|
Nitrousoxide posted:That's the 60% of the median wage that is heavily studied and indicates that it has little to no negative effects on employment levels. Are you using "any negative effect outweighs the benefit of minimum wage" as your benchmark? If 1 person becomes unemployed while millions who were previously in poverty now enjoy a living wage, it is a step too far?
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Are you using "any negative effect outweighs the benefit of minimum wage" as your benchmark? No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I don't believe you at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
That's nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Your stance was that the minimum wage study showed no negative effects up to 60% of median wage and decided that you would go no further. If you answer is truly "no," then why would you stop there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:That's the 60% of the median wage that is heavily studied and indicates that it has little to no negative effects on employment levels. Why do we need to stop at 60%, though? I understand that you think we shouldn't push into unexplored territory with regard to the data, but why do you feel that way? Why can't we push for 80% or 100% and then measure the effects on prices, unemployment, etc on a state-by-state, month-by-month basis? Why not just go for the living wage and if some bad stuff starts to happen then say "oh well, now we know better, let's allow inflation to catch up now"? Hey separate question: if it turned out that $15/hr had no negative effects at all, would you be in favor of pegging the minimum wage to inflation? At that point we'd be talking about yearly minimum wage increases of 5% or less so that should be okay, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
I believe in rational utilitarianism and therefore suggest we take all the poor people's income and give it to one real greedy dude. I'm not actually a utilitarian. This is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
yeah, keep raising the minimum wage until something horrible happens (it won't). Why not $20? Why not $30?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
At least enlighten us as to the heuristics that will be used to measure the "success" of the Seattle minwage in your mind. You have not given us any clear indication what mental calculus you are using to arrive at your conclusions outside "anything bad is right out." You can't blame us for only responding to what you have presented.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:At least enlighten us as to the heuristics that will be used to measure the "success" of the Seattle minwage in your mind. You have not given us any clear indication what mental calculus you are using to arrive at your conclusions outside "anything bad is right out." You can't blame us for only responding to what you have presented. No, you see, a couple of liberal cities and states raising minimum wage isn't enough. We need complete and total information, which means every state needs to enact $15/hr before we can do so at the federal level. Even those states run by conservative assholes who always vote against minimum wage increases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Also Washington set a $15.00 for everyone working at SeaTac and everyone working at a business with more than 500 employees. It's $11.00 for everyone else. This isn't actually true. Seattle and SeaTac have the $15 legislation, on different implementation schedules. The rest of Washington has $9.47 as a minimum wage right now (pegged to inflation; last time I had a minwage job it was $9.27). There is however an attempt to get a ballot measure through for a state-wide minimum of (iirc) $13.25. Also important to note that Washington isn't a total poo poo hole and we don't exempt tipped workers from our minimum wage (although there were attempts by greedy fucks to have that tipping exception applied to Seattle workers, and thankfully it failed). E: the ballot initiative is for $13.50 by 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Minimum_Wage_Increase,_Initiative_1433_(2016) AShamefulDisplay fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
There is also this: Anyone working a job(s) that pays a wage below liveable, which is endemic in the service sector, is subsidising your lifestyle with their immiseration. It is morally indefensible that anyone should live destitute and degraded simply so that you can save a few dollars. If paying McDonald's workers a higher wage means that you have to start buying two Big Macs for $6 instead of $5 and that bothers you, I will personally delight in going Ted DiBiase on you and shaving that buck down your throat until you choke to death on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Libertarianism sounds so nice when Penn Jillette describes it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:There is also this: Anyone working a job(s) that pays a wage below liveable, which is endemic in the service sector, is subsidising your lifestyle with their immiseration. It is morally indefensible that anyone should live destitute and degraded simply so that you can save a few dollars. If paying McDonald's workers a higher wage means that you have to start buying two Big Macs for $6 instead of $5 and that bothers you, I will personally delight in going Ted DiBiase on you and shaving that buck down your throat until you choke to death on it. Remember under Libertarian philosophy it is a Just World and morality is determined by the action taken, not the result. Thus people who live in destitution deserve it by virtue of being destitute and the only immoral action would be positive action taken to transfer wealth to them, inaction cannot by definition be immoral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:There is also this: Anyone working a job(s) that pays a wage below liveable, which is endemic in the service sector, is subsidising your lifestyle with their immiseration. It is morally indefensible that anyone should live destitute and degraded simply so that you can save a few dollars. If paying McDonald's workers a higher wage means that you have to start buying two Big Macs for $6 instead of $5 and that bothers you, I will personally delight in going Ted DiBiase on you and shaving that buck down your throat until you choke to death on it. This is why "The Free Market produces the best outcomes" is bullshit and proof that libertarians don't actually think about their positions or simply don't care. "Good" outcomes should not include the dehumanization of others. The free market does not account for human misery, so it is absolutely necessary that we consider that and adjust for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Have any libertarians in America posited Basic Income combined with total free market economics? That way you could attempt to eliminate workers having to take lovely low paying jobs. It might also make companies like McDonald's have to make their jobs more appealing to prospective employees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Gunder posted:Have any libertarians in America posited Basic Income combined with total free market economics? That way you could attempt to eliminate workers having to take lovely low paying jobs. It might also make companies like McDonald's have to make their jobs more appealing to prospective employees. Yes, but support magically disappears when it comes to discussions concerning how to pay for such things as UBI. Generally I feel it is often proposed to simply avoid talking about slippery economic topics like minwage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Gunder posted:Have any libertarians in America posited Basic Income combined with total free market economics? That way you could attempt to eliminate workers having to take lovely low paying jobs. It might also make companies like McDonald's have to make their jobs more appealing to prospective employees. That's actually the point of mincome, really; you don't take control of the economy in a full communism way. You just give everybody a basic wage no matter what and let them sort out the details. It's why food stamps is also great when it gets funded enough. You aren't forcing somebody to buy certain things. Libertarians don't like it because they obsess over sweat of your brow policies. As in a man is entitled to the wealth he produces. In a vacuum that's a fine policy but in the real world rent seeking and economic imperialism happen. Your bog standard Walmart employee generates more wealth than he earns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's why food stamps is also great when it gets funded enough. You aren't forcing somebody to buy certain things. Other than how food stamps explicitly bar not just things that aren't food/drink, but also many particular kinds of food and drink, largely at the whim of either spiteful conservatives trying to make life harder or misguided attempts at improving nutrition which actually just make things worse. What a stupid statement you just made!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Consider whether a more modest increase along with a guaranteed income from the government would achieve your aims better. Er... you realize this is what a lot of us want? But the perfect is the enemy of the good. The odds of a minimum wage increase are vastly, vastly higher than the odds of a guaranteed or basic income.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Libertarians don't like it because they obsess over sweat of your brow policies. As in a man is entitled to the wealth he produces. Yet they adore capitalism, which is a system wherein many people work very hard for a fraction of the value that they produce while a very small number of people get phenomenally wealthy off of their efforts while doing gently caress all, or at least very little in proportion to the wealth that they gain. Libertarians don't mind that thought because they are all sociopaths who assume that they will be the ones being enriched by others labour. They don't want to advance themselves on the sweat of their brow, they want to do it on the sweat of everyone else's brow. It's not "a man is entitled to the wealth he produces", it's "I want to be entitled to the wealth that [lots of men] produce"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I said such a high minimum wage is largely unstudied and there needs to be more data from local attempts at that level to determine the benefits and harms before enacting it at a national level, but that up to 60% of the median income the harm is minimal if it is there at all. Isn't $15/hr 60% of the median income? 15*40*52 = 31200 ~= 51939*0.6007 Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Yo Nitrousoxide how about you answer my questions re: your professed support for a guaranteed basic income and how you plan to achieve it & handle the problem in the interim? Or I guess keep concern trolling, either or.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Isn't $15/hr 60% of the median income? You're thinking of median household income, which is about $54,000 a year, and that would calculate out to a pay of ~$25 if it was earned by a single person working 40 hour weeks or a full year. $15 an hour would be 60% of that, well close. But the median household income includes dual income households, so the median individual income is quite a bit lower, although there isn't much in the way of individual up to date data it's somewhere between $30k and $40k. So that would work to ~$14.40 to ~$19.20 an hour for some who works full time every week, though usually it would be higher because people don't work every weekday for a whole year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Barack Obama is not a neoliberal. He oversaw the creation of a financial regulatory office with actual power (the CFPB), a massive expansion of healthcare regulation (via the ACA), and the largest expansion of welfare coverage since the 1960s (Medicaid via the ACA). Drastically watered-down social democracy isn't neoliberalism. Dumb compromises offered in the hopes of getting the far-right-wing majority of Congress to actually get poo poo done is also not neoliberalism—look what Obama did when he did have Democratic majorities, for gently caress's sake. I just want to point out that in terms of scale, differences in foreign policy have way more than their share in potential damage I just don't want that 7% to be seen as the same magnitude as the 7% of bills about what to name a post office
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is why "The Free Market produces the best outcomes" is bullshit and proof that libertarians don't actually think about their positions or simply don't care. "Good" outcomes should not include the dehumanization of others. The free market does not account for human misery, so it is absolutely necessary that we consider that and adjust for it. I recently had emergency surgery, and while recovering at the hospital, I saw a few episodes of a show called American Greed, and it's sort of the argument against libetarianism. Basically, greedy people will gently caress people over, and even in our current system, these people can do a ton of damage. Gunder posted:Libertarianism sounds so nice when Penn Jillette describes it. Oh, I love the whole "I don't know what's best for other people" routine that libertarians go on. Because the examples they make don't follow. He says "I don't know if my 10-year-old should take music lessons." Somehow, that means that I can't know whether or not he should have access to healthcare without the risk of going bankrupt, or that hey, people need this amount of money to live and anything less is not enough. Sometimes, it feels like they're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There's no way I can implement a system that will work for everybody, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a system at all. Like, how can you not know that Jim Morrisson made some pretty loving bad choices in life? I mean, we've heard the Lizard King (though the Doors did have a lot of really good tracks). And his example about the smartest girl in the country going to work at McDonalds and get pregnant at 19 is laughable, in that it depicts people as having complete control over their life. I guess I didn't need emergency surgery after all. I should have decided not to have a medical emergency. It sounds so humble, but really, it's just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah it sounds nice when you're talking about letting people smoke weed and not restricting who can marry who, as these are good progressive ideals, but then libertarians keep walking down the Crazy Path and wind up in "we shouldn't regulate food production" and "if you get an illness then isn't that your fault?" and "I think fully-grown men should be able to gently caress children"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Libertarianism attracts sociopathic megalomaniacs, and other people find a modicum of success in their lives such that they become sociopathic megalomaniacs. Penn Gillette is enough of a celebrity, I fancy, to have fallen victim to the inevitable decay of character that comes with being grossly overpaid proportional to one's efforts while constantly being wanked off (mostly figuratively speaking, but possibly literally as well) by people who suck up to celebrities to make up for their own inadequacies. People who reach high levels of fame and fortune tend to easily forget that luck played an enormous role in their ascension and develop the swollen-headed delusion that they are awesome and that's 111% of the reason that they got where they are despite all of the people who worked just as hard as they did and never made it to that level due to genetics, bad luck, losing at politics and so on. To give another example of a well-known libertarian quasi-celebrity who is a great example of what I just said, I present to you Glenn Jacobs. You may not recognize that name, but you may be familiar with WWF/WWE's Kane, who he has played for over 15 years now. He's a prime example of a guy who has made millions off of luck and coincidence and yet still bitches about all of the taxes he pays while living in luxury and being able to retire a millionaire in his 40s while everyone else has to slave on until they are 65... if they're lucky, that is. To elaborate on my case... first of all, Glenn is a guy who had the work ethic and foresight to grow to be nearly 7 feet tall in an industry where large men are given every opportunity and can often be terrible at everything apart from being large men, yet still "succeed" at making tons of money despite little or no charisma, athleticism or wrestling ability. For an even better example of this, see Kevin Nash who often referred to average-sized but much more talented guys as "vanilla midgets" because Kevin's only talent was being 7 feet tall, but I digress. Secondly, despite being a huge man and having relatively decent athletic ability for his size, he failed at every shot he was given and was about to be let go by the then WWF back in the 90s when Jim Cornette, a manager who I loved to hate in the 80s, one of my favourite wrestling minds of all time and a staunch Democrat, came up with the Kane gimmick so that Glenn could ride on the coattails of the Undertaker. Jim was the one who came up with Kane ripping the locked door off at Hell in the Cell, which is often considered the greatest debut ever, and hitting a tombstone on the Undertaker in a legendary moment. Jim also handled all that Kane did for the first many months of his character and got him hugely "over". He's been a non-entity for years but still has a very well-paying job due to his aforementioned talent for being a huge man, and I'm sure that Vince McMahon loves him because he would love anyone who's a right-wing sociopath who enjoys muscle building. Point being, here is a guy who was absolutely nothing and only barely held a job because he randomly was 6'10" and 300 pounds, then got a huge break due to someone much smarter than him who didn't have the good sense to be 6'10" and 300 pounds coming up with a once-in-a-generation idea that still required hooking his chariot onto a much more popular, talented performer. Yet, I'm sure Glenn thinks that he's the dog's bollocks and constantly bitches about paying a lower tax rate on his millions than people who have to scrape by on 30-40k per year. I'm not saying he hasn't worked hard; professional wrestlers, especially WWF ones, travel constantly, take huge physical abuse and suffer a lot of hits, but there were dozens of guys out there who worked just as hard as him but didn't make it because they weren't randomly made 6'10"and 300 pounds and didn't have someone hand them a legendary idea that one could build a whole career upon. There are a lot of differences between "left" and "right", but some of the biggest ones are empathy, compassion and humility. "Rightists" feel that people who get ahead for whatever reason are inherently superior and, even if it was luck (like being born into wealth), so what? Anyone else would do the same thing; right-wingers don't care about anyone else and assume that the rest of the world is the same, so they have no problem loving over the little guy by paying no taxes on money earned by other peoples' labour or lobbying congress to let them dump toxic waste into groundwater that their underpaid minions have to drink. As for empathy and compassion... well, they have done personality studies of people who profess to follow various political movements and parties and have found that libertarians and other extreme right-wing types have very high rates of sociopathy... need I say more? As much as I do not identify at all with modern "progressives" and strenuously disagree with them on a number of things, one of the key components of being an economic leftist is empathy. People of that ilk realise that but for a twist of fate, a flip of the coin or a stitch in time that they could have been the ones miserable in the gutter and, having the humility to accept that "hard work" only goes so far, they try to various degrees to sacrifice what they can to help those for whom the dice didn't fall quite so generously. If I've learned anything in the last few years, it's that we can't do much of anything about people like Charles Koch or Glenn Jacobs or even "social progressives, liberal conservatives" like that talentless moron pretty-boy Ashton Kutcher; they'll never learn because they lack the emotions that guide the lives of people who genuinely realise "There but for the grace of God go I". We can't change them, so all we can do is look at them and say "I won't ever be like that" and go back to trying to make this miserable world a slightly better place. This was almost certainly the longest post I have ever made on SA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
There's so much idiocy in that video, it's amazing. It's the idiocy that can only come from a legitimately smart person, because it's so well-thought out. "Would I want to live like Kurt Cobain?" Well, if living with a crippling mental illness, physical ailments, and drug addictions sounds like a great choice to you, then step right up! I mean, come on. Cobain suffered from extreme mental illness. But onto the real idiocy of this video: Would I use a gun? If you followed JRodbot, there would be a point in an argument where he would ask why we were threatening him and using guns to get our way. To which the rest of us would laugh since it's stupid to claim that we were using violence. Then we would threaten to beat him up if he didn't stop talking out of his rear end. Libertarianism only works when you reduce things down to this level. Would I use a gun to achieve this mean. This is how they argue against things like taxation. If I don't pay my taxes, EVENTUALLY, the government will come to get me with their guns. Except... Well, it's too reductionist. It takes the initiating action, and basically applies that throughout the rest of the argument. Except, there's multiple actions taken by the tax-dodger that brings out the guns. Each step along the way, they are choosing not to comply with the lawful order of "Pay your taxes." Take my apartment, for example. I can choose not to pay rent. Now, at this point, I'll get a notice that my rent is overdue and they'll say "Pay or get out." I can continue to choose not to pay my rent, and they'll send a notice of eviction. I can choose not to leave my apartment and hole myself up for the great siege of Cemetry Gator's Apartment of 2016. Eventually, thugs armed with guns will use force to remove me from my apartment when I was peacefully occupying it. At the point that men with guns are coming to my apartment, I have shown myself to be unreasonable, and unwilling to comply with the rules of society. What are your options. They've told me "Hey, pay your rent." They told me "If you don't pay your rent, you will have to vacate the premises." They told me "If you don't vacate the premises, you may be arrested." At the point we've reached the "put me into handcuffs mode," I have basically took every opportunity to end this peacefully and scoffed at it. Of course they need to use force. Otherwise, I can choose to continue to not comply, and then there's a complete breakdown. It's the same with taxation. It's a rule of living in this country - you must pay your taxes. If you choose not to comply with that rule, you're given many notices and opportunities to make right. Each time you refuse, you're taking a new action, until you've shown that you're not willing to be reasonable, and so their only option to escalate is to say "Do this, or else we'll be forced to forcibly put you behind bars." Yes, it doesn't sound nice. But you can't disengage with everyone who refuses to follow the rules. In fact, one can argue that refusing to comply with the rules of society is physically dangerous to other people. After all, why shouldn't I be able to rob people blind and drive on the wrong side of the road drunk and sell heroin to school children? After all, society is based on us agreeing to work together. Sure, you might not feel that you need to pay for my theoretical children's education, but imagine looking in their eyes when you need to explain why they can't read because I might end up being a deadbeat father who can't pay for their education. And when you consider other things, they may be important to the overall health of the community. Take healthcare. Sure, most people in the city were not impacted by my surgery and me having healthcare. But my employer was. They were to keep a good employee alive. The people I worked with didn't have to worry about me going back with an extreme amount of stress, since my healthcare covers everything 100% except the costs of the ED, and even there, it's $50. $50 for major surgery, and a few days of hospitalization is pretty damned good, especially when you consider without insurance, it could cost me upwards of $50,000. Now, Jillette argues in a true free-market, we wouldn't have the mega-corporations. Now, this is a problematic statement. Basically, when you're creating the fantasy, you can create the rules it follows. But what's to stop that from happening?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:This isn't actually true. Seattle and SeaTac have the $15 legislation, on different implementation schedules. The rest of Washington has $9.47 as a minimum wage right now (pegged to inflation; last time I had a minwage job it was $9.27). There is however an attempt to get a ballot measure through for a state-wide minimum of (iirc) $13.25. My bad, a Wikipedia page lied to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Now, Jillette argues in a true free-market, we wouldn't have the mega-corporations. Now, this is a problematic statement. Basically, when you're creating the fantasy, you can create the rules it follows. But what's to stop that from happening? Jillette does not understand fedualism. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Now, Jillette argues in a true free-market, we wouldn't have the mega-corporations. Now, this is a problematic statement. Basically, when you're creating the fantasy, you can create the rules it follows. But what's to stop that from happening? I don't know if Penn Jillette would argue that big business and free markets are strictly incompatible because a free market is necessarily one in which big businesses are expropriated by the workers, but here's an alternative viewpoint for your consideration. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:My bad, a Wikipedia page lied to me. It's all good. Tbh the only reason I know this poo poo is because I was tangentially involved in the 15Now campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
I think the appropriately libertarian solution to dealing with peoples who refuse to pay taxes is to declare them outlaws and deny them access to public resources. If they use any public service then it's theft. If they touch any public property it's trespassing. And anyone who agrees to live like a sensible human being and pay their taxes can defend their property, since if it belongs to the government it belongs to everyone. Sure it ends in "Men with Guns" but at least they're just affirming the absolute right one has to defend their property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I think the appropriately libertarian solution to dealing with peoples who refuse to pay taxes is to declare them outlaws and deny them access to public resources. If they use any public service then it's theft. If they touch any public property it's trespassing. And anyone who agrees to live like a sensible human being and pay their taxes can defend their property, since if it belongs to the government it belongs to everyone. Sure it ends in "Men with Guns" but at least they're just affirming the absolute right one has to defend their property. How do we divorce them from things like meat inspections, medical licensing, the Clean Air Act, etc? We can't. So they can't. (this is my best attempt at making sense of this post, because it's not a libertarian solution to anything and the last two sentences stop making sense)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
There isn't much data on raising the minimum wage but there's a shitload on what happens with the current level. It's great for concentrating wealth and that's about it far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
It's also pretty great at insulating the rich from economic shocks, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Golbez posted:How do we divorce them from things like meat inspections, medical licensing, the Clean Air Act, etc? It's not supposed to make much sense, I didn't spend much time trying to flesh it out or proofread it. I was just trying to come up with a way for "Men with Guns" to be made more palatable to libertarians, but of course there's plenty of ways for them to wriggle out of my line of reasoning, like saying that the government can't actually own land or other property so it wouldn't be theft for them to walk through it. Or whatever. To take a different tangent, what's the libertarian view on stealing from a thief?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
White Coke posted:It's not supposed to make much sense, I didn't spend much time trying to flesh it out or proofread it. I was just trying to come up with a way for "Men with Guns" to be made more palatable to libertarians, but of course there's plenty of ways for them to wriggle out of my line of reasoning, like saying that the government can't actually own land or other property so it wouldn't be theft for them to walk through it. Or whatever. To take a different tangent, what's the libertarian view on stealing from a thief? The thief stole it first, so it's rightfully his, and his right to defend it with lethal force, even if the person trying to steal it is the original owner who can't provide satisfactory proof that it was in fact, hers; based on the logic of how Native American and African American reparations are supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Ormi posted:I don't know if Penn Jillette would argue that big business and free markets are strictly incompatible because a free market is necessarily one in which big businesses are expropriated by the workers, but here's an alternative viewpoint for your consideration. There will certainly be hairs to split, but what you posted isn't really an alternative. It's stuff that either Penn already said in the first place, or didn't go into at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:21
|
|