|
HootTheOwl posted:What is stopping me from just making a second NFT and claiming your first one was a fake? ... Stopping you? That doesn't sound very free market, friend.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Limited edition series of 1000 individually numbered NFTs representing the signature of the artist on the original work, which had previously only been available as a meticulously hand crafted masterpiece, a timeless representative piece of which can now be yours for the low low price of 5 tonnes of co2
VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
keep in mind that the NFT is just the receipt for the art, stapled to all the other receipts for all the other art. it doesn't store or distribute the art or really add any other value other than proclaiming that user 1295812589-A1295X owns the art at amazonwebservices.com/art/awopeit2u38t9023tjqwrk1k.jpg
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
hooman posted:Sorry, Dow Chemical <Your Town> LLC shut down years ago and as a result no longer exists and has no assets so even with your judgement against them they cannot pay any liability. All those profits and assets that were passed to Dow Chemical <Other Country> well, it's hardly THEIR fault you got poisoned, that was all the work of Dow Chemical <Your Town>. Fun fact, Du Pont literally did that in New Jersey when it was looking like they were finally going to face the music for a century of pollution. Spun off a new corporation that only owned a bunch of polluted sites, then merged the valuable assets with (of course) Dow. The funny twist in that case is that the sacrificial goat spin off immediately turned around and sued Du Pont for fraudulently creating them. Of course, because we live in libertarian hell, Du Pont was able to shunt the suit off into private arbitration, preventing all the juicy details from getting out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Fun fact, Du Pont literally did that in New Jersey when it was looking like they were finally going to face the music for a century of pollution. Spun off a new corporation that only owned a bunch of polluted sites, then merged the valuable assets with (of course) Dow. The funny twist in that case is that the sacrificial goat spin off immediately turned around and sued Du Pont for fraudulently creating them. Of course, because we live in libertarian hell, Du Pont was able to shunt the suit off into private arbitration, preventing all the juicy details from getting out. "No one chooses to be born, case dismissed."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:Fun fact, Du Pont literally did that in New Jersey when it was looking like they were finally going to face the music for a century of pollution. Spun off a new corporation that only owned a bunch of polluted sites, then merged the valuable assets with (of course) Dow. The funny twist in that case is that the sacrificial goat spin off immediately turned around and sued Du Pont for fraudulently creating them. Of course, because we live in libertarian hell, Du Pont was able to shunt the suit off into private arbitration, preventing all the juicy details from getting out. This sounds like the absurd Disney poo poo about how they're able to buy publishing rights but somehow not responsible for paying royalties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/reason/status/1375090856261079042?s=21
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
From the article posted:Although not a moderate in any meaningful sense, President Joe Biden has always positioned himself strategically at the center of his party. Nevertheless, his defeat of the party's left wing in the last presidential primary won't be the end of a populist insurgence I love how the author can argue three separate coherent points in two sentences (Biden is a radical leftist, Biden is protecting capitalism from the radical leftists, he's not doing enough to protect capitalism from radical leftists and they'll kill us all anyway) And not see the problem EDIT: Reading the article further, the writer asserts that several countries had economic downturns after raising wages and increasing taxes on the wealthy but I don't think she names any country in particular. Which makes me think she's afraid of easy rebuttals DarklyDreaming fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Mar 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:I love how the author can argue three separate coherent points in two sentences (Biden is a radical leftist, Biden is protecting capitalism from the radical leftists, he's not doing enough to protect capitalism from radical leftists and they'll kill us all anyway) And not see the problem What do they mean by “not a moderate”? That Biden is a radical leftist who hides by pretending to be a centrist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:What do they mean by “not a moderate”? That Biden is a radical leftist who hides by pretending to be a centrist? That the entire democratic party is a bunch of radical extremists, and thus that even though Biden is regarded as a moderate by the party all that means is that he's a moderate radical extremist. This is Reason: as far as they were concerned Joe Lieberman was a radical leftist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
lowercase-r reason posted:These taxes don't rake in the revenue or solve the supposed problem of inequality. For starters, wealth taxes aren't paid by rich people who reduce their consumption as a consequence. They reduce their investments, which reduces capital formation, which slows productivity and wage growth. In other words, wealth taxes may be originally paid by wealthy folks, but the economic burden falls heavily on workers. This is basically the trickle-down effect. It's also an argument that only the wealthy can create economic growth, so their wealth must be preserved at any cost. And it also so happens that in addition to the wealth tax, there's also measures to increase wages and put a lot of money out there to be invested that the article is strategically ignoring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Posting on the lucky page
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
My favorite response is that if it really hurt the poor, Reason would be for it
Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Taxing rich people would mean they could afford fewer servants, think of the poor!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:This is basically the trickle-down effect. It's also an argument that only the wealthy can create economic growth, so their wealth must be preserved at any cost. Weird how we need to be worried about a drop in consumption when we're talking about rich people having less money, yet don't need to consider an increase in consumption when we're talking about a minimum wage increase. Poor people, who have the highest MPC of any demographic, might buy more of the kinds of products that make it easier to get by, but that doesn't matter because rich people might not buy as many luxury cars or works of art
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Weird how we need to be worried about a drop in consumption when we're talking about rich people having less money, yet don't need to consider an increase in consumption when we're talking about a minimum wage increase. Why would a rich person ever buy anything expensive? That would make Number go Down and that is unacceptable. Maybe right before they die they donate a few million to some non-profit to name a building after them. The people who buy the most egregious crap are the petit bourgeoisie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Why would a rich person ever buy anything expensive? That would make Number go Down and that is unacceptable. Maybe right before they die they donate a few million to some non-profit to name a building after them. If you're a little bit rich, you spend all of your money proving how rich you are. If you're genuinely rich, you spend a little bit of your money to hide the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
here's another fun one from earlier today: https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1376263604584976388
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 08:59
|
|
|
That guy seems more Glenn Greenwald tankie-light type than libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:here's another fun one from earlier today: I know it's a cliche at this point, but they never really have read the authors they constantly cite, have they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
It would be funny to give them passages from the Theory of Moral Sentiments, or even the parts of the Wealth of Nations that talk about the need to put checks on the power of capital, and see who they think wrote it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I know it's a cliche at this point, but they never really have read the authors they constantly cite, have they? No. No they have not. At this point, I am reasonably certain that most libertarians are literate in the same way that parrots understand human language. And I might be doing parrots an immense disservice with that comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
If you put a mirror in front of a libertarian, they will argue at the reflection until they die of dehydration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I know it's a cliche at this point, but they never really have read the authors they constantly cite, have they? After reading Wealth of Nations and posting the most interesting parts in this very thread, I'm confident that libertarians and other free market worshippers would ignore or cast out Adam Smith if he came back. And call him a Marxist communist on top of it. Much like that image of White Republican Jesus vs actual Jesus
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Yeah I think Ben Norton is lovely leftist not Libertarian, but the tweet is a good callback to the cargo culting of a secondhand and bad interpretation of Adam Smith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:No. No they have not. Some parrots can actually get quite far into knowing English! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) E: There's a bit in there about Alex being one of the first animals to ever ask questions, which puts him well above actual libertarians, who know questions only as rhetorical devices through which they can make statements. Somfin fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Y'know I'm also curious what a libertarian response would be to an emergency. Relief workers saying that by allowing them to enter and accepting their aid they are agreeing to transfer money to their accounts, and if you don't accept you're going to be left to possibly die? I already know we'd see necessities fly up in price so only the wealthy could buy them, and the rest of us would all just starve. (this was also just my attempt to post on the lucky page)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Y'know I'm also curious what a libertarian response would be to an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And I might be doing parrots an immense disservice with that comparison. We forgive you. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Want your day to improve? Watch this: https://twitter.com/HeyItsVadim/status/1376616181734461449 Deplatforming works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Y'know I'm also curious what a libertarian response would be to an emergency. an emergency like someone stealing four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins?? always “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:No. No they have not. Parrots can understand context, and use words, phrases or responses appropriately. And they can and do learn from experience. Everything this thread has shown me about libertarians has taught me that they absolutely do not learn from anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Some parrots can actually get quite far into knowing English! tinytort posted:Parrots can understand context, and use words, phrases or responses appropriately. And they can and do learn from experience. ... And just like that, I've learned something, while at the same time standing hideously shamed for having downplayed the abilities of parrots. I apologize without reservation to any and all parrots - and, indeed, avians in general - for having intimated that they were in any way on the same level as libertarians, and humbly ask pardon for this grievous error on my part. .
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 09:40
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:... And just like that, I've learned something, while at the same time standing hideously shamed for having downplayed the abilities of parrots. Speaking as a parrot who has learned both typing and sarcasm, you're all good
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 12:18
|
|
|
quote:Alex's death on 6 September 2007, at age 31, came as a surprise, as the average life span for a grey parrot in captivity is 45 years. His last words ("You be good, I love you. See you tomorrow.") were the same words that he would say every night when Pepperberg left the lab. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Y'know I'm also curious what a libertarian response would be to an emergency. Depending on the libertarian, you'd probably get one of three answers: 1. You contract with a private company to be ready to provide emergency services. 2. Your friends and neighbors have a mutually agreed co-op where they voluntarily look out for one another in case of an emergency. 3. A local government can provide or regulate emergency services, but consent to payment/participation is not mandatory. 4. You die in an emergency. Now the issues with each one: 1. If the private company doesn't deliver on their promise, you die. If this happens, presumably your next of kin can sue, but if the company "goes bankrupt" they may not get anything - a very real possibility if there is a large-scale emergency breaking their available pool of resources. 2. This is okay in some ways, but if a person falls out of favor with their community, they're basically thrown into a survival of the fittest situation. For example, if your community admits a new member who lives next to you and decides he doesn't like you because of your race/religion/lawn ornaments/whatever, you may find the private roads to your house barricaded off if there is a fire or if you collapse on your lawn 3. I guess this pushes closest to left-libertarianism, and kind of supports my admiration of Buttigieg's health plan despite its inefficiency compared to a national health plan. Many libertarians would argue that utilizing the government, even if optional, would make them "Not True Libertarians". Regardless, the biggest drawback here is how participating/non-participating members act. Say I live in a dense area and don't have a fire plan, but my neighbor does. If they don't put out the fire at my house, it could spread to my neighbor's. Maybe they stand by with hoses ready in case it spreads to my neighbor's, otherwise let it burn my house down and hope it smoulders out? Also, what if I'm non-participating and collapse on my lawn... does a coroner remove my body or would that get passed off as "Big government now comes onto our property to harvest our flesh"? 4. This one speaks for itself. If they're seriously pushing this position, they're either just trolling or view themselves as some sort of invincible militia commando who can't get sick, can tackle any emergency and can fight off any person or group who tries to take their property in an anarchist world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
Wasn't the texan response to that snowstorm an almost ideal example of the libertarian emergency response? At least that is what I heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Wasn't the texan response to that snowstorm an almost ideal example of the libertarian emergency response? At least that is what I heard. Parts of it, yes, although it's hard to make such a sweeping characterization of such a large state's reaction. There was this, though, where the utility commission argued that actually, prices weren't too high, they weren't high enough: S&P quoting Texas Public Utility Commission posted:"At various times today (Feb. 15), energy prices across the system have been as low as approximately $1,200[/MWh]," the order states. "The Commission believes this outcome is inconsistent with the fundamental design of the ERCOT market. Energy prices should reflect scarcity of the supply. If customer load is being shed, scarcity is at its maximum, and the market price for the energy needed to serve that load should also be at its highest." That said, as I understand it, this order stood for less than a day before they rescinded it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Caros posted:Want your day to improve? Watch this: "I'm not bitter." *is visibly bitter*
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 19:02
|
|