|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! We'd still like to see what exactly these empirical studies actually say for ourselves. Do you even know what these studies even are or were to find them? Have you yourself actually read them, or are you just taking his word for it?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
There's more genetic and linguistic diversity in Africa than in the whole rest of the world combined. Races aren't a real thing, they're a social construction rooted in white supremacy. Any one who starts from a premise that you can use them as conceptual categories, either via an explication of biology or culture, as part of a study of human differences is a racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I honestly find the gold thing the most hilarious part. Who are you to tell me and the customers of Quantum Mechanic Banking Pty. Ltd. that they require anything but my word for the backing of my QMBux? I am a captain of industry and a man of good standing in my covenant, and my customers trust that I will always be able to back up my promises of payment! You would enforce some sort of collectivist diktat upon us and force me to back my promises up with gold? This Statist interference is strangling the Free Market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Austrians often end up defining inflation as an increase in the "money supply", so by definition printing money is "inflation" (even if it has no effect on prices). Why do they hate fractional reserve banking even if its actually free market (you can open and run your own full reserve bank if you really want)? Well it's "fraudulent", i.e. everybody is too dumb to know it happens and still thinks banks just store money in a big vault even though the mutuum contract has been around since the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You have the right, in this country, and in every nation where any semblance of private property rights, to expel, violently if necessary, black people from your home or private property. Is this racist? If you are expelling them from your home because they are black, then of course it is! But because a racist could not permit a black person, a Jew, or a Mexican to come to his dinner parties, does that mean we should force all home owners to admit anyone into their homes or private gatherings that we, as a society, would like? When you spend this much time and effort trying to dance around different definitions of racism in an effort to prove that you're not racist, then you're probably a racist. "When Ron Paul wrote that the negro is fleet-flooted, it was intended as a compliment! If that's a racist statement, then all compliments are racist!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
J-Rod I want you to understand that people are harping on the racism of your heroes not just because racism is morally wrong but because the claims they are making are totally unsubstantiated if not actually factually false and they are using them to fill in gaps in their theories, not just incidentally but centrally. For example, Triple H is using the inferiority of the friend of the family race as an explanation for why his theory that democracies are worse than monarchies is not irretrievably hosed. He might as well be patching gaps in his theories with appeals to astrology, like perhaps the Saudi monarchy is less free because it was founded when Jupiter was in the 8th house and the American democracy is more free because Venus was in retrograde during its founding, and if we simply founded all of our private monarchies under an auspicious position of the inner planets they would be freer than modern democracies. This is as factually substantiated as "time preference" or African IQ scores.
Tezzor fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:When you spend this much time and effort trying to dance around different definitions of racism in an effort to prove that you're not racist, then you're probably a racist. Let's expand on this point. Anyone who has to come up with more than one explanation for why a thing they said isn't racist might just have said something racist. Anyone who has to come up with more than one explanation for why someone isn't a racist person is probably defending a racist. If you spend more time in your thread about loving economic systems explaining why you and your heroes are not racist than you spend explaining your economic system, you and your heroes are probably racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The reason we're still harping on this, jrodefeld, is that through all of the threads you've started you've yet to demonstrate why and how a libertarian society would shun racism. Sure, "the state did it," but one reason that blacks in the south and in the inner cities have remained poor, is that plenty of private citizens have been racist too, in their hiring, renting, and selling practices. In fact I think we've suggested convincingly (see I'm arguing just like you now!) that in the absence of the state, racism would gain a whole variety of avenues through which it could be expressed. See, now this is a very reasonable concern. I appreciate this line of questioning, not just ad hominem Tourettes-like outbursts of "racism" and pointless name calling. Do you concede that peoples attitudes towards race have improved significantly over the past couple of decades? You might argue that this is because of laws against segregation but I think it has more to do with the free flow of communication and increasing tolerance that comes through more and better awareness of other cultures. I don't know anyone my age (20s) who is a racist. I think it is wrong to think that without the State, we will collectively revert to the 1950s South without these State regulations. I don't believe that would happen. Second, the free market tends to undermine racial attitudes. There was a reason why, as you noted, the State and the Law is needed to uphold segregation and Apartheid systems. The truth is that without this violence of the State, people would start to integrate on their own. Even a bigoted store owner would likely be hard pressed to resist taking the money of a black customer. Economic trade is beneficial to all parties and few are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they would discriminate even if it meant they would make far less money. I don't mean to continually return to the example of Donald Sterling but it is an example of how economics breaks down bigoted views. Sterling didn't like black people too much, but why didn't he fill his basketball team with all white players? Or if that was too obvious, why didn't he discriminate against black players more than he did? Obviously, he wanted to win and have a good basketball team far more than he wanted to remain "pure" to his racial beliefs. He therefore acquired the best basketball players he could, who happened to be mostly black. He hired a black coach because Doc Rivers was the most qualified by far. His desire for profits overpowered his racist "principles". I think this would be a common occurrence in a libertarian society. Those who remained racist would likely keep their views fairly quiet and they would continue to economically trade with people they secretly didn't much like. The most odious form of racism obviously involves violence and rights abuses. Since, as I have stated over and over, libertarianism stresses the right to self ownership and the non-aggression principle, this form of overt racism would be prohibited by law. There would be no legal shield to insulate racists and artificially uphold a racist social order. It is true that private property owners would still have the ability to refuse to permit anyone to trespass on their property, but I don't think you should underestimate the social punishment and stigma that would follow an overt racist. Donald Sterling couldn't even get away with saying something racist in the privacy of his living room without everyone publicly denouncing him and turning him into a social pariah. What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent store chain instituted an open racially discriminatory policy? Racism will still exist in any society would could construct. However, I believe that racists will have far less of an ability to oppress minorities under a libertarian society than in a State controlled society. The important aspect of racism is not some silly, irrational prejudice that is floating around someones mind, but rather that people in positions of power will have the ability and desire to actually do something to reduce the economic opportunity and ability for the oppressed minority to improve their material condition. For the reasons I've stated, economics will encourage people to trade with each other even if they don't like each other. And any overt violence against person or property would be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
It's not ad Hom if we can give you solid reasons why it applies Jr. There are a large amount of black players in the NBA, and most the best players are black. This will not be the case in most situations. Sterling is not a good example since it will be the outliner more than the norm. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:See, now this is a very reasonable concern. I appreciate this line of questioning, not just ad hominem Tourettes-like outbursts of "racism" and pointless name calling. Pretty tough to have a free flow of opinions with segregation enshrined in law isn't it jrodefeld? Are you saying that repealing those laws had no effect?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Every time the Sterling thing comes up, it reminds me of this front page article from a few months back.quote:During the viewing of professional basketball games, you could be caught on camera at any time. In order to communicate the normalcy of your special friendship to the world at large, it's important to look calm and confident with a man who probably qualified for several heart surgeries before your conception. While there may be difficulty in finding common ground, Mr. Sterling always enjoys discussing how much the NBA players in front of him could be sold for as human chattel, especially during draft season. http://www.somethingawful.com/news/donald-sterling-agreement/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent store chain instituted an open racially discriminatory policy? In a libertopia? No loving clue. You haven't explained why libertarianism will erase racism. In fact, without Government support and enforced integration, I suspect that a huge number of your libertopian enclaves will be far more racist than any community is able to be right now. If I state that on my property anyone with a skin tone darker than my tea is an object of property and mine to use as I wish, permanently, and I make that clear via posted warning signs, is it violence for me to enforce the rules of the property which I have stated, should a black person happen to be on my property?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent store chain instituted an open racially discriminatory policy? It's not racism, but 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent store chain instituted an open racially discriminatory policy? Chik-Fil-A. Duck Dynasty. Cliven Bundy. I think that some of your 'enclaves' would have absolutely no problem with that discriminatory policy. I'd venture to guess that somewhere between a quarter and a half of Americans would cheer on such a policy. If anything, your enclave-world would more aggressively protect racism, by insulating racists and their beliefs from external approbation and critique. (efb on chik-fil-a, dammit)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
What do you think the public outrage would be like if a prominent shoe manufacturer ran sweatshops?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:It's not racism, but I actually wouldn't use Chik-Fil-A because the people in charge crunched the numbers and realized that even though thousands showed up to buy their food one day they were actually losing money in the long run by alienating a lot of customers and announced that they weren't spending profits on anti-gay hate groups anymore. A better example would be the Football team the Washington Redskins. A name almost everyone agrees is a racial slur, the team's founder was hilariously and unquestionably racist, but not enough people could mount a boycott big enough to make the current owners even think of changing the name, and that's really the only power people have to stop poo poo like this from happening in a purely capitalist society
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There was a reason why, as you noted, the State and the Law is needed to uphold segregation and Apartheid systems. I didn't say this. I said that the state was involved in racial discrimination; I didn't say it was needed to perpetuate it. Many black people were denied a chance to gain a lasting source of intergenerational wealth simply because it was much harder for them to buy property, with no law on the books about it whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Pretty tough to have a free flow of opinions with segregation enshrined in law isn't it jrodefeld? Are you saying that repealing those laws had no effect? Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed. Segregation didn't end from popular opinion. It wasn't called the Crisis at Littlerock for nothing. These are the white supremacist roots we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
I am beginning to suspect that arguing with a libertarian is a waste of time you guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed. okay Jrod I want you to understand something. No bullshit no insults or anything like that. Yes, the State held up those laws at the time because of societal perceptions/demands. That is one of the purposes of the State. You will always have a State of some sort or another. It is impossible for any kind of society to exist without some kind of overarching governing influence. That changes the lower you go but there is always a central authority of some sort, no group has ever successfully managed without one. "The Government" as you seem to perceive it exists to try and uphold some kind of orderly society while at the same time placating that society's needs. At one point this was blatant and open racism, these days it is not. If anyone tried to implement the sort of governing body you were suggesting there would not be any nations of any form. All humanity would break down into a series of city-states built up around the majority population values of each city-state, governed by what I presume based on your statements thus far would be the wealthiest person or maybe persons. In effect, you would break all society down into a series of Barter Towns. Or are you proposing even greater breakdowns into more tribal/clannish structures? Because that would be the best you could hope for under the libertarian proposals that are actually enforced in any fashion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:It's not racism, but That is not remotely the same thing. The Chick fil a CEO said something against the idea of same sex marriage. You have to remember that the social conservatives that came out to support the company did so as a response to the controversy that already existed on the left and in mainstream America. Right wing radio hosts and commentators used this to stoke the "culture war" and promote an agenda. But there were plenty of people who heavily criticized the Chick fil a CEO also. There was a lot of outrage in the other direction. And it's not as if he did anything other than express his political opinion. He didn't refuse to serve gays.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed. How were these laws repealed, were they repealed by the individual states?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Libertarianism is funny since it heavily focuses on individualism but would require everyone to have the exact same principles, believes, and life experiences for it to work, essentially eliminating individualism. This. The major issue with libertarianism is that either everyone follows the "gentleman’s agreement" system or it completely fails and is abused. jrodefeld, I am asking you this with the hope of a serious answer but there are a few issues people have raised that I cannot find you supplying an answer for. I apologise in advance if you have, and if you'd quote your response to anything already answered, that would be appreciated. The keystone of libertarian society is that everyone must adhere to the gentleman’s agreement that jrodefeld has outlined, that people will not use force unless required to do so (i.e. self-defence) and will only do so in an amount that the situation would "require". A second failing is that when someone does (and will) transgress (either through violence or say, breaking an agreement/trade), how exactly can the transgressed party do anything about it at all? Now keep in mind, you no longer have a central authority. That's the very thing you're seeking to remove. Human nature will mean that some, probably a very large group, will not agree with the gentleman’s agreement on force that you seem to hold so close to your heart. People are violent, greedy and irrational. That's simple human nature. The only thing that stops a lot of people killing outright is the punishment they would receive from the state law. jrodefeld, you mention police a few times, but in a libertarian society where there is no state police, what police is there? A private police firm paid for by people wanting protection? How then does this not amount to a basic mercenary company, enforcing rule on others just as those horrible state police do today? What is to stop someone paying this force from invading and taking over others private property, and if they do so, how will others stop them? Buy hiring other security forces? And since one person cannot afford a decent sized private army of his own, what happens when a group of people start hiring/private security, a large enough group that then has more force than others and is able to enforce its will freely. Or, let’s say the security firm gets ideas of their own and starts charging people more for protection, essentially become a gang extorting money out of people in return for ensuring their "safety". How would anyone stop this? Form their own group? With what weapons, from where? With what assets or capital, since the security firm just took those from you. One thing libertarians like to put forward is that anyone who acts in an immoral or unethical manner would be "shunned", no one would trade with them. This is a third failing of libertarianism, because there will always be a market for someone, no matter what. Let's say you're a producer of goods, and James, a customer, offers to purchase/trade/barter for those goods. You come to an agreement; James takes delivery but then doesn't uphold his side of the agreement. This also ties back to the second failing I've mentioned. James now comes to me, a producer of goods myself, and makes me an offer at slightly more than the free market would suggest is the right price. Now, I know of James' previous dealings with you, but, since he's offering me a very good price, I HONESTLY DONT CARE. As long as he upholds his side of the agreement with me, why should I care if he doesn't with you, or anyone else? Now, maybe this time James still won't uphold the agreement (in which case we go back again to the second failing I've mentioned), or maybe I'll take precautions that ensure James upholds his side of the agreement, something like payment before delivery (which would also be open to abuse in the form of taking payment and not delivering). But, at the end of the day, why should I care about his dealings with you and, in not caring, why should I be restricted in whom I can trade with, based on your say so? That goes against the very core of your libertarian ideals. I should not be restricted in who I can trade with, because if I am, how is that a libertarian society? The fourth failing I'm going to mention now I brushed upon a little before, the concept of individuals forming groups. Now under a libertarian society, let's say I'm in the natural gas business. I have a meeting with other individuals in the same business as myself, and we come to an arrangement to act as a group, a cartel. We'll use our power as group as leverage against others in the business, buying out who we can to increase our holdings and boost our position against others in the market. Eventually, left unchecked, it would be very possible for us to secure the entire natural gas market. Now, your defence might be that someone, anyone could start in competition against us, but without our asset base and resources, how could anyone compete? How would it be feasible at all? And if it were, what is to stop us either buying them out, inviting them to join our cartel or forcing them out of the market? We could merely undercut their price for a time, as we would have more resources and last long in a price war, wait for them to fall over and just return to the previous price once again. And after we corner the natural gas market, why not corner the other energy markets too? We'd have the resources, after all. And there would be nothing to stop us. Well, nothing except other cartels, of course. What other defence would any other person have against a cartel, but to make one of their own? How else can you compete against a grouping of others? Now, the concept of cartels and of forming groups seems an alien concept to a lot of libertarians, but it is core to basic human nature. This is how we have been for thousands of years; we form communities and groups, giving up a little bit of our freedoms to gain a whole lot more. And this is an important concept to understand, that people WILL gladly give up some freedom if the gains, in their eyes, are enough. In modern society, we give up some freedoms for protection and prosperity. A single cell cannot achieve what an organised group of cells can, in the same way a single human cannot hope to achieve with a society of humans can. If Earth were populated with robots, each programmed to follow your concepts, yes, it might be a very interesting system that might work. But since we're all human and have different views, beliefs and morals (morality is completely different debate), it'll fall flat on its face and we'll have a world full of cartels and private armies running around ensuring the benefits of a few at the detriment of the whole. CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:This. The major issue with libertarianism is that either everyone follows the "gentleman’s agreement" system or it complete fails and is abused. I want to see a movie that's just The Invention of Lying, except it's set in a libertopia and it's about selfishness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed. Tell us why as a libertarian you worked for the city of santa barbara from 2006-2008
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Tell us why as a libertarian you worked for the city of santa barbara from 2006-2008 And then explain why you keep talking about your libertopia's justice system and police forces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course it had an effect! But the "law" is part of the State, which I am opposed to as a libertarian. But, according to libertarian property rights theory, people still have the right to exclude anyone they like from their private property. All the State laws that held up this segregation, Jim Crow laws, public school segregation and things of that nature should have been repealed and were repealed. So society is improving, but it's not improving according to your magic formula that has never worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
I'm going to take a break posting until tomorrow. When I return I am going to retire the whole "racism" thing. If you want to believe Rothbard and Hoppe are racists, fine. I can't convince you otherwise no matter how much evidence I provide. I've probably read more of their published work than any of you and, while there is plenty I disagree with, it is plain to see that both are absolutely not racists. But let's suppose they are. Does this mean that their theoretical economic work is invalid? Or Rothbard's historical work on the Great Depression? I doesn't even mean that a libertarian society would tolerate racists or racism. And I had already listed a great many more libertarians who have influenced me, including Stefan Molyneux, Scott Horton, Gary Chartier, Henry Hazlitt, Leonard Reed, Robert Nozick, Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, Frederic Bastiat and Lysander Spooner. Since these people hold policy positions that are very similar to those of Rothbard and Hoppe, and you cannot find any trace of controversial racial statements by these libertarians, how could you continue to claim that libertarianism is inextricably linked with racist views? Let's therefore put that issue to bed. But let's not forget that it was you all who brought up that issue, especially Caros. This easily derails a thread. Understandably, getting upset at being labeled a racist unjustly makes one want to rebut that accusation forcefully. I think the fact that this label riles people up is one of the primary reasons that people on the left love to use it against their enemies. It makes people upset and defensive, which I'm sure you take great pleasure in. I've engaged in discussions with people on different forums and SomethingAwful is frustrating. Am I the one and only libertarian that posts here? I don't mind discussions where I am the minority. As you can probably guess, I prefer it that way. But I'd prefer the ratio was a little more equal. I'd rather it be 10 against 1 rather than 100 against 1. People simultaneously criticize me for ignoring certain posts ("he only responds to the easy questions) and if I try to reply to everyone, I get banned and chastised for getting way behind and losing the discussion. When I return to posting on this thread, drop the talk about racism. I want to discuss other issues. If I mention some argument made by Hoppe and/or Rothbard, don't come back and say "but there racists". Take the argument on its merits. Calling someone a racist doesn't invalidate their argument. It's kind of embarrassing that some of you don't know that. I'll return to this thread shortly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:STUFF Please answer my questions, I have listed several failings of your philosophy and would love to hear your explanations for how I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:words Even if we ignore the racism stuff man, you've also got to deal with the mountain of us that have been picking apart the non-racial socioeconomic stuff like hungry chimps having a delicious termite lunch. There are so many nits for us to pick in this that were they actual food we would become tremendously fat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Jrod, I'mma put this simple for you. People think your heroes are racist because there's no difference between holding racist views, and supporting policies that would disenfranchise minorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to take a break posting until tomorrow. When I return I am going to retire the whole "racism" thing. If you want to believe Rothbard and Hoppe are racists, fine. I can't convince you otherwise no matter how much evidence I provide. I've probably read more of their published work than any of you and, while there is plenty I disagree with, it is plain to see that both are absolutely not racists. Yes, racism is bias and one of the many reasons for their work being invalid. Their work is toy work that has no academic recognition outside of the incestuous circles of libertarianism itself. This is not due to a conspiracy, it's because the academic wing of libertarianism is self-referential, navel-gazing, masturbatory and lacking all semblance of rigor. Libertarian academics who try to weave libertarianism into their work only get hired by joke programs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm leaving because I can't accept my racism or that of anyone I read Ah yes, "I win the argument and the argument is over because I can't actually convince you of anything because you're all big meanies." A better writer would have said "Let's agree to disagree." Instead you went the full nine yards and declared that your position was never even challenged and that we're all whiny losers. You've spent ten pages of this thread responding to nothing but the racism accusations, despite dozens of other questions being asked, and now you're saying that we're obsessed with racism. But anyway. How about you explain why you use the words "justice system" and "police" to describe a society in which neither exist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:We could merely undercut their price for a time, as we would have more resources and last long in a price war, wait for them to fall over and just return to the previous price once again. This exact scenario just played out pretty recently in the airline business. New airline begins a route between New York JFK and (I think) Guyana, in competition with Delta. Delta lowers its prices and waits, upstart goes out of business. Imagine if Delta could control the supply chain - if on top of their superior pricing power, they could keep the new airline from hiring flight crew, or leasing an aircraft. That's the sort of power monopolies and cartels can grow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
jrod perhaps begin by stating your definition of racism and comparing it with the one used by the people calling you a racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:jrod perhaps begin by stating your definition of racism and comparing it with the one used by the people calling you a racist. He already has, you have to literally believe they are inferior and state so. It's hilarious how naive it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:He already has, you have to literally believe they are inferior and state so. It's hilarious how naive it is. State it directly, in uncomplicated language, and without any actual metrics to back up your position. As long as you say that they have different fecundal temporality according to citable (but strangely uncited) studies, that's different than saying that they're too stupid to plan for the future, which means it's not racism. As long as you can point to a study that backs you up, you're right, and if you're right, you can't be racist. Incidentally, this is why libertarians are not racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:State it directly, in uncomplicated language, and without any actual metrics to back up your position. As long as you say that they have different fecundal temporality according to citable (but strangely uncited) studies, that's different than saying that they're too stupid to plan for the future, which means it's not racism. As long as you can point to a study that backs you up, you're right, and if you're right, you can't be racist. Incidentally, this is why libertarians are not racist. Hey sometimes short sightedness is okay. Like if you have to work for a living so you need to take a factory job. This is somehow still a preference and not what circumstances forced on you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm going to take a break posting until tomorrow. When I return I am going to retire the whole "racism" thing. If you want to believe Rothbard and Hoppe are racists, fine. I can't convince you otherwise no matter how much evidence I provide. You haven't provided any evidence showing otherwise you loving shitbag
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 04:27
|
|