplus or a return on investment. One might even guess that in this context, "profit" is defined as a specific kind of these things distinguished by a relationship between those who profit and those who do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
xwing posted:As GunnerJ said different taxes have different effects. The current landscape has been like throwing monkey poo poo at the walls without out any thought to maybe we should clean some of the poo poo off the walls first. In addition to the usual reasons that the government is a clusterfuck, the current tax system is also partly a mess because it's trying to do three different things: provide the government revenue (what people think taxes do), regulate the economy (what taxes actually do), and do some social engineering via sin taxes and progressive taxation (set the top marginal tax rate high enough and it can even work as a soft cap on incomes, something like the 90% top marginal tax rate in the 1950s—though in practice it was a little more complicated than that). These are three conflicting purposes, and it's difficult to get all three to work in tandem. xwing posted:did anyone stop to think that stock ownership would be a major incentive for anyone not just CEO's if we left it alone? They knock Millenials and their lack of company loyalty... of my fellow graduates I keep up with, the ones staying at companies have sizable vestments in the company. The vast majority of people don't "own stock" because they don't have the loving money to buy stock in the first place, you big dope. More than half of all workers have less than $25,000 in total savings. What fantasyland do you live in that the common person is affected by the capital gains rate? Furthermore, the 43% of people who do have savings mostly "invest in stocks" via 401(k)s and, indirectly, via pensions, both of which grow tax free, so the capital gains rate doesn't affect them anways. Also, do not ever invest a lot of money in one company. If you're gambling on a small company becoming a big company, sure, gamble away, but investing enough money in one company's stock that you feel "loyalty" to it is a poo poo idea (case in point: the Enron crash, which wiped out hundreds of people's savings, because employees were encouraged to invest their retirement in the company's stock). Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Yeah, investing in the place you work at is a really really bad idea, financially. If your company has some contribution matching thing that's really good, take advantage of that but cash out every chance you have and use that to invest in proper investments. A lot of people are getting wise to this so companies are forcing people to hold onto the stock for X years or what ever before they can sell. I think it's generally still worth doing if they're contributing, but to just invest in your own company on your own or as payment, that's loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Here in the Valley, stock is a major for of compensation and retention. What you're saying about stock ownership is in general true, but there are still lots of folks, working folks, for whom the stock market is really important for income. And it's not stock ownership, but options rights and stock that is immediately turned over. Part of it is what I consider the bait and switch of the new financialized economy. As pensions went away and 401k took their place, all of a sudden any policy that is really pointed at the capitalist class can now be painted as a threat to granny and her retirement. The other is the options that people in tech get paid. And then there's the weirdness with the AMT which affect many people in high income / high cost of living places. It's almost like federal laws are breaking down as the economy breaks down into John Edwards' two americas. A single progressive tax structure affects working people differently in California than it does in Tulsa Oklahoma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Part of it is what I consider the bait and switch of the new financialized economy. As pensions went away and 401k took their place, all of a sudden any policy that is really pointed at the capitalist class can now be painted as a threat to granny and her retirement. There's got to be a general term for this because the same rhetorical parlor trick gets pulled with small businesses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Here in the Valley, stock is a major for of compensation and retention. What you're saying about stock ownership is in general true, but there are still lots of folks, working folks, for whom the stock market is really important for income. And it's not stock ownership, but options rights and stock that is immediately turned over. Part of it is what I consider the bait and switch of the new financialized economy. As pensions went away and 401k took their place, all of a sudden any policy that is really pointed at the capitalist class can now be painted as a threat to granny and her retirement. The other is the options that people in tech get paid. The thing is also that in the Valley especially, a lot of that stock isn't real. It's either putative shares if the company ever actually goes public, or it's very restrictive options or similar programs so you can't actually do anything with it until it's been 5 years and yadda yadda yadda. Plus offering stock in lieu of real compensation is a great way to get away with underpaying the workers versus what they should be getting paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Paying your workers in company scrip instead of fiat money is another great way to ensure loyalty. If the company goes bankrupt, that scrip will be worthless, so everyone has a vested interest in the company's success. Of course, this assumes that ensuring your peons' loyalty to the glorious corporate monolith is a higher priority than letting them earn a living wage to spend on purchasing goods and services, but in this thread that seems like a pretty safe assumption to make. Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
In case anyone was surprised, that libertarian candidate for president did his interview on majority.fm (I believe it is available on the free show if not the should have a YouTube video up soon) and threw an enormous temper tantrum within the first fifteen minutes, threatening to disrupt the call after being asked basic questions such as "who would issue land deeds?" His answer is competing agencies, because if there is one thing that would be good for real property it would be competing agencies arguing over who owns a section of land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The thing is also that in the Valley especially, a lot of that stock isn't real. It's either putative shares if the company ever actually goes public, or it's very restrictive options or similar programs so you can't actually do anything with it until it's been 5 years and yadda yadda yadda. Plus offering stock in lieu of real compensation is a great way to get away with underpaying the workers versus what they should be getting paid. Yeah that's the retention part of it. In startups it's pretty much funny money, but in existing public companies it's real and it works. Not only incentive shares, but things like ESPP work as compensation too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that forum where Jrod is now peddling his worldview...that is certainly a thing. It was actually a bit nice to see Jrod aiming for non-vile points for a change, but his obstinate style and preachy nature are untouched. It was also odd to see him ignoring several elephants in the room in dealing with the crazies there. Here, we certainly didn't skimp on calling people 'statists', 'aggressors' and such. Over there, no one was racist or a bigot or a supporter of genocide, even when they were pretty much calling out loud for such things. In other, sadder personal libertarian news, another of my friends is going full libertarian. Small business owner who was sent Milton Friedman videos and now believes he is the wisest person ever and that only the lack of freedom and support for parasites kept him from being Mark Zuckerberg. And of course, his way of expressing his new beliefs is to call for a ban on accepting all refugees, because "If we make it easy for them to just leave their messed-up countries, those places will never improve."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
So it turns out that 'Darryl' was an enormous baby who only managed about twenty minutes on the phone before turning into an enormous baby screaming about freedom and hanging up the phone. I'd say it astonishes me that this man thought he could be president but mental disease is a hell of a thing I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Having an educated, healthy populace benefits literally everybody in a society. It's absolutely bizarre that lolbertarians are so opposed to the idea; they're unable to see beyond "government took my money!" even though they get it back through other (sometimes non-material) means many times over. Even a die-hard captain of industry should realise "I make more money when my employees are healthy and educated! It's worth paying a relative pittance to infinitely increase productivity!" A strong social safety net also dramatically reduces crime because desperate people do desperate things. If nobody gets desperate then desperation never drives people to steal, smuggle, or mug to survive. Some people are dicks and do it anyway but not everybody that breaks a law does it because they're just not nice. Good health care also takes care of the mentally ill instead of just turning them out into the streets to act irrationally. But all the lolberts see is taxes. That and people that aren't generating profits for the corporate masters. For most of us having a job means generating profits for somebody else. Which is a major reason why income redistribution exists; a company that pays slave or starvation wages is a thief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 00:36
|
|
