|
No wait! I actually have a different favourite! When it turned out HHH was inviting literal white supremacists to his events, and he went "...uh, but, well, what if he's just hosting a symposium for controversy, did- did you ever think of that?!" *looks rapidly from left to right, desperately attempts to maintain bladder comtrol*
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
drat, this thread gets weird when I open a bunch of tabs, don't pay attention to which thread is which, and think you're talking about Hunter Hearst Helmsley. Who once did an incredibly racist storyline, by the way...
Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:drat, this thread gets weird when I open a bunch of tabs, don't pay attention to which thread is which, and think you're talking about Hunter Hearst Helmsley. Who once did an incredibly racist storyline, by the way... People like...You *looks up and down at Jrode* don't get to argue in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/686926711737421825[/url] His elaboration on that stupid statement is even worse: quote:Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) launched a broad critique of President Obama’s economic record hours before the president delivers his final State of the Union address. So, the president doesn't deserve credit for the economic growth, as the fed is responsible for that, but in addition to economic growth, the fed is also killing economic growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
And that economic growth is itself bad, because it came from
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Pictured: the Federal Reserve
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Jrod, and many other people, have a twisted view of governments, where everything is done by powerful, shapeless enemies. Governments are basically just a bunch of regular rear end people hired to do a variety of different types of jobs. Those people sometimes work for the government for a long time, some only a short time. Some people move from the private sector to the public sector, or vice versa. Some people transition like that several times in their careers. Most people don't think there is anything really that special about it! It's just another job, after all. It also doesn't help that there are certain jobs that are extremely useful but literally wouldn't exist if it weren't for a government. The other thing I like to throw in the face of libertarians is stuff like libraries or operas. These are things that operate at a loss pretty much by default but are, you know, kind of nice to have around. They justify their existence but tend to rely on funding. Charity is fickle at best so they tend to get government money. The libertarian view is that the only way something justifies its existence is that if you put money in more money comes out the other end. You don't dump money into the funnel labelled "library" to get more money out you do it to get libraries out. Science is probably the biggest one; corporate science is only interested in profitable things but those profitable advances are heavily based on public advances made by institutions that the government dumps money in because science comes out of them. You can't even really quantify science, either. Sometimes "well we tested this theory and it turned out to be wrong" is extremely valuable but you can't tell that to libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:If only individuals can own property, we must ban corporations and destroy capitalism in the name of property rights. Corporations are ultimately owned by individuals. This seems so obvious I don't know if trolling. Or do you mean to suggest they are nebulous entities that in fact own people? Or run people? Or run themselves while owning people? The founding principles of libertarianism are based on the notion of individual rights. An individual can choose to join up with others and can even choose to curtail their own liberty for the sake of union. It's based on basic biology. You are quite literally an individual. You can not be further subdivided, nor can you link that which we call a consciousness, or your life in general, with another person. So any form of government must necessarily involve the participation of individuals. The "libertarian" notion of governance through mutual consent is not really new. It was the basic argument for the justification of the British government, and all "just" governments by John Locke about 350 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod had a helpful metaphor to explain Lincoln's tyranny to. According to him (paraphrasing), "Imagine you live in a large apartment complex, and a few of your fellow tenets committed a crime. All of a sudden a million SWAT teams show up and are going to arrest the entire apartment complex for the crimes of just a few residents! Wouldn't those people who hadn't committed a crime be justified in defending themselves?" I mean that's a pretty good example of the issue with nation states, whereby the state has a bad habit of deciding the nature of the nation. But "ban all states" is kind of a silly idea and so doesn't really solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The thought there is that if you invent something but somebody else can make it more cheaply they deserve to be the one making it. I have found the topic of intellectual property to be very difficult. It is a rather common idea among libertarians (and Communists among others) that nobody should have government protected intellectual property rights. It isn't about "deserving" to make something per se, rather that if one can remake what someone else has made, how can you say it is not also theirs? Ultimately intellectual property comes down to parsing what is original and what is a copy. The vast majority of inventions are derived from previous inventions. Often only minor changes or effort produce something new and useful. In a way, nobody can ever actually exactly steal what someone has invented, they can however reproduce it from their understanding of the parameters. I don't think intellectual property is about giving credit, but purely about giving the inventor a chance to make money from their idea. That's where the problem with someone being able to do it cheaper comes in. Certainly there probably isn't anything today that a small startup of people can make, that a big company can't do faster and more efficiently, once the initial creative phase is complete. I would bet, like a lot of concepts around owning property, it's somewhat arbitrary. In that regard the libertarian against intellectual property would argue, if the application is admittedly arbitrary, and really exists not out of preserving some right but to give someone a chance to make money, which in itself is an odd task for government to take upon itself, then why not just default to more liberty, and do away with intellectual property restrictions? Because while we call them "rights" the effective outcome is using government force or coercion to stop people from doing something they were otherwise capable of doing. I like intellectual property as a concept. More of a deference and respect to the creativity of humans. In a way disregarding the hard work and intellectual aspects of innovation seem so utilitarian and blunt. A morally abject pursuit of materials. It's why I've bought original items from inventors, even though other companies might make a substantially less expensive, yet very similar product. In deference to the innovator, I paid more money. Free will, voting with my wallet. The only democracy that actually works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:In a way, nobody can ever actually exactly steal what someone has invented, they can however reproduce it from their understanding of the parameters. quote:why not just default to more liberty, and do away with intellectual property restrictions? The aggregate result of "no centralized supervision; everyone is free to graze their livestock on common land" is the tragedy of the commons. The aggregate result of "no legal protections for intellectual property" is either "everyone jealously guards their creations and refuses to share them except under onerous conditions (e.g. every concert-goer must submit to a cavity search for concealed recording devices)" or "nobody creates anything independently because they know it will just be stolen; innovation occurs only within massive vertically-integrated corporations which can crush rivals." quote:I like intellectual property as a concept. ... It's why I've bought original items from inventors, even though other companies might make a substantially less expensive, yet very similar product. Also - your behaviour is economically irrational:
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
IP is a crude and flawed, but arguably understandable method of trying to make invention practical. Or to make high up-front, low per-unit cost manufacturing viable. It's not a great thing because it relies on artificial scarcity to work, on withholding something you can make very easily because you want to make money off it. In some ways that's justifiable because you might be indebted because the initial creation of the thing you're selling was very expensive and now you need to sell a lot of it to make that money back. The problem arises after you've passed that point and you can still use your IP to keep artificially inflating the cost of something just to make profit off it. In some ways the expiry of patents is a good way to counter that, you get so long to make money off a thing and then it's fair game. It's not perfect but if you didn't have IP at all you'd need a major restructuring of how the economy works in order for a lot of things dependent on it to be viable. Such as complete state ownership of industry, perhaps 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
wait, sorry off topic a bit but Did Payl Ryan just say that Obama gave us trickle down economics and that's bad? Wasn't this rear end in a top hat jacking off Reagan's ghost all through his campaign last cycle? Did no reporter call him on that?!? What a transparent rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:wait, sorry off topic a bit but Did Payl Ryan just say that Obama gave us trickle down economics and that's bad? That's been a major GOP strategy for like...ever. Do something then complain nonstop about the Democrats doing it, even if they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Corporations are ultimately owned by individuals. This seems so obvious I don't know if trolling. Or do you mean to suggest they are nebulous entities that in fact own people? Or run people? Or run themselves while owning people? In the Property Rights thread, I forget if it was jrode himself, or Caros digging up various Libertarian "scholars"; but the Libertarian idea of corporations and partnerships is kinda hosed as well. In order to be a partner or part owner in a business, you can't simply "buy-in". You must actually provide/own some distinguishable, identifiable, physical non-liquid positive asset to the company. As in, I don't own 0.1% of General Motors shares, I own welding robot #AZ009-Q52 on lane 3 at station 67R in the Parma Heights (Cleveland) Engine Manufacturing plant, and that's what makes me a part-owner of the company. After all, corporations are legal constructs created by the State, and if corporations are keeping us down it's because the State created an atmosphere that forces the poor beleaguered CEOs to unwillingly oppress us, instead of setting us free in glorious laize-faire capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:wait, sorry off topic a bit but Did Payl Ryan just say that Obama gave us trickle down economics and that's bad? Romney actually started using the term "trickle-down government" during the election. That seems to be the new game plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Romney actually started using the term "trickle-down government" during the election. That seems to be the new game plan. What, as in, the 1% have all the government and get governed super hard, while the rest of us only get governed a little bit when it suits the interests of the 1%?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:In the Property Rights thread, I forget if it was jrode himself, or Caros digging up various Libertarian "scholars"; but the Libertarian idea of corporations and partnerships is kinda hosed as well. In order to be a partner or part owner in a business, you can't simply "buy-in". You must actually provide/own some distinguishable, identifiable, physical non-liquid positive asset to the company. As in, I don't own 0.1% of General Motors shares, I own welding robot #AZ009-Q52 on lane 3 at station 67R in the Parma Heights (Cleveland) Engine Manufacturing plant, and that's what makes me a part-owner of the company. Sooooooooo the libertarian ideal is to take something that's simple and works and make it needlessly complicated. Stocks and equity might not be perfect but they're simple and that's why they work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Sooooooooo the libertarian ideal is to take something that's simple and works and make it needlessly complicated. They do generally have a problem with the concept of just owing people a favor. You can't use currency, you have to buy physical gold and physically trade it. You can't own shares, you have to physically own an object in the company. gently caress if I know why but it's somewhat consistent at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What, as in, the 1% have all the government and get governed super hard, while the rest of us only get governed a little bit when it suits the interests of the 1%? As in the government collects all the taxes, has all the monies, and we expect them having all this monies to just magically trickle down to the poorer folks. And by magically I mean through spending on social programs, infrastructure, grants, publicly owned companies, etc. You know, the things governments do all the time. The things corporations cannot do because there's no profit motive. The things that have evidence to suggest they actually work, unlike Reaganomics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They do generally have a problem with the concept of just owing people a favor. I wonder how libertarians would respond to learning about cultures based on gift-giving where it's considered the height of bad manners to actually square up your debt with somebody, instead you're supposed to always give back a smaller or bigger gift. Probably they'd want to invade
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Corporations are ultimately owned by individuals. This seems so obvious I don't know if trolling. Or do you mean to suggest they are nebulous entities that in fact own people? Or run people? Or run themselves while owning people? It's pretty easy to parse; if only individuals can own property, then a group of individuals or a legal entity that represents a group of individuals (a corporation) cannot own property. I am not sure which part of this is confusing you I mean it's ultimately idiotic, like all things associated with libertarianism, but the conclusion here is at least easy to reach
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:Corporations are ultimately owned by individuals. This seems so obvious I don't know if trolling. Or do you mean to suggest they are nebulous entities that in fact own people? Or run people? Or run themselves while owning people? You idiot, corporations can own property in their own right without it belonging to any individual person. An ExxonMobil oil rig belongs to the company, not any executive or shareholder. That is the basis of the joke, and yes it is a joke because this is something awful dot com and not some priggish high school debating society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:It's based on basic biology. You are quite literally an individual. You can not be further subdivided, nor can you link that which we call a consciousness, or your life in general, with another person. So any form of government must necessarily involve the participation of individuals. Though the naturalistic fallacy is very nice and comforting no doubt, I think rape and murder are bad even though basic biology drives primates to do it to propagate their genes and we should have laws against it even if we can't secure the voluntary agreement of every rapist and murderer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3745862&perpage=40&pagenumber=54#post455091612 Well, he's back. And, uh. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
^^^ A short recap: Jrod ignored all the previous debate and evidence thrown at him to show that free markets in healthcare and medicine are generally a bad idea, that mutual aid societies collapsed because they were an insufficient way of running things and also attacked Caros' reason for abandoning Libertarianism due to his friend's death from a relatively easily treatable form of brain cancer which she couldn't afford as him being traumatized and hysterically blaming the free market portions of the US healthcare system when OBVIOUSLY there's simply no reason to do that at all because Jrod did the first thing I mentioned in this horrible, mutated, run-on of a sentence. Also we found out he probably sells pirated blu-ray's of Hong Kong action films for a living and "Jrod, do you sell pirated HK kung-fu DVD's?" is at a serious risk of becoming the new "Jrod, have you ever hosed a watermelon?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
But what if...what if... WHAT IF HE FUCKS WATERMELONS WHILE HE PIRATES DVDS? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But what if...what if... This sounds like the new 'pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But what if...what if... God damnit you loving assholes! Knock this pirated DVD bullshit off. It's not funny and it's annoying as all hell. He bootlegs Blu-Rays, get it right! It's like saying he fucks cantaloupes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:God damnit you loving assholes! Knock this pirated DVD bullshit off. It's not funny and it's annoying as all hell. Well he never said he didn't gently caress cantaloupes sooooooo....
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well he never said he didn't gently caress cantaloupes sooooooo.... jrode, an equal opportunity melon fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:jrode, an equal opportunity melon fucker. Forced dick integration is immoral. If jrodefeld only wants to associate his dick with watermelons then that should be his choice. Do not violate the nap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Forced dick integration is immoral.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Caros posted:Forced dick integration is immoral. sally hemmings joke, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Hey Caros, sorry I got the details about you and your friend wrong. I just think it was a bit lovely and cold the way jrode went about his argument. I was in a bit of a snarky mood, typed up a long argument about how my mom is suffering from osteopenia because she couldn't afford the regular check ups, and how this is a thing every woman has to deal with, but not everyone can afford it. But then I kept deleting it, rewriting it, didn't want to come across as crass in light of your friend, then said gently caress it. I really only wanted to call jrode "jchode" and post that link to Beach, ND.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Hey Caros, sorry I got the details about you and your friend wrong. I just think it was a bit lovely and cold the way jrode went about his argument. I was in a bit of a snarky mood, typed up a long argument about how my mom is suffering from osteopenia because she couldn't afford the regular check ups, and how this is a thing every woman has to deal with, but not everyone can afford it. But then I kept deleting it, rewriting it, didn't want to come across as crass in light of your friend, then said gently caress it. I really only wanted to call jrode "jchode" and post that link to Beach, ND. Oh no problem at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Caros posted:Do not violate the nap. Hold up brb imma get my statist thugs together with some trashcan lids and whistles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Hey Caros, sorry I got the details about you and your friend wrong. I just think it was a bit lovely and cold the way jrode went about his argument. I was in a bit of a snarky mood, typed up a long argument about how my mom is suffering from osteopenia because she couldn't afford the regular check ups, and how this is a thing every woman has to deal with, but not everyone can afford it. But then I kept deleting it, rewriting it, didn't want to come across as crass in light of your friend, then said gently caress it. I really only wanted to call jrode "jchode" and post that link to Beach, ND. If it makes you feel any better, this is actually the 2nd time Jrod has used Caros' experience as a critique of his rejection of libertarianism. ... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:If it makes you feel any better, this is actually the 2nd time Jrod has used Caros' experience as a critique of his rejection of libertarianism. It is at least the third. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Yeah I think I'm bored with him too Caros. The only thing new he's revealed in this latest tantrum is that he misunderstands economic demand and elasticity at an even more fundamental level than I'd previously guessed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:08
|
|