|
Also apparently if one person owned 90% of the wealth in the world xwing's first thought is "how do I curry favor with this overlord" instead of cutting them open and taking out their golden eggs
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Before you say "I agree with the Pauls" I would take a very close look at their voting records. What they say is very, very different from what they do. They're hardcore "states have the right to criminalize being black" far right wing shitheads. In fact they're some of the farthest to the right politicians that America has ever seen. What they say sounds pretty great but based on their actions they give zero fucks about actual freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
xwing posted:Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. quote:A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What about in scenarios like Medicare, where they only have 2% overhead/waste compared to the potentially 20% overhead/profit of private insurance companies? Quoting this because I'm phone posting and trimming the post it quotes to just that would be onerous. Do you honestly believe that any person in government services has the ability to increase taxes, or even to affect their department's budget in any way? People have jobs they are required to do by their employment contract - the private/public nature of their employer doesn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Before you say "I agree with the Pauls" I would take a very close look at their voting records. What they say is very, very different from what they do. They're hardcore "states have the right to criminalize being black" far right wing shitheads. In fact they're some of the farthest to the right politicians that America has ever seen. So, they're libertarians, then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
xwing posted:First, I'll reiterate that I don't consider myself a Libertarian. I agree with Libertarians and the Libertarian Party in many instances though. I also make no apologies that this election cycle I'll be voting for Gary Johnson and the LP. I gave the Pauls as an example of what I find most analogous to my stances. That is not a 100% endorsement of their views... who can ever claim that anyway? It's a disingenuous argument to trot out every little random quote they've ever said that you don't agree with and pose it as a witch hunt question to me. I agree with Rand Paul more often than not and less so Ron. That's all. If others continue to post them and Rand specifically as "libertarian" I'm really going to roll my eyes and ignore it. Rand calls himself "libertarian-ish" which while terribly inelegant is good enough to convey the idea and where I feel I fit in the political spectrum. Is there some kind of manual for writing this kind of response? Because you're downright Rodefeldian here. "Well, gosh, I don't agree with them on everything" is all well and good, but the question is specifically "do you oppose the Civil Rights Act?" It does not bode well that you didn't address that! xwing posted:I obviously didn't convey it well, but I didn't mean that I have little sympathy for the poor. I was specifically in my mind calling out the people that whenever we talk immigration start getting irate that "Their taking American/my jobs!"... no, if we're having to import labor from somewhere, doesn't even have to be international it could be from other states, it means the locally unemployed are unwilling to work for the wage that is offered or unskilled for the job. Both of which are at least partially under their control. We can discuss why that happens and quibble of the solutions "until the cows come home", but my intention was not to imply some racist caste system enforced economically... if you pull that out of libertarian stances we're not going to get anywhere in discussion. I referenced a specific instance I deal with because I'm familiar with it. We don't have enough block layers locally. Millions in construction didn't happen because low supply has pretty much doubled the cost of block construction locally. Not only has the construction money not entered the local economy, but the money generated from the facilities was forgone too. I believe it does more good to have those jobs filled, even if just minimum wage, and the jobs done than saying we only hire americans at a "living wage" and the jobs don't get done with no one earning any wages. The reason we pull racist caste systems out of libertarian ideas is because libertarian thinkers repeatedly and near-uniformly advocate racist caste systems. As for the question of low-skilled jobs, the idea that anyone should be expected to work for less than a living wage is immoral. It's called a living wage because that's the wage it takes for that person to live. And the economy won't collapse if people get paid decently, the economy has collapsed because they aren't. The nightmare scenario where the capitalist class can't get anyone to work for cheap and just shrugs their shoulders and says "I guess we don't try to make money anymore" is just laughable. xwing posted:I do agree with the video that college is a great thing. Education is a key part of improving a society. I have had plenty of education myself... It however is not a right or mandate. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that we should always do it and the least intrusive means of making it happen is the government's job. We can argue over the details, but my default will always tend to be it's not the government's job and we can get things funded without reaching into collective pockets with taxes. I think the government is pretty lovely at spending our money because there's no incentive to do it well or under budget if they can just tax more. That last sentence is a common libertarian myth, and it's baffling that anyone believes it. Have you ever actually listened to political rhetoric in the US? Any discussion of budgets immediately come down to an obsession with rooting out wasteful spending that borders on paranoia, and the specter of anyone's taxes being raised any amount is enough to end political careers. The cost-effectiveness of Medicare is a great example of this: everyone wants to pay as little as possible, and everyone wants to keep costs as low as possible, so it absolutely eats private insurance's lunch at cost-effectiveness. Meanwhile, the "profit incentive" that's supposed to keep costs low in the private sector is actually a large chunk of money taken right off the top that does nothing before going into the shareholders' pockets. xwing posted:Whichever poster that it was is right that the perception is Smaug sitting on a treasure of gold hoarding it is how many see capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy. Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. To me there are very few ideas that are so good that we should tax everyone, and by extension threaten to throw people in jail if they don't pay those taxes. It's amazing to me how concerned libertarians are with the entrenched power structure of the government, and all the coercive power it holds, but never bother to extend that skepticism to ultra-rich individuals. If someone held 90% of the world's wealth, there wouldn't be any question about the government taxing him, because he would effectively control the government. That's the whole idea of social democracy. The government acts to empower the powerless (yes, including offering them education), while curbing the power of the elites who would use it without oversight or restraint. The government itself is directly accountable if it gets out of line, while the elites wouldn't be. That's the idea, anyway. xwing posted:Having been unemployed briefly in recent months... I have no idea why anyone would want to deal with that horseshit of "looking for employment" and documenting it. I only did it so my old bosses unemployment wages went up. Welfare might be different... I wouldn't know. So, I've had to have this conversation with a number of people before, so I don't hold it against you at all, but "welfare" isn't a thing. Like, there's no program called welfare. It's an umbrella term for everything from unemployment to EBT/"food stamps" (which make unemployment restrictions look like a rubber stamp), to WIC and TANF (which are even worse). And when you were on unemployment, you were the "welfare recipient" libertarian figures always rail against, whether you like it or not. Anyone who receives government benefits, regardless of whether you'd personally consider them "deserving," is in the crosshairs of the people you support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:
Correct, some of us have professional pride both in our work and our purpose in the public sector knowing that the excesses of our labor are to the public benefit under capitalism instead of increasing the profit margin and enrichment of an increasingly disconnected from reality investment class. Xwing I have simple concept for you to mull over: taxes are not inherently coercive, they are the overhead of functional society and those who resist them are actually not only trying to steal from everyone else but are the most irresponsible citizens of all, trying to have all the rights and privileges of society with none of the demands self determination requires. Just as there is no moral consumption in capitalism, there is no society without costs. If you want to avoid the Original Sin of being in the most advanced society in history you're free to go to Somalia or the UAE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Would you like to give some evidence for this point of view, in the form of even one thing that was ever accomplished by cutting taxes and scaling back the role of government? I can think of a few things! Unless you mean "one good thing that was accomplished," in which case I'm out of ideas. SedanChair posted:Also apparently if one person owned 90% of the wealth in the world xwing's first thought is "how do I curry favor with this overlord" instead of cutting them open and taking out their golden eggs Careful, dude. Rolling out the guillotine doesn't work out well for the people who roll it out. Trust me on this. Golbez posted:As property is by its very nature coercive, should it be minimized? Prostrate yourself before him and hope for noblesse oblige.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Careful, dude. Rolling out the guillotine doesn't work out well for the people who roll it out. Trust me on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
I know libertarianism is a big, weird tent, but deeper problems aside, most lib ideologies seem to me to rest on the notion that individuals are completely rational actors with regards to self-interest Having spent time at call centers (as a salesman) and a psych ward (as let's just say a "client"), this notion seems absolutely ridiculous to me, and that's without getting into deeper philosophical problems. I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but how can someone who owns and operates a bicameral human brain think they're always rational? I guess there's a reason we call BTC Dunning-Krugerrands
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
xwing posted:
Compare that to any public service that ends up as a series of local monopolies run by private firms. They can gouge the customer all they want and ignore groups that aren't profitable enough. They have no incentive to be efficient. The British Railways privatization thread is a perfect example quote:Whichever poster that it was is right that the perception is Smaug sitting on a treasure of gold hoarding it is how many see capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Just as there is no moral consumption in capitalism, there is no society without costs. If you want to avoid the Original Sin of being in the most advanced society in history you're free to go to Somalia or the UAE. xwing would love the UAE, it's not quite 90% ownership of wealth by one person, but they'd soon set about figuring out how best to please the emir. Perhaps they could set themselves up as a thriving entrepreneur, arresting raped foreigners and charging them with sodomy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Xwing, can you give some specific positions of the Pauls that you support? You're still being incredibly vague about what you believe, and I'm beginning to think you're doing so intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
xwing posted:I do agree with the video that college is a great thing. Education is a key part of improving a society. I have had plenty of education myself... It however is not a right or mandate. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that we should always do it and the least intrusive means of making it happen is the government's job. We can argue over the details, but my default will always tend to be it's not the government's job and we can get things funded without reaching into collective pockets with taxes Public education is a good idea but we shouldn't do it, it's not a right or a mandate. You're against the public literacy campaigns and achievements of the last two centuries, we should just throw that away and go back to a mass of illiterate poor...and you want to run a technologically advanced digital age economy that way somehow?? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Look I'm just saying that simply because it's unquestionably a great thing that modern society is the most literate, numerate and technically-proficient than it has been at any point in human history, thanks to widespread government run education programmes, doesn't mean that we should necessarily continue investing in the education required to ensure the future of the human race because it's costing me a few pence every day in taxes!!!!!!!!! Just think how many industries I would be captain of if I didn't have to pay those daily pennies and I could have an army of illiterate slaves!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Xwing you seem to have this... weirdly individualist view of the world. Everything you say seems predicated on the idea that people can simply choose to act in any way they want. But this ignores the very real and practical truth that people don't act however they want, they act in accordance with their situation and their situation is dictated primarily by external factors. Coercion is the primary shaping force in a society. Society coerces you and everyone else in almost everything you do. It presents consequences for not conforming every step of the way, and that conformity is not merely with the stated laws of the society, it is with your peers and your social stratum as well. If you live in a place where crime is common, where you have little reason to buy into a law abiding society, and little economic alternative to crime, chances are you'll break the law. Same as everyone does with speeding, because nobody sees a reason not to speed. If you live in a place where books are theoretically available but you are given little incentive to read, chances are you won't read. If you live in a place where co-operative funding of major infrastructure projects is not mandatory, chances are you won't have roads, or plumbing. Coercion is unavoidable, because people are the products of systems, not individuals. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
I like how the thread title has become accurate again. Teaching crop pickers to read is a waste of money, it'll only distract them from their work with strange new ideas. We weren't planning on having industries that depend on a workforce any more skilled than field hands were we?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I like that this thread slowed down and then dipshit mcretard popped up and immediately we all sprang to life to tell him how stupid he is
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I can think of a few things! Unless you mean "one good thing that was accomplished," in which case I'm out of ideas. To unironically answer this: the repeal of Prohibition, and the deregulation of alcohol consumption in general. Also, the shift from tariffs to other forms of taxation a century ago. The deregulation of alcohol throughout the 20th century led to the explosion of beer culture you see today. Hipster jokes aside, this is a good thing. Outside of the standard health and safety regulations, there are no good arguments for regulations that make fifty-bajillion microbrews and endless snobbery over hops and brewing processes economically unviable. Variety in food and drink is always a good thing and something to be celebrated. The shift from tariffs is... iffier? Tariffs can be a strong tool for encouraging local industries until they're strong enough to compete with foreign companies. It can also preserve historical industries for cultural purposes—I'd have no objection to, say, France keeping high tariffs on wine forever purely to preserve its own wine industry in the face of global capitalist nonsense about "specialization" and "efficiency". Production of a good or service can be a part of culture, and sometimes one worth preserving. On the other hand, tariffs are structurally similar to a sales tax, with all the disadvantages that implies. If the government and economy is developed enough to support it, a progressive income tax paired with direct subsidies might be a better option than tariffs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I like that this thread slowed down and then dipshit mcretard popped up and immediately we all sprang to life to tell him how stupid he is I think everyone is being a little quick to jump on the new guy. Sure, he's saying a lot of the dumb stuff Jrod opened with way back when, but it's possible he might be one of the rare ones you can convince otherwise. What I'm saying is, let the man have some more rope, and let's see if he keeps tying his own noose or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Gee I guess I know why Literally the Worst has that namexwing posted:I do believe I'm amenable to many things but to claim I'm ignorant because I don't share your viewpoint is presumptuous at the least and arrogant at the worst. It also why politics suck right now, no one is willing to understand or forge paths with others because their ignorant of "something" in the other's mind. I don't take offense though. This is the internet... it's just words on a screen from someone I don't know. That's fair. I meant to say that your lack of sympathy in particular, from the way you described it, must come (in my eyes) from a lack of perspective (or maybe just a "different" perspective), because I understand my sympathy as coming from the perspective I've gained across my education and my mother's work with disadvantaged students. xwing posted:I agree with Rand Paul more often than not and less so Ron. That's all. If others continue to post them and Rand specifically as "libertarian" I'm really going to roll my eyes and ignore it. Rand calls himself "libertarian-ish" which while terribly inelegant is good enough to convey the idea and where I feel I fit in the political spectrum. It's just that when I hear "Rand Paul," I think of someone who fights against women's access to abortion, who uses the Federal Reserve as a red herring for corporate excess and subsidy, imposes a religious categorization of marriage, and offers token statements about drug rehabilitation instead of incarceration but doesn't prioritize it. xwing posted:I obviously didn't convey it well, but I didn't mean that I have little sympathy for the poor. I was specifically in my mind calling out the people that whenever we talk immigration start getting irate that "Their taking American/my jobs!"... no, if we're having to import labor from somewhere, doesn't even have to be international it could be from other states, it means the locally unemployed are unwilling to work for the wage that is offered or unskilled for the job. Both of which are at least partially under their control. We can discuss why that happens and quibble of the solutions "until the cows come home", but my intention was not to imply some racist caste system enforced economically... if you pull that out of libertarian stances we're not going to get anywhere in discussion. I would like to discuss labor practices as they relate to undocumented immigrants at another juncture, but for now I will just say that I personally support amnesty and citizenship so that presently undocumented workers can get more protections. xwing posted:For that specific video. It's inspiring. It is also one way that the system is working properly, but I believe it is broken in others. His situation did not force him to pull the trigger and take another person's life. Being young and black in violent neighborhoods doesn't pull triggers. Are you saying he shouldn't have defended himself with his 2nd amendment rights? xwing posted:I will admit all evidence points to that our laws/systems are disproportionately affecting minorities. It's one instance that I feel there is a common ground for political change around mandatory sentencing laws and methods for reintegration. Luckily that man was given the chance instead of rotting in prison and is instead a productive member of society. Have you considered that the availability of higher education, how realistic the college or community college option is for young students in dire circumstances, influences their behavior in the aggregate? That perhaps the education carrot will lead to us spending less on prisons, leading to net savings and a smaller government budget in the long run? Even California, with its world-class public college system, is spending more per prisoner than it is per student. xwing posted:I think the government is pretty lovely at spending our money because there's no incentive to do it well or under budget if they can just tax more. Whichever poster that it was is right that the perception is Smaug sitting on a treasure of gold hoarding it is how many see capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy. Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. To me there are very few ideas that are so good that we should tax everyone, and by extension threaten to throw people in jail if they don't pay those taxes. I repeat here the request for evidence that isn't an old tired DMV joke.* In a democracy, the presiding government can only tax as much as the populace will be content enough with to not overwhelmingly elect their opposition. As it stands, your Smaug has disproportionate electoral influence because a greater proportion of his wealth is necessary for sustaining his life than is the wealth held by the masses. That seems very undemocratic to me. And this Smaug can't be put in jail because he is truly a hydra named Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Koch Industries. Do you support campaign finance reform? These holders of wealth are organizational machines, and to secure some of the pelf which flows out and back into their pile, we must ultimately serve their interest. Should the economy exist to serve people, or machines? *DMV jokes appeal to well-to-do white people because it's one of the few services where we're treated like everyone else Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:*DMV jokes appeal to well-to-do white people because it's one of the few services where we're treated like everyone else Which is to say, pretty well, actually. The only time I've spent more than half an hour in the DMV is when there's legit 60+ people ahead of me, and even then I'm out in little over an hour. I know it can vary from state to state, but overall I'm confident in saying that government services are only becoming more efficient, and it's because of the reasons you gave. It's the private sector monopolies that have no reason to improve. Every single person in America hates their ISP, but chances are they have no alternatives. So the ISPS can refuse to improve but keep jacking up prices because they know their customers have no choice but to suck it up and accept whatever poo poo sandwich is handed to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Actually I think you'll find I'm literally the best and this is the name forced upon me by a corrupt moderation team
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Xwing you seem to have this... weirdly individualist view of the world. Can anybody name any large-scale infrastructure project undertaken before the 18th century that wasn't financed by the state? Big poo poo like ancient Greece's boat road (yes, a road for boats) was a huge advantage in war and commerce (it turns out, in some circumstances, dragging a boat on land was less perilous than actually sailing it at sea), but that was paid for by the state of Corinth. The Romans had 50,000 miles of paved roads (for comparison, the current US Interstate Highway system comprises only 48,000 miles), all of it built by the state. Large-scale infrastructure is vital to any civilization's success, and examples of non-state actors building anything on that scale, and having it last an appreciable time after the builder's death, are few and far between.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:To unironically answer this: the repeal of Prohibition, and the deregulation of alcohol consumption in general. Also, the shift from tariffs to other forms of taxation a century ago. Careful now, you're invoking human values that don't involve a quantity of precious metals, which are notoriously difficult for libertarians to understand or perceive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Can anybody name any large-scale infrastructure project undertaken before the 18th century that wasn't financed by the state? Big poo poo like ancient Greece's boat road (yes, a road for boats) was a huge advantage in war and commerce (it turns out, in some circumstances, dragging a boat on land was less perilous than actually sailing it at sea), but that was paid for by the state of Corinth. The Romans had 50,000 miles of paved roads (for comparison, the current US Interstate Highway system comprises only 48,000 miles), all of it built by the state. Large-scale infrastructure is vital to any civilization's success, and examples of non-state actors building anything on that scale, and having it last an appreciable time after the builder's death, are few and far between. Coincidentally, Eisenhower reiterated the odd link between military/logistical efficiency and economic infrastructure. You'd think this would be compelling enough to get most conservative and libertarians on board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Can anybody name any large-scale infrastructure project undertaken before the 18th century that wasn't financed by the state? Big poo poo like ancient Greece's boat road (yes, a road for boats) was a huge advantage in war and commerce (it turns out, in some circumstances, dragging a boat on land was less perilous than actually sailing it at sea), but that was paid for by the state of Corinth. The Romans had 50,000 miles of paved roads (for comparison, the current US Interstate Highway system comprises only 48,000 miles), all of it built by the state. Large-scale infrastructure is vital to any civilization's success, and examples of non-state actors building anything on that scale, and having it last an appreciable time after the builder's death, are few and far between. I think the British East India Company built a bunch of infrastructure in India, to better facilitate wrecking the place, but I'm not sure if that counts when the East India Company was basically the State.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
I don't want to completely dog-pile the new guy, but it's 2AM where I live, I'm finally getting over a possible e. coli infection thanks to the prescription drugs my doctor gave me (total cost of visit + medication = $10US, thanks to UHC), and I've got nothing better to do (because for some reason I can't sleep, bah).xwing posted:I wrote out a long-ish reply last night and ended up falling asleep before posting it. Oh well here it goes... Remember this is SA. Arguments come with insults (because they're funny), but try to focus on the meat of the point. Unless it's LiterallyTheWorst, then it's just all insults all the time. quote:First, I'll reiterate that I don't consider myself a Libertarian. I agree with Libertarians and the Libertarian Party in many instances though. I also make no apologies that this election cycle I'll be voting for Gary Johnson and the LP. I gave the Pauls as an example of what I find most analogous to my stances. That is not a 100% endorsement of their views... who can ever claim that anyway? It's a disingenuous argument to trot out every little random quote they've ever said that you don't agree with and pose it as a witch hunt question to me. I agree with Rand Paul more often than not and less so Ron. That's all. If others continue to post them and Rand specifically as "libertarian" I'm really going to roll my eyes and ignore it. Rand calls himself "libertarian-ish" which while terribly inelegant is good enough to convey the idea and where I feel I fit in the political spectrum. It isn't disingenuous to take politicians to task for what they've said and done. If you say you agree with a person, it is totally valid to bring up examples of them either contradicting themselves, not holding to the values you ascribe to them, or all around being a terrible person. And, if you say something like "I find Rand Paul to be the most analogous to my stances," it is only natural and rational that we call you out on those views that we find abhorrent. Unless you can lay out which policies you specifically agree on, the only thing we can do is put a Rand Paul mask on your arguments. If I say "I mostly agree with Bernie Sanders" it is totally valid for someone to call me a socialist for supporting one. Which does segue into my next point; what do you agree with the Libertarians on? Why do you hold these view points? It is worth it to examine yourself, your beliefs, and your reasoning for these things. quote:I obviously didn't convey it well, but I didn't mean that I have little sympathy for the poor. I was specifically in my mind calling out the people that whenever we talk immigration start getting irate that "Their taking American/my jobs!" You understand that's not an argument being made by us or "the Left"? That this is mostly a right-wing viewpoint held by many "Conservative-Libertarians" like yourself? I'm happy you disagree with the line, but your reasoning... quote:... no, if we're having to import labor from somewhere, doesn't even have to be international it could be from other states, it means the locally unemployed are unwilling to work for the wage that is offered or unskilled for the job. Both of which are at least partially under their control. We can discuss why that happens and quibble of the solutions "until the cows come home", but my intention was not to imply some racist caste system enforced economically... if you pull that out of libertarian stances we're not going to get anywhere in discussion. I referenced a specific instance I deal with because I'm familiar with it. We don't have enough block layers locally. Millions in construction didn't happen because low supply has pretty much doubled the cost of block construction locally. Not only has the construction money not entered the local economy, but the money generated from the facilities was forgone too. I believe it does more good to have those jobs filled, even if just minimum wage, and the jobs done than saying we only hire americans at a "living wage" and the jobs don't get done with no one earning any wages. The problem with illegal/undocumented workers is not the workers themselves, but the people who hire them. They're going to exploit them and hire them at way below market value because these workers don't know enough about how much that kind of job works. So, if some block layer has spent 10+ years getting paid $20/hr. (number out of my rear end), and the boss basically says "work for $10 or I'll hire the first Mexican I can find", could you blame him if he told his boss to get bent? Or is the onus on the block layer because "better to get some money than no money, eh?" (famous last words of everyone who has worked retail). Also, there's an important lesson here about elasticity which someone much smarter can tell you about (I am not an economist). quote:For that specific video. It's inspiring. It is also one way that the system is working properly, but I believe it is broken in others. His situation did not force him to pull the trigger and take another person's life. Being young and black in violent neighborhoods doesn't pull triggers. I will admit all evidence points to that our laws/systems are disproportionately affecting minorities. It's one instance that I feel there is a common ground for political change around mandatory sentencing laws and methods for reintegration. Luckily that man was given the chance instead of rotting in prison and is instead a productive member of society. Yeah, I mean, there totally hasn't been generations of racist policies and practices that have relegated minorities into ghettos and actively prevented them from participating in society in a "legitimate" way. quote:I do agree with the video that college is a great thing. Education is a key part of improving a society. I have had plenty of education myself... It however is not a right or mandate. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean that we should always do it and the least intrusive means of making it happen is the government's job. This is one part that has always bugged me about the Conservative and Libertarian argument, and now even more that I've moved to the other side. If education is so important, why isn't it a right? If education is so important, why must it come with the burden of insurmountable debt? If education is so important, then why should it be a privilege only afforded to the wealthy elite? If education is the key to lifting America's beleaguered black youth out of poverty and the ghetto, then why shouldn't we do everything in our power to make that happen? quote:We can argue over the details, but my default will always tend to be it's not the government's job and we can get things funded without reaching into collective pockets with taxes. I think the government is pretty lovely at spending our money because there's no incentive to do it well or under budget if they can just tax more. Whichever poster that it was is right that the perception is Smaug sitting on a treasure of gold hoarding it is how many see capitalism. I don't have a problem with that. A single person could have 90% of the wealth in the world and rather than taxing the crap out of that person I'd want us to look at ways to get that one person to spend and work with the 10% that's "ours" flowing in the economy. Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. To me there are very few ideas that are so good that we should tax everyone, and by extension threaten to throw people in jail if they don't pay those taxes. There have been some better responses to most of this, so just to the bolded part, a common Libertarian myth:  YOU DON'T GO TO JAIL FOR NOT PAYING TAXES! Tax fraud gets you sent to jail. Not paying taxes gets you fines and interest, and at worst, they garnish your wages.quote:Having been unemployed briefly in recent months... I have no idea why anyone would want to deal with that horseshit of "looking for employment" and documenting it. I only did it so my old bosses unemployment wages went up. Welfare might be different... I wouldn't know. That "looking for employment" horseshit is there because people like you (and stupider younger me) voted for that crap because they're scared of "entitlement abuse". What a wake-up call that was for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's the private sector monopolies that have no reason to improve. Every single person in America hates their ISP, but chances are they have no alternatives. So the ISPS can refuse to improve but keep jacking up prices because they know their customers have no choice but to suck it up and accept whatever poo poo sandwich is handed to them. There's a lot more going on here than this, though. It's not like any Joe Blow Free Market Internet Brand can build an infrastructure, even putting aside the money to do so. Many areas, especially outside major cities, are extremely disinterested in allowing multiple companies access to telephone poles and other parts of local infrastructure, effectively giving unofficial monopolies to certain companies. I'm not saying having 52 broadband ISPs per town would fix every problem but it's not like the current system is a Libertarian dream scenario either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Angular Landbury posted:There's a lot more going on here than this, though. It's not like any Joe Blow Free Market Internet Brand can build an infrastructure, even putting aside the money to do so. Many areas, especially outside major cities, are extremely disinterested in allowing multiple companies access to telephone poles and other parts of local infrastructure, effectively giving unofficial monopolies to certain companies. In libertopia you'd have to bribe someone for every 10 feet of cable that you wanted to lay down, so it wouldn't really be practical there, either. If there's a network at all, it's likely run by the DRO. And you'd only be able to access content on your DRO's network and whatever nearby places have also contracted with the DRO. It'd look a lot less like the Internet and a lot more like a university LAN Literally The Worst posted:I like that this thread slowed down and then dipshit mcretard popped up and immediately we all sprang to life to tell him how stupid he is You seem to want the thread to slow down QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:There have been some better responses to most of this, so just to the bolded part, a common Libertarian myth: https://www.irs.gov/uac/related-statutes-and-penalties-general-fraud Not paying your taxes is called tax evasion... a form of tax fraud!  Say you get caught and then try to go off books to avoid your wages being garnished, or being self-employed you bet you could get jail time. Sure, as an individual they probably won't come at you with a SWAT team, but they could. So if you play nice for the  they'll be nice enough to not throw your rear end into jail.YF19pilot posted:That "looking for employment" horseshit is there because people like you (and stupider younger me) voted for that crap because they're scared of "entitlement abuse". What a wake-up call that was for me. The horseshit was that the verification they wanted didn't apply to how job searching worked in my field. For many it'd be fine, but it was a massive time waster and inflexible. I only even bothered with it because of the circumstances of my losing my job where I wanted to spite my old boss. I honestly didn't need the money, I was hired before I got a dime of unemployment. Also... I never voted for it. I voted for a person that may or may not have had anything to do with the bureaucracy that determined the requirements and system of someone else who I probably didn't vote for either. I can't reply to everyone... I'd like to reply to Stinky_Pete later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Your taxes pay for your defence, your education, your roads, your water, the healthcare and wages of your workforce, your system of laws and contracts, and everything else your life depends on. You should pay them with a big loving smile on your face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
xwing posted:First, I'll reiterate that I don't consider myself a Libertarian. I agree with Libertarians and the Libertarian Party in many instances though. I also make no apologies that this election cycle I'll be voting for Gary Johnson and the LP. I gave the Pauls as an example of what I find most analogous to my stances. That is not a 100% endorsement of their views... who can ever claim that anyway? It's a disingenuous argument to trot out every little random quote they've ever said that you don't agree with and pose it as a witch hunt question to me. I agree with Rand Paul more often than not and less so Ron. That's all. If others continue to post them and Rand specifically as "libertarian" I'm really going to roll my eyes and ignore it. Rand calls himself "libertarian-ish" which while terribly inelegant is good enough to convey the idea and where I feel I fit in the political spectrum. I don't think that anyone is accusing you of endorsing 100% of their views, and I don't think that anyone is posing witch hunt questions to you. They're just trying to identify what your actual views are. If you don't agree with repealing the Civil Rights Act, you can just say that in response to a question about the Civil Rights Act and we'll move on. Even better, you could state specifically state where your views and how the Pauls views are closely aligned with them. You did this by talking about how you believe that government doesn't spend money effectively and that we shouldn't pay for public education, are there other areas where you agree with the Pauls? If I really liked Hitler's paintings and posted "Hitler did a lot of great things" then you'd probably have some questions for me. I wouldn't take those as witch hunt questions, they'd really just be probes to extract more information from a very general statement. The Pauls are known for their views on repealing the CRA and other goofy libertarian ideas, so when you say that your stances are well-aligned with the Pauls the first question that comes to mind is "do any of your stances align with these goofy libertarian things that the Pauls are well-known for supporting?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the British East India Company built a bunch of infrastructure in India, to better facilitate wrecking the place, but I'm not sure if that counts when the East India Company was basically the State. Same general idea applies to the ultra-rich Romans who built megaprojects as prestige poo poo / to get public support for their political ventures. The richer the are the more you can act rather like a state - see also company towns. Firestone in [African country - Nigeria?] straight up conducted negotiations with local warlords to keep the rubber flowing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
But in libertopia a monopoly is different from the state. Honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
xwing posted:Taxes by their very nature are coercive and should be minimized. Please help me understand your feelings about coercion. Consider these two horribly contrived scenarios:
To me, the bigger tragedy in either of these situations is that someone is losing his leg. In either situation, I would want us to intervene to prevent it because I do not want the person to suffer losing their leg. The fact the person in scenario A is threatened by the environment or thermodynamics or whatever and the person from scenario B is threatened by another person seems largely irrelevant, in terms of whether or not I would want us to intervene to help them. In other words, it seems like you're okay with someone suffering, so long as it is at the invisible hands of market forces. However, identical suffering being visited upon the very same person by another person seems anathema to you. Why is it important to you that we collectively intervene to prevent coercion, but not important that we intervene to prevent suffering, regardless of its source? Out of curiosity, what do you feel that the purpose of society is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Firestone in [African country - Nigeria?] straight up conducted negotiations with local warlords to keep the rubber flowing. Liberia. I've been there. I visited their hospital to use it as a reference for infrastructure and care standards. They have the best hospital in the country. Firestone also houses, feeds and provides medical care for it's employees... they aren't slaves and the jobs are highly coveted. They also controlled ebola within their plantation pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
And all of that is worth a fraction of the value of the rubber being exported.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But in libertopia a monopoly is different from the state. Honest. Actually monopolies can only form in the existence of a coercive state that protects and subsidizes the monopoly. Without those protections these mega-corporations would be powerless to resist my garage startup telcom. It's not like in a society even more entirely based on wealth would the existing wealthy further entrench them selves. They'd be defenseless as they'd only have their warchest of billions! Eventually informed consumers would reject these giant monopolies and give their business to all the competition that some how exists. In the end the best run company that offers the best product at the best price would win out!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
xwing posted:https://www.irs.gov/uac/related-statutes-and-penalties-general-fraud I can't help but notice all of the relevant laws specify "Willful". Also, your example is of a guy specifically attempting to basically steal from the American public. So yeah, I am not really tearing up if he lands his rear end in jail. People do not go to jail if they make an honest mistake or make a good-faith effort to make things right. People go to jail when they willfully try to lie or cheat the IRS. Taxes are the price you pay for a functioning society. Stop trying to skip out on the check.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 21:14
|
|
