|
polymathy posted:So, basically my reason for coming back here and posting in this thread again was just to get some stuff off my chest. It's cathartic in a way to write some stuff you're thinking and see how people respond to it. All you have to say is that CP should be illegal. Then we will never question you about that again.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Trust me, there are still lots of people trying to engage with you honestly (for some reason) and it's very funny when you accuse them of trying to trick you or outright ignore their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i am being completely honest when i tell you that ron paul is a racist Ditto and that he isn't antiwar and was eager to have states pass antisodomy laws. Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:...so the entire story falls apart because he didn't have a car? It would be pretty funny to see sovereign citizens rebel against their DRO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
polymathy posted:This whole idea of trying to get me to talk about child porn or transgender children or World War 2 is not about wanting an honest discussion about it. Maybe that's because you never treat these topics as if they're honest discussion topics. Every single time they're brought up you ignore them, because you don't actually want to grapple with them or the implications of what your favourite thinkers have said about them. You don't actually argue in good faith or listen to what people say. And you never, ever, ever change your mind about anything, because the positions you hold are not logical and you cannot be logic-ed out of them. Please don't think that this whiny flounce post is going to have people begging you to stay. Rather than hit your touchy topics, I'd like to return to a topic that you have yet to resolve and thus far have been willing to discuss for more than a single post before running away crying: Are workers responsible for a company's profits, or are they not? If not, what mechanism of a company is responsible for its profits? Can you start a company with only that mechanism and no workers? Somfin fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
polymathy posted:So, basically my reason for coming back here and posting in this thread again was just to get some stuff off my chest. It's cathartic in a way to write some stuff you're thinking and see how people respond to it. my dude if i ask you a question its because i actually want to know your idiot rear end ideas
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:my dude if i ask you a question its because i actually want to know your idiot rear end ideas This is the other aspect - when we ask questions it's nearly always because we want the answers to those questions. If you, Jrod, ask questions in order to set up logical traps, and therefore you assume everyone else is doing the same, maybe you should stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
polymathy posted:So, basically my reason for coming back here and posting in this thread again was just to get some stuff off my chest. It's cathartic in a way to write some stuff you're thinking and see how people respond to it. Oh... No, please don't go... Come back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
i mean im asking because i want to know so i know if i need to step up my scorn but i do legitiimately want to know
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
polymathy posted:
Yes I dishonestly tricked you into asserting that the Holocaust was almost over anyway so why not just let Hitler finish up. You definitely didn't go excerpt and quote that all on your own as some kind of own against me for mocking the "it would be better if Hitler won" candidate. Somfin posted:Gawd, I remember that one. The existence of, say, mafia protection rackets (or even the state itself which also could not function if the people deprived it of resources through say, a general strike) is irrelevant. In a perfect market bad behavior would be impossible because you'd lose all your customers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
This article by my preferred candidate in 2020, Jacob Hornberger, has been maliciously misrepresented: https://www.fff.org/2019/06/06/discomforting-facts-about-world-war-ii/ Radical libertarianism is anti-imperialism and anti-war. The worst crimes humans have ever committed have been waging aggressive war, or crimes committed during war. Needless to say, in order to fight against war and imperialism, it is important to undermine the mythology that our government has erected that grants legitimacy to the warfare State and makes the American people more likely to support it. Propaganda surrounding World War 2 has made it easier for the United States to start all the wars it has started over the past seventy years. How many times have we heard that a third world dictator is a "new Hitler" which is why we need to support the US Military overthrowing them? Saddam Hussein was repeatedly referred to as a New Hitler. It's important to get people to understand that the United States does not get involved in war for pure and noble reasons. Presidents, military profiteers and bureaucrats have their own self-serving agendas. Presidents usually take us to war to expand their own power, distract from scandals, or enrich their friends. Some politicians legitimately are blood thirsty, and they get off on the idea of exercising power over life and death. I think John McCain fit into this category. With that said, there are some good outcomes that can come from some wars. For example, the defeat of Hitler and the Nazis in World War 2 and the abolition of slavery following the Civil War. But it's vitally important that we cut through the propaganda about war and the US Empire if we ever hope to have peace. Every war in US history was sold based on lies, propaganda and false flags (Gulf of Tonkin, Sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor). If you accept that there was a single war that was purely noble, then you feed into the cult of Empire and you give the US Government powerful propaganda they will use to perpetuate the warfare State. I don't think there's a single sentence above that Noam Chomsky would disagree with. Because Jacob Hornberger is so anti-war he likes to remind people that even the so-called "good wars" were not as good and noble as people are led to believe. If you think the reason he'd bother to post something like this is that he's secretly a Nazi, or he doesn't care about the Holocaust, then you are certifiably insane. Now, it's possible to quibble with the details of every assertion. Running a counterfactual is always difficult. But it's abundantly clear that Hornberger's intentions are noble, he's trying to undermine propaganda that is being used right now to legitimize the American Empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
You're projecting so loving hard right now. Either that or you can't comprehend the idea of people growing up and refining their worldview, so you see people you remember posting like X last time you were here are now posting like Y and you think that must mean they goofed their troll-sona or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
polymathy posted:This article by my preferred candidate in 2020, Jacob Hornberger, has been maliciously misrepresented: i dont think that's clear at all i think he's a racist crank like all your heroes
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
polymathy posted:
I actually agree with this completely. You can make this point without restoring to telling lies like 'well Hitler was almost done killing people anyway so the Allies didn't save any lives'. You can criticize the Allies for their motives and criticize war propaganda without spreading Nazi propaganda. polymathy posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
polymathy posted:This article by my preferred candidate in 2020, Jacob Hornberger, has been maliciously misrepresented: I believe he is 'anti-imperialist' in so far as he wants to sit on the pile of plunder the capitalist West has stolen from much of the rest of the world and laugh and tut tut at the countries that were historically looted and gutted. This is pretty much identical to the attitude of the 1880s British imperialists in India who suggested that if only the indian people were a little more libertarian and enterprising, they wouldn't starve. Libertarians love to war on the poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
jeez this thread's blown up in the last couple days, is jrod back or someth- oh oh my  gonna have to dig in and write up some stuff later, and it's probably a sign of serious emotional unhealthiness on my side, but I've missed this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
polymathy posted:World War 2 I'm going to repeat this because I genuinely want an answer. Are workers responsible for a company's profits, or are they not? If not, what mechanism of a company is responsible for its profits? Can you start a company with only that mechanism and no workers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
theshim posted:jeez this thread's blown up in the last couple days, is jrod back or someth- check his rapsheet
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Are workers responsible for a company's profits, or are they not? Hey jrod the free market demands you answer these questions
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Further, you'll note that I, the actual Marxist had very few quibbles with how he chose to resolve my question on what a moral way to dispose of profits were, and even proposed several that had nothing to do with handing out money directly to the workers ( and I could get into the reasons why if people want me to, but I suspect y'all don't ). Okay, let me elaborate then. Obviously good workers are a prerequisite for a successful business. But "profit" is a very specific concept that needs to be carefully defined. The reason that the Labor Theory of Value is bullshit is that it claims that the value of a good can be measured by the amount of labor put into producing it. But this is obvious not true. Consider if I hire 100 workers to dig a large hole with shovels. Let's say it takes them a month to dig the hole. Now, suppose I hire 100 more workers to fill the hole up again which takes another month. These workers could be the most talented, efficient people on the planet and they could work extremely hard. But the end result of their efforts would be absolutely worthless. Similarly I could hire some workers to design a computer program that nobody buys. Let's say I invest ten million dollars into it and all my employees work extremely hard for one year. But suppose literally no one buys a copy. What this means is that the program has zero value, even though enormous effort went into producing it. Value only exists in the mind of every consumer. It is completely subjective and it's completely detached from the labor used to produce the good. You said: "the moment you claim that workers contribute to profitability, you've acknowledged that they are on some level entitled to a share in the proceeds." But workers DO get a share of the proceeds. This is how it works: A businessman has some capital stored that he uses to invest in a new idea. Say he owns a factory and some equipment. Then he hires some workers and they start building the products. The workers will be paid according to their marginal productivity, which is limited by their training and by the capital equipment they have access to. If a business starts to be profitable, the owner will re-invest into the company. He'll buy new and improved capital equipment which increases the productivity of the workers which also increases wages. So the workers have an incentive for the company to be productive and profitable, since this will inevitably increase the value of each individual worker and increase his or her wage. The real question is whether or not an employer earning any profits over what the workers are paid is exploitation. It is not. Since "profit" reflects subjective value judgments of consumers and is not tied in any tangible way to the amount of labor required to produce the good, the person who is best able to accurately anticipate subjective consumer preferences and direct production towards meeting those ends is more responsible for the profitability of a company. There's also the issue of time preference and the cost of assuming the risk of a new business venture. Remember, 9 out or 10 businesses fail within the first few years. The last point I'll make is that you can't say that workers are owed a share of the profits a company makes, but don't have to share in the losses a company may sustain. Why not withhold paychecks for workers and ask them to work for free until the company becomes profitable again, if they ever are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Hasn’t productivity increased a ton but wages have been stagnant??
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
What I like about this explanation of how the world works no way at all reflects my experience in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
polymathy posted:If a business starts to be profitable, the owner will re-invest into the company. He'll buy new and improved capital equipment which increases the productivity of the workers which also increases wages. This is not true. Wages are stagnant while productivity has increased. We should see the effects of what you are saying in aggregate statistics and we do not. This means your argument is wrong. polymathy posted:The real question is whether or not an employer earning any profits over what the workers are paid is exploitation. This is not the real question. The real question, again, is as follows: Are workers responsible for a company's profits, or are they not? If not, what mechanism of a company is responsible for its profits? Can you start a company with only that mechanism and no workers? Also, do you read Yudkowsky? Because you write like a Yud disciple. Somfin fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Consider if I hire 100 workers to dig a large hole with shovels. Let's say it takes them a month to dig the hole. Now, suppose I hire 100 more workers to fill the hole up again which takes another month. Consider a frictionless cow in a spherical vacuum. This cow has just as much value as the stupid argument you just made. Why on earth would you pay 100 workers to dig a hole and then another 100 workers to fill it in, if you're such a talented captain of industry? You're obviously a moron if you think that's a useful outlay. Also I would argue that you received 100% of the value of their efforts. You paid them to perform busywork that you thought it important for them to perform, and then you paid them to perform more busywork that you thought it important for them to perform. You got your jollies, they got paid, and the status quo was maintained. Why do you call this "absolutely worthless"? Is it because you, a talented captain of industry, made a bad call in deciding those two tasks were ultimately unnecessary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
It's also funny how JRod thinks he's gathering converts to lolbertarianism with his babble here but I, for one, become even more socialist the more I read Caros et al's rebuttals to his walls of text.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:It's also funny how JRod thinks he's gathering converts to lolbertarianism with his babble here but I, for one, become even more socialist the more I read Caros et al's rebuttals to his walls of text. I dunno libertarianism means you can just ignore the actual world and argue in favour of things that straight up aren't true and ignore statistics, history and math, also none of the founders were racist if you yell it loud enough... it seems like a pretty sweet religion to me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:All you have to say is that CP should be illegal. Then we will never question you about that again. Child porn should be illegal. The discussion is interesting from a certain perspective because there does seem to be some inconsistencies in the law. I don't remember the poster's name but there was a person a few pages back who was bringing up some of these questions, but he got temporarily suspended for being "weird" seemingly slightly defending it being legal. It is a little odd that you can legally own footage of people being murdered, or numerous other illegal activity. As far as I understand it, there's no actual snuff film market. I'm sure at some point someone committed a murder on camera and sold the footage to sickos who get off on that stuff. But people can have in their possession videos of people being murdered and, if they didn't materially support or aid the person who shot the video, it will be legal. As that other guy said, there exists a large number of Gore sites where people upload sickening videos and photos of people being murdered, car accidents, war footage and other atrocities for the amusement of really sick people. And this stuff is all legal. But if there was a naked child in any of the videos, then they'd get the FBI knocking on their door. It seems like we're using different principles simply because we find one illegal activity grosser. I think libertarians are allowed to talk about the principles or inconsistencies around sensitive subjects like this. What about very realistic drawings depicting sex with a child? What if virtual reality and computer graphics arrive at a point where you could create a photo realistic video depicting sex with a minor indistinguishable from the real thing? Then you have the empirical question of what leads to greater safety for real children in the real world? Is it better that sickos with pedophilia fantasies are able to satisfy them virtually, or will that only fuel their fantasies and make them a greater threat to children in the real world? I don't have the answer to this. You may say that all this stuff should be illegal, videos of murders, drawings depicting pedophilia, everything. Okay, but where do we draw the line with free speech? I mean, the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of NAMBLA and you couldn't imagine a sicker organization than that. I'll say that any market, meaning buying and selling, videos that depict real murder or child abuse, should be illegal and I can justify this on libertarian grounds. And I don't just mean people who just commit the crime, record it and sell it. Even if you came across footage of murders or child abuse, repackaged it and sold it, this amounts to materially aiding criminals because the development of any market in these things would encourage the production of more and more. It is materially aiding crime, even if you're one step removed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Child porn should be illegal. Thank you. Now to just take a biiiiiiig sip of coffee an- polymathy posted:But (stretched over a couple hundred words) Jesus Christ dude, learn to stop talking
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Also we do know the answer on "well what if a pedophile uses it to try to stave off the urges" Turns out normalizing it is bad!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Child porn should be illegal. Next, you don't have to justify it with an entire essay. You can just say, "CP hurts people, and things that hurt people should be illegal.". That's it. It is self evident. My true frustration with you is that you refuse to engage with anyone on the message board. Most of your comments are just dismissals using some old dead guy's words, and, frankly, it makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about when every time someone asks you a direct question you have to post an entire essay complete with sources that you may or may not have read. It's some freshman year philosophy tactics of source spamming to make it seem like you've said something substantial. We've all done it, and we all know what it looks like. Lastly, do you have any opinions about unions? What purpose do they serve in the worker's desire for better wages and benefits? And, please, use your own words and your own opinions when responding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Billy Gnosis posted:Ditto and that he isn't antiwar and was eager to have states pass antisodomy laws. This is exhibit A when I mention the rank dishonesty many of you exhibit. As I've said numerous times, I don't think Ron Paul's a racist. But I know the Newsletters exist, that one racist tweet exists, and these things have to be explained. But if you say he isn't anti-war, that's the most insane thing you could believe. You can't even be living in reality and say such a thing. Also, he's "eager to have states pass antisodomy laws"? His argument is that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government power to regulate personal behavior in this area. He purposefully said that anti-sodomy laws are "ridiculous" From Wikipedia: ...he derisively characterized sodomy laws as "ridiculous", but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. This was simply a procedural objection to the method of opposing anti-sodomy laws. Things proceed in Washington by precedent. If you're sloppy with how you bring about the outcomes you want, you open the way for other less justified actions. The idea that Ron Paul is anti-gay is just bullshit. Speaking on gay marriage in his book Liberty Defined: “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” “There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.” “Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!” You can also remember that Justin Raimondo, who I cited earlier, was a gay man living in San Francisco. He was a lifelong libertarian and friend of both Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. He defended Ron Paul against accusations that he's a racist. Ron Paul has had gay staff members on his campaign. Ron Paul also came out against Don't Ask Don't Tell: "I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual." "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense." Do these sound like the words of a homophobe? You mean to tell me that Ron Paul supports marriage equality, opposes Don't Ask Don't Tell, has personal friends and staff members who are gay, but somehow supports anti-sodomy laws? Unless I am literally speaking to mentally-impaired people, the only other reason you'd say this is that you're being incredibly dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
polymathy posted:The feeling is utterly mutual. polymathy posted:Hey, gently caress you for making GBS threads up this thread with your verbal diarrhea. You're a sad excuse for a "man". You're evidently so insecure about what you believe that your only able to vomit incoherent expletives that lower the IQ of anyone unfortunate enough to read your posts. Goddamn Jrod, you've taken irony and projection to unseen levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
polymathy posted:The reason that the Labor Theory of Value is bullshit is that it claims that the value of a good can be measured by the amount of labor put into producing it. But this is obvious not true. These are some good points honestly! If only Marx had thought of them and made them against Ricardo and accounted for them in his version of the LTV that appeared in Capital, then we wouldn't be in this mess! Hypothetically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Jrod, if you want people to stop talking about how your sources are terrible then stop using them. We want to debate you, we don't want to debate a bunch of old white guys. Stop replying to those tweets, stop citing them, and just talk about what you believe, because we honestly don't know. You always just come in here and say "what do you guys think about X?" Then when people respond, you say that some random person disagrees with them, we dig into it and find out they're terrible, you say they're not, and it all just goes in circles and gets nowhere. Let's skip all that. Make a detailed proposition, in your own words. About anything. What should the government do about healthcare? What's the best approach to solving the opioid crisis? Anything. If you can make a positive proposition for yourself I can guarantee that people will debate that in good faith. Please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
polymathy posted:...he derisively characterized sodomy laws as "ridiculous", but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. This is actually fascinating- you're taking his words as exactly what were stated and believing him whole-heartedly. Jrod, I want you to imagine that the exact same words were said by someone you don't trust. Would you believe the explanation? Or would you look at the action being taken and give that greater weight? I wonder what Paul has done to earn this unshakeable loyalty and what he would need to do to lose it. I suspect that this is simply an illogical deference, though, as shown by how you refuse to engage in any criticism of him whatsoever. Also, please respond to this: Are workers responsible for a company's profits, or are they not? If not, what mechanism of a company is responsible for its profits? Can you start a company with only that mechanism and no workers? Somfin fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
polymathy posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
polymathy posted:The idea that Ron Paul is anti-gay is just bullshit. Speaking on gay marriage in his book Liberty Defined: I'll bite. Hey JRod! Who is capable of "consent"? Can you think of any situations in which consent may be "given" but not recognised by the wider community? Are there any limits to when people can and cannot consent to something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I actually agree with this completely. You can make this point without restoring to telling lies like 'well Hitler was almost done killing people anyway so the Allies didn't save any lives'. You can criticize the Allies for their motives and criticize war propaganda without spreading Nazi propaganda. He didn't say "Hitler was almost done killing people", he said "Virtually no Jews were saved by the war." You've conveniently ignored the second part of his point which criticized Franklin Roosevelt for refusing to allow the German Jews to come to the United States during the 1930s. Why would Nazi propaganda include harsh condemnations of anti-Semitism? Hornberger, unlike some right-libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe, is in favor of radical open borders. He wants completely open and free immigration and he doesn't care about changing demographics or anything like that. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He didn't have to kill them, he just wanted them gone. If the United States had offered full asylum for all German Jews during the 1930s, the Holocaust might have been avoided. At the very least, the harm could have been greatly diminished. I think Hornberger's point is that the narrative that the United States was nobly fighting against anti-Semitism came only after the war and was not a motivating factor for the people waging the war at the time. As he points out, anti-Semitism was rampant within the United States as well. Hornberger cites the Voyage of the Damned which the story of the "SS St. Louis, the ill-fated ship full of Jews who fled Nazi Germany only to be turned away from Cuba and the United States and returned to Germany and their likely death." https://www.aish.com/ho/p/Survivor-of-the-Voyage-of-the-Damned.html Jacob Hornberger's points are very well cited and perfectly defensible. Especially if you "agree completely" with my assessment of how propaganda surrounding World War 2 has paved the way for American Imperialism and aggressive war in our current age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
polymathy posted:Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He didn't have to kill them, he just wanted them gone. Oh goody, we're into this part of the Jrod crybaby meltdown timeline. And so quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 02:15
|
|