|
I normally hate debating semantics and I will freely admit that "liberal", even just as it is used today (putting aside "classic" liberalism), is very nebulous and quite prone to No True Scotsman-ism. Conservatism is also prone to this, but I think that it's definition in the modern world is much more clear. You'll note that the word "conserv(e)" is right there, and it's apropos. By and large, it's a philosophy that constantly glorifies the past, even terrible things about the past, and resists change from either fear of the unknown, knee-jerk ideological disagreement, or sometimes just resisting change for its own sake. It also extols individualism, green, and FYGM, but that fits in as well as it's a political viewpoint that says that what is mine is mine and that anything acquired through any legal (and sometimes not-so-legal) means is mine by right. After all I had the guts/brains/power to take it and I shouldn't have to share even if, say, I'm a business owner who makes huge amounts of wealth off of the labour of large numbers of people who have very little and keeps most if not all of it for myself while depriving both my employees as well as the good of that nation who pays for the infrastructure that I use to make all of that wealth.Ormi posted:Eventually one of the guys spoke up and I thought he was Greek, but he spoke English perfectly so he may have not been. He said he knew what anarcho-capitalism was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if I thought everything should be private. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property. I am usually a very non-violent sort of person, but I want this so badly to be true.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
The guy shouting "you're violating the NAP!" is just a little too perfect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:How often does that actually work, though? And how is it helpful for two groups who identify themselves as anarchists to mutually dismiss each other? When one of them's ancaps? Totally. Ancaps are amazing in their power to cure leftist infighting, and cause anarchists and socialists of all stripes to rise up against them. Ancaps also cure pacifism in anarchists. The only group I can think of that would be more effective in this regard would be National Anarchists, which is as bad as it sounds - Nazis who don't like being told what to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's the distinction for like middle versus upper class in Victorian-era England and Scotland. And in that case, a lot of those middle class people were significantly wealthier and getting more ongoing income than the upper class people, but they couldn't get in to the social circle of people whose great-great-great-great-grand-uncle did a favor for the king 600 years earlier and so he had a hereditary manor. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
divabot posted:The only group I can think of that would be more effective in this regard would be National Anarchists, which is as bad as it sounds - Nazis who don't like being told what to do. How the hell does that even work? Or is it like Hans-Hermann Hoppe where the abolition of the state along private property lines just happens to produce racially homogenous units that expel anyone who doesn't conform?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:How the hell does that even work? Or is it like Hans-Hermann Hoppe where the abolition of the state along private property lines just happens to produce racially homogenous units that expel anyone who doesn't conform? Well basically, infighting leftists write incendiary blog posts about each other, while infighting Nazis stab each other. Which is, on balance, totally fine with me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
divabot posted:When one of them's ancaps? Totally. Ancaps are amazing in their power to cure leftist infighting, and cause anarchists and socialists of all stripes to rise up against them. Ancaps also cure pacifism in anarchists. Uh to the extent that Nazism works at all it pretty much runs on people being told what to do? So that just sounds comically dysfunctional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Uh to the extent that Nazism works at all it pretty much runs on people being told what to do? So that just sounds comically dysfunctional. At the end of the day the point is that they refuse to recognize any authority but their own as legitimate, and therefore it must be torn down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
i fell like we have too many Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:How the hell does that even work? Or is it like Hans-Hermann Hoppe where the abolition of the state along private property lines just happens to produce racially homogenous units that expel anyone who doesn't conform? I can see it. I just imagine Kropotkin, but at the end they say "...and each village is ethnically homogenous and violently defends that purity."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Probably? There is a lot of stuff I want/need to cover. The Non-Aggression Principle; how the NAP fails without consent; the hostile and transactional nature of social interactions presumed by libertarians; the overemphasis of negative rights and how that fails with children; how libertarianism responds to exploitation; the owner/property dichotomy; and how all of that stuff combines to enable pedophilia within libertarianism. Have you considered that maybe the statists who arrest pedophiles are the real criminals? https://news.bitcoin.com/fbi-child-porn-role-govt/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:If you start a Tumblr I'll definitely subscribe to it. Here you go. I may even add content later! Anyway, Triple H's birthday was Friday. Did you all remember to sign his card? mises.org posted:Today is Hans Hoppe's birthday. He is an outstanding libertarian theorist, in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, and his strikingly original work ranges widely over philosophy, history, and economics. Among his many contributions are a defense of self-ownership and property rights through argumentation ethics and a trenchant criticism of democracy. He is a scholar of the highest integrity and courage, and all lovers of liberty are in his debt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
I'll sign his card if he pays me, he'd appreciate that (extra charge to not sign off with "you rear end in a top hat").
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'll sign his card if he pays me, he'd appreciate that (extra charge to not sign off with "you rear end in a top hat"). Put me down as "Happy Birthday from Mr. Fuckyoukillyourselfdiediedie "
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter what you write. We all have to sign using white-out on a folded, blank piece of cardstock. He threw a fit last year because the card wasn't pure white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Well this sounds exciting!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Every time, every time, you call him Triple-H I think of the wrestler for at least three-quarters of the rest of the post and become really confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Every time, every time, you call him Triple-H I think of the wrestler for at least three-quarters of the rest of the post and become really confused. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Who is the wrestler?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Every time, every time, you call him Triple-H I think of the wrestler for at least three-quarters of the rest of the post and become really confused. One and the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Who is the wrestler? Paul Michael Levesque, whose stage name is Hunter Hearst Helmsley.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Man you guys are testy. Man your avatar is titsy (I haven't finished catching up)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I just noticed the bizarre pattern in this chart: rather than peaking between $35k and $75k a year, the odds of someone self-identifying as middle class keeps going up and up with the more money they make. Almost three-fourths of rich fucks think they're "middle class", despite in practice being paid more than 87% of Americans are. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:What could possibly go wrong with squares windows? It's not like the plane is ever going to experience any torsion. Were square windows in violation of some sort of existing regulation or something? I just thought it was because it wasn't known when the De Havilland Comet was built how dangerous square windows were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
I can't stop laughing that Nitrousoxide was concern trolling with "I support a GBI instead of a livable minimum wage" 20 pages ago and now suddenly there's not enough evidence to actually try a GBI, we better just stick to the status quo for I suppose that's why he was repeatingly dodging my questions about how he thinks we should help the working class in the meantime. What a coward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I never said I support a GBI straight up at a national level. I'd be fine with state or city level experiments just like I was with the 15 dollar minimum wage. Edit: mind you, if the only way to cut the military budget was to convert half its budget into a GBI I'd probably be okay with that since it's hard to imagine a GBI being worse than ditch digging via weapon systems. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Who is the wrestler? Paul Levesque, aka Hunter Herst Helmsley, aka Triple H
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm pretty sure I never said I support a GBI straight up at a national level. I'd be fine with state or city level experiments just like I was with the 15 dollar minimum wage. The decision to choose local over national is arbitrary and in fact detrimental to the overall quality of results gained and the ability to actually pay for the experiment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The decision to choose local over national is arbitrary and in fact detrimental to the overall quality of results gained and the ability to actually pay for the experiment. Not really, since you get much more useful data via the existence of control economies nearby that don't have that policy enacted. A national GBI would actually provide less valuable data than a few state level ones. Here's another interesting experiment I'll be watching. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/netherlands-utrecht-universal-basic-income-experiment/487883/ Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Not really, since you get much more useful data via the existence of control economies nearby that don't have that policy enacted. Yeah, no, sorry, an underfunded GMI in Kansas does not inform results "controlled" by New York. That is a flawed understanding of how scientific control actually works, and the effects of scale and risk pooling. In fact, you are far from the first conservative to attack minimum wage with the "no true liberal would support minimum wage over GMI" only to hem and haw over its implementation later in the thread. Edit: How can a finnish or dutch experiment inform your opinion if only truly "scientific" results can be obtained if GMI is implemented on a regional (no national) basis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yeah, no, sorry, an underfunded GMI in Kansas does not inform results "controlled" by New York. That is a flawed understanding of how scientific control actually works, and the effects of scale and risk pooling. You don't compare a Kansas GBI to NY. You compare them to Nebraska. And ideally you'd experiment with different levels of GBI to see the effects of different payouts. That's where different experiments with different funding levels helps as well rather than just one data point at a national level. I mean, nationwide experiments aren't useless just waaaaaay less valuable. And besides, the Dutch example actually has a control group. You'd have seen that if you read the article. Pretty sure the Finnish does as well. I don't think you really understand the scientific method that well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Were square windows in violation of some sort of existing regulation or something? I just thought it was because it wasn't known when the De Havilland Comet was built how dangerous square windows were. You're correct, the Comet is specifically the aircraft in question. Cyclical loading of pressurization/depressurization and the rigours of flight, coupled with how square corners cause stress concentrations, leading to fractures and fissures and eventually structural failure. The argument being made was against for-profit regulatory agencies, and also in part an insult. I was basically telling the person that they were dumb, and it's doubly dumb to expect a layperson to know why rounded windows are better than square windows; and Libertarian philosophy banks on the idea that everyone has perfect information all the time, which is impossible. And if not having perfect information ends up getting you hurt or killed? Well, it was your own dumbass fault for not doing your research. The second time it came up was with some idiot got confused between the FFA and FAA and still didn't understand what either actually did, and tried to argue for the abolition of both in favor of for-profit organizations. Otherwise, one of my favorite movies is No Highway In the Sky, which I think offers a good argument for regulatory agencies and against for-profit accident investigation. The only reason that Jimmy Stewart's character can even get away with doing his experiment is because the owner of the airline is actually a fairly decent bloke who tries to listen to his experts, but even then, he and others are threatening Stewart's career and his good name, willing to throw him under the bus as an unhinged crackpot if he can't prove in days what could take months or years in the real world to actually investigate. Goon Danton posted:Here you go. I may even add content later! Adverbs modify the adjective, not the noun. The implications of this phrase are hilarious, to me, having switched careers to become an English teacher. And in the latter part, a tad depressing, too. Nitrousoxide posted:You don't compare a Kansas GBI to NY. You compare them to Nebraska. And ideally you'd experiment with different levels of GBI to see the effects of different payouts. That's where different experiments with different funding levels helps as well rather than just one data point at a national level. If you let states control the experiment, there's some issues. First, the programs are much more subject to the whims of the governors and a smaller group of people. We all know how Republicans and Conservatives love to sabotage social programs and then turn around and declare them failed. Done on a National Level, the program would be run by an agency with strict instructions, and would be less susceptible to fuckery by the whims and tides of elections. Second, funding could be a huge issue. Richer states would be able to afford it, but Kansas might not be able to properly fund it. And again, the governors might not want to fund it properly, see point 1. The national level would provide the best ability to send the funds where they need to go and be much more stable. It would also be better able to properly fund the program in a poorer state than that state would be able to handle. Third, one state is not going to be a good measure for the rest of the country. This falls into the same fallacy that jrode got into when he started claiming that Hong Kong was a brilliant example of an unteathered free market economy; it ignores major differences between regions. Doing the experiment on the national level means that you can have "experimental" and "control" groups in the same region, and observe how they perform against each other. You could also have multiple "experiments" running in multiple states and cities. This would allow you to choose metropolitan areas which cross over state lines (like Kansas City, NYC, Chicago, and even loving Fargo, ND). At a national level, the government could ignore state borders where they become superfluous. Also, if a person in the program decides to move out of the original area, they can still follow them and see how it works out. Fourth, I'm not actually a statistician, so I may be saying something incorrectly or even ignoring something altogether, but the biggest, largest, issue with all of this is how the wealthy will use their money and influence to turn public opinion against such a program, as they'll paint the beneficiaries as being lazy, hapless layabouts with no desire to do anything but receive their welfare money while YOU have to break your back working all day just to pay for THEM and having your taxes STOLEN! Harrumph! So, if you purposely hobble the experiment from the beginning, you'll just give them more ammunition. Or in other words; gently caress the rich, tax their wealth and give it to the poor. e: I realized I had made two lists in the same post, so I killed one. Still feel like way too many 
CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:The second time it came up was with some idiot got confused between the FFA and FAA and still didn't understand what either actually did, and tried to argue for the abolition of both in favor of for-profit organizations. Someone is seriously arguing for abolition of the FAA? eta: dug back in the thread and . . . wow Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm pretty sure I never said I support a GBI straight up at a national level. I'd be fine with state or city level experiments just like I was with the 15 dollar minimum wage. Hm let's check Nitrousoxide posted:So I think we are in agreement then generally that a GBI would be preferable to an increased minimum wage. Right. archangelwar posted:In fact, you are far from the first conservative to attack minimum wage with the "no true liberal would support minimum wage over GMI" only to hem and haw over its implementation later in the thread. That makes this thread like 100x funnier than minimum wage threads, because over there the details of how GMI would work are off-topic so conservatives can just say "if you really cared about the poor you'd stop caring about the minimum wage and work for the superior GMI" forever without ever supporting it. Here we get to see the pivot to "oh gosh we just don't know if GMI is good or bad after all" in real time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hm let's check If you had a notion of the directionally of time you would realize that I said that a GBI would probably be better than a higher minimum wage before it was established that a higher minimum wage would have few if any negative macro economic effects and when I thought minor increases in the minimum wage would lead to increases in unemployment for the people it was trying to help. So, in that context, it would seem to make a lot more sense why I would say that no? Now that it's been established that a modest minimum wage increase would have few if any negative macro economic effects, and is backed up by a good amount of data, it would stand to reason I would favor that well studied position over the poorly studied GBI correct?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You don't compare a Kansas GBI to NY. You compare them to Nebraska. And ideally you'd experiment with different levels of GBI to see the effects of different payouts. That's where different experiments with different funding levels helps as well rather than just one data point at a national level. Control group != group subject to different economic conditions. Control would be identical group subject to one less variable. Nebraska might be better comparatively than New York but it has been established time and again under economic study that minor policy differences have hugely compounding effects. Lack of ability to perform controlled experiments is the lament of economists everywhere. This is why meta-analysis is critical, and why scale and risk pooling matter in economic policy. Additionally people suffer while you wring your hands and concern troll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Now that it's been established that a modest minimum wage increase would have few if any negative macro economic effects, and is backed up by a good amount of data, it would stand to reason I would favor that well studied position over the poorly studied GBI correct? No, not really, if there aren't enough studies on the GBI to draw a conclusion then you really had no reason to think it's better than the minimum wage. This holds even if you thought the bad effects of the minimum wage outweighed the good. E: It also means we don't have enough empirical data to continue operating without a national GMI VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:If you had a notion of the directionally of time you would realize that I said that a GBI would probably be better than a higher minimum wage before it was established that a higher minimum wage would have few if any negative macro economic effects and when I thought minor increases in the minimum wage would lead to increases in unemployment for the people it was trying to help. It would also stand to reason that you'd support a national GBI of some amount so that we are better able to understand the effects of a GBI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Additionally you have not used empirical evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the status quo is better than the alternative. Empirical evidence suddenly becomes necessary when a policy disagrees with your preconceived bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assert that GBI and raising the minimum wage are desirable in conjunction
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:58
|
|