|
Most libertarians would probably discard the enclosure problem as theorywanking and say it wouldn't happen in real life. They think money is thicker than spite. They are mistaken. So Mises.org had one of the dumbest articles I've seen from them: https://mises.org/wire/berlin-wall-doomed-economics posted:Let’s say the United States adopted the entirety of the socialist system — classical or modern. Would the richest economy in the world cease to exist overnight? No. Under the current structure, the US economy is about capital accumulation. However, were it to transition into the fantasies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), it would transform into a state of capital consumption, eating away at all its resources. Considering the United States has trillions of dollars in capital, it might take a long time for the Land of the Free to crumble to nothing. Does the author think that "capital" is a number that builds up over time, and then is used up? And all "capital" is fungible? A factory built in 1910 gives you a Capital Score of 10, and 110 years later, you spend those Capital Points to give some people cancer treatment? Also, wasn't one of the whole reasons for the Russian Revolution that they DIDN'T have vast amounts of capital, because they were still feudalist and only in the early years of their industrial revolution? Not to mention the war destroying a good chunk of what they did have?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Yeah the Russian Empire in 1918 was essentially a burned-down peasant country, but if lolberts actually knew anything about history they wouldn't be lolberts.
Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Nov 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:This would violate the NAP, so they'd use a McNuke in self defense. No, attempting to fight your way out of your enclosed house would be a violation of the NAP. And if enclosure is a violation of the NAP then I'll just surround half your property and then cartel up with someone else who can surround the other half, and we'll legitimately compete with each other to drive up the border crossing price because neither of us want to actually deal with someone stupid enough to get themselves enclosed. Any attempt to break through the increasingly fortified boundary walls will constitute a violation of the NAP and will be met with maximum defensive force, and once the land is no longer owned due to the owner being dead, my friend and I will divide it cleanly down the middle. By which I mean, of course, we'll both attempt to take the whole thing and Can anyone explain how DRO competition was meant to work? Because I still can't logic a way out of the 100% saturation Valhalla DRO scenario. America right loving now is in the grip of multiple functionally-monopolistic cartels; why do they think that behaviour would stop with less oversight?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
when libertarians talk about DROs they assume that protection as an industry will simply be a normal industry, important to your life in the same way that the healthcare industry is, but not capable of actual explicit control or asserting power via having the guns. why would society have to listen to all of the armed bands running around, it's not like they're going to violate the NAP or anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:when libertarians talk about DROs they assume that protection as an industry will simply be a normal industry, important to your life in the same way that the healthcare industry is, but not capable of actual explicit control or asserting power via having the guns. why would society have to listen to all of the armed bands running around, it's not like they're going to violate the NAP or anything Have none of these fuckers heard of the prisoner's dilemma
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Have none of these fuckers heard of the prisoner's dilemma They know it, they're just so supremely confident they'll be the only ones to slam the 'betray' button. Then you have a group of libertarians pressing the button nonstop while complaining about everyone else doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Without defining what "legitimate" means. I think it's something to do with loving the ground?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Can anyone explain how DRO competition was meant to work? Because I still can't logic a way out of the 100% saturation Valhalla DRO scenario. America right loving now is in the grip of multiple functionally-monopolistic cartels; why do they think that behaviour would stop with less oversight? Less capitalism is extremely forbidden, but things are quite obviously all hosed up right now, so keeping the same amount of capitalism is untenable. And so, more capitalism is the only answer! Ｔｈｅｒｅ Ｉｓ Ｎｏ Ａｌｔｅｒｎａｔｉｖｅ
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:They know it, they're just so supremely confident they'll be the only ones to slam the 'betray' button. Then you have a group of libertarians pressing the button nonstop while complaining about everyone else doing the same. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:The last time I managed to bring one to answer, they said that there is no need to answer the question unless the hypothetical brings proof that the owner of the enclosure is a "legitimate" owner. Without defining what "legitimate" means. I'm genuinely confused here, is the rear end in a top hat libertarian asking for ownership proof from the guy outside or from the guy inside? gently caress me  , he heard enclosure, he automatically made a connection to native Americans and that triggered the "not legitimate owner" Pavlovian response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
I think the standard libertarian stance is that if you get exploited, it's your fault for being so exploitable and if you were smart that wouldn't've happened.Zanzibar Ham posted:They know it, they're just so supremely confident they'll be the only ones to slam the 'betray' button. Then you have a group of libertarians pressing the button nonstop while complaining about everyone else doing the same. Nah, it's even weirder, because in theory the prisoner's dilemma should be the biggest force preventing a group of equal individuals from becoming unequal through some of them joining forces to gang up on another, but cooperation screws up the calculations of the "ideal" libertarian state. VitalSigns posted:I'm not really sure why we should care that our voting system doesn't have monotonicity really, especially when the current system is not only non-monotonic itself but also elects the candidate most hated by the majority of the electorate constantly In the short term it doesn't matter, since any change is an improvement. In the long term, (or in the places that already have one of these fancy alternative voting systems) any imperfect voting system will gradually build up inequities along the weird edge cases. So ideally you'd have all these almost-perfect voting systems on a random rotation so no power can get too entrenched along a less-fair basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think the standard libertarian stance is that if you get exploited, it's your fault for being so exploitable and if you were smart that wouldn't've happened. They also tend to fall back on the "well no ~*rational actor*~ would exploit their neighbors/customers/employees/entire ethnic minorities because then they would end up with a bad reputation and nobody would want to buy from them/work for them and they themselves would suffer!" argument. Despite, you know, all of recorded history as usual.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Also "it's not exploitation if you agreed to it, why would you agree to something bad for you"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:They also tend to fall back on the "well no ~*rational actor*~ would exploit their neighbors/customers/employees/entire ethnic minorities because then they would end up with a bad reputation and nobody would want to buy from them/work for them and they themselves would suffer!" argument. Despite, you know, all of recorded history as usual. * does not apply if it's the libertarian being boycotted because they earned a bad reputation - that's SJW fascism
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think the standard libertarian stance is that if you get exploited, it's your fault for being so exploitable and if you were smart that wouldn't've happened. You forget the addendum that each libertarian silently adds 'except for me, if I get exploited it's everyone else's fault but me'
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:You forget the addendum that each libertarian silently adds 'except for me, if I get exploited it's everyone else's fault but me' We all know that at its core, libertarianism is functionally indistinguishable from sociopathy. In so far as it even is an ideology, it boils down to nothing deeper than "I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but nobody else is allowed to do anything that I don't like."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:I think it's something to do with loving the ground? It's called "mixing your labor with the land".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
divabot posted:* does not apply if it's the libertarian being boycotted because they earned a bad reputation - that's SJW fascism That's redundant, because boycotts only really work with mass coordination which goes against libertarian rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Unless youre a woman. Jrod is As a tran, I still deeply, truly, want to know his opinions on giving kids puberty blockers
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
divabot posted:* does not apply if it's the libertarian being boycotted because they earned** a bad reputation - that's SJW fascism ** this is entirely hypothetical because true libertarians will never gain a bad reputation*** and any suggestion otherwise is statist lies *** no libertarian has ever been racist and one day Ron Paul will reward me for my diligent defence of his magnificence and the shrine isn't weird mom
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:As a tran, I still deeply, truly, want to know his opinions on giving kids puberty blockers His refusal to answer makes me assume he's got a super gross ultraconservative opinion that's also statist as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:As a tran, I still deeply, truly, want to know his opinions on giving kids puberty blockers He believes that children are property of their parents, so he probably leaves it up to whatever the parents want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Feinne posted:His refusal to answer makes me assume he's got a super gross ultraconservative opinion that's also statist as hell. Who What Now posted:He believes that children are property of their parents, so he probably leaves it up to whatever the parents want. Nah, it's shallower than that- he doesn't think that "prescription" or "giving" should be a thing at all, the idea of qualified doctors should be market-driven, and all pharmaceutical manufacture should be deregulated to the point where a given pill even being a "puberty blocker" is buyer beware, both in terms of the pill itself (hope it wasn't too expensive to get the materials, no-one's checking) and the doctor's ability to understand prescribing it (he's your DRO's chosen doctor, all others were unpersoned).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Nah, it's shallower than that- he doesn't think that "prescription" or "giving" should be a thing at all, the idea of qualified doctors should be market-driven, and all pharmaceutical manufacture should be deregulated to the point where a given pill even being a "puberty blocker" is buyer beware, both in terms of the pill itself (hope it wasn't too expensive to get the materials, no-one's checking) and the doctor's ability to understand prescribing it (he's your DRO's chosen doctor, all others were unpersoned). True in Jrodtopia your 'choice' of doctor is either a phrenologist or a Valhalla DRO war-shaman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:As a tran, I still deeply, truly, want to know his opinions on giving kids puberty blockers Is there a good resource for researching these? I'm personally not necessarily opposed to the idea, but the concept of manipulating hormones, especially at an age where a child is developing, worries me on a general level. I fully admit ignorance on the subject and would like to learn more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Is there a good resource for researching these? I'm personally not necessarily opposed to the idea, but the concept of manipulating hormones, especially at an age where a child is developing, worries me on a general level. I fully admit ignorance on the subject and would like to learn more. One aspect of 'em, which is important to keep in mind, is that restricting puberty blockers is also "manipulating hormones;" it's forcing the person to undergo the process caused by the hormones that their body naturally produces during puberty. "Natural" is not "good" or "better."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Is there a good resource for researching these? I'm personally not necessarily opposed to the idea, but the concept of manipulating hormones, especially at an age where a child is developing, worries me on a general level. I fully admit ignorance on the subject and would like to learn more. All puberty blockers do is delay puberty. Once you stop taking them you either go through puberty using the hormones your body naturally produces or start HRT, depending on what informed decision you make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:All puberty blockers do is delay puberty. Once you stop taking them you either go through puberty using the hormones your body naturally produces or start HRT, depending on what informed decision you make. Fair enough. Are there any differences to, say, height or growth in other areas as a consequence of delaying puberty? Somfin posted:One aspect of 'em, which is important to keep in mind, is that restricting puberty blockers is also "manipulating hormones;" it's forcing the person to undergo the process caused by the hormones that their body naturally produces during puberty. "Natural" is not "good" or "better." I would put it more on the "side effects" or "unintended consequences" as my concerns, as well as concerns in general with taking medications. Again, I profess my ignorance and my desire to learn; if they are an effective and safe thing to use with minimal consequences, then I have no objections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Is there a good resource for researching these? I'm personally not necessarily opposed to the idea, but the concept of manipulating hormones, especially at an age where a child is developing, worries me on a general level. I fully admit ignorance on the subject and would like to learn more. You're not manipulating anything, you're delaying puberty. If the kid goes "ehhh no I'm not trans" they stop taking them and puberty resumes. If they don't decide that, it makes transition easier because you've never developed your secondary sex characteristics like you would have in your teens. It's dead rear end the correct thing to do if a kid figures poo poo out, or thinks they do, before puberty gets going
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:. If they decide to transition later in life, at least mtf, they'll end up taking them anyway as part of HRT
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Given the main opposition is just people who think that parents should be making the decisions for their kid, I would be inclined to suggest that children are, perhaps with professional guidance, more capable of expressing their own desires relating to their own health than are their parents. Like the core of the argument is that kids can't know they're trans but their parents definitely can, which, uh, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I would put it more on the "side effects" or "unintended consequences" as my concerns, as well as concerns in general with taking medications. Worries about those issues are indeed valid, but no more so than any other medication that's already been tested and passed by the FDA and is being administered with careful guidance. Like, these are normal-rear end fuckin' drugs and they're being administered like normal-rear end fuckin' drugs, do you express similar doubts about antibiotics or antipsychotics or electroconvulsive therapy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:If they decide to transition later in life, at least mtf, they'll end up taking them anyway as part of HRT And then going through puberty. Again. Which is how the trans-people I know who's gone through the process describes it. Bottom line is, if the kid is clear on the matter that they don't feel like the body they're born with matches up with the gender they perceive themselves as, puberty-blockers is entirely justifiable and - I would argue - the only moral choice; It leaves the decision entirely in their hands, and gives them time to consider carefully. If they decide, after due consideration, all that they're okay with the body they have, then they have lost nothing and no harm has been done. On the other hand, if they are denied blockers and are forced to go through puberty into a body they cannot accept, you've inflicted tremendous psychological suffering on them, even if they go through HRT later. People are far to quick to dismiss a child's perceptions of themselves and their own identity as "childish enthusiasms" and the like. Now, I can only speak to my own experiences, but no matter what, from the moment I became aware of the differences between the sexes, I have had an absolute, bedrock understanding of myself as male, as far back as I can remember. First in the crude, simple context of biology, but increasingly in a cultural context too. By the time I was in kindergarten, my perception of myself as fundamentally male had settled and solidified, even when my imagination would turn me into a space pirate or dragon or firefighter or what have you. A child of 8 or 9 simply will not "simply decide" to "become" a girl or "become" a boy ( or the many shades and variations between ); At that point, they're still worried about cooties, for gods sakes! Those who speak up at that young age are boys, and they are girls ( or shades and... you get it ), with a body that doesn't match their perception of themselves. To put them through puberty that will change their bodies into something that's entirely alien to them is torture. No more, no less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Given the main opposition is just people who think that parents should be making the decisions for their kid, I would be inclined to suggest that children are, perhaps with professional guidance, more capable of expressing their own desires relating to their own health than are their parents. For a fun time, look up Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, i.e. conservative/terfy parents ignoring their kid's dysphoria until they can no longer deny it, and then claiming it appeared SUDDENLY and there were NO SIGNS and the SJWs are ATTACKING ME AND MY FAMILY VALUES through my poor impressionable YOUNGER-GENERATION CHILD with GENDER-CONFUSING PROPAGANDA and PEER PRESSURING THEM INTO BELIEVING TRANS PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE etc etc etc (ETC) It's bad But you can disparagingly pronounce it "rogdy" so that's something
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And then going through puberty. Again. Which is how the trans-people I know who's gone through the . This was the warning I got when I started yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Grace Baiting posted:For a fun time, look up Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, i.e. conservative/terfy parents ignoring their kid's dysphoria until they can no longer deny it, and then claiming it appeared SUDDENLY and there were NO SIGNS and the SJWs are ATTACKING ME AND MY FAMILY VALUES through my poor impressionable YOUNGER-GENERATION CHILD with GENDER-CONFUSING PROPAGANDA and PEER PRESSURING THEM INTO BELIEVING TRANS PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE etc etc etc Add to this the fact that we often put some active effort into hiding those signs (potentially even from ourselves) until it makes our lives unbearably toxic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Worries about those issues are indeed valid, but no more so than any other medication that's already been tested and passed by the FDA and is being administered with careful guidance. Yes. I've had drugs with poor side effects in the past and am familiar with drugs that have long term problematic issues, especially with respect to organ damage. I am glad to hear that these are relatively safe drugs to administer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Nah, I just don't fight women. That's all. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
If you don't have any particular attachment to being gendered as whatever you are, and could see yourself being the other gender, but don't actually do it and generally just act like any other cis person, are you gender neutral / fluid or do you just have a weak sense of gender's importance? This seems pretty normal for me and my peers: just general apathy towards gender identity. E: fwiw when I have a choice of gender (eg games) I tend to go female or whatever is closest to androgynous, but fat chance of doing that in real life cause I'm not beautiful enough Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 13:16
|
|
