|
aren't you 17
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Oh no not DOMA, Controlled Substances Act, UIGEA, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. All tyrannical laws, no?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Uh no, the argument is that you should be suspicious of laws that try to "enhance" other laws. We started with banning drugs. After that failed we moved on to precursors. Then lab equipment, then grow lamps, then excess electricity use. With guns we started with the prohibited possessor system and 4473. Then background checks for licensees and adding more possessor classes. Then state universal background checks and proposals for federal ones. And calls for registries everywhere. When does it stop?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:No matter how many token efforts are made to stop gun violence, powerful corporate interests will overpower them in a society dominated by capitalism. Plucky little Bloomberg, stopped by the capitalist forces of _______ A sad tale indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Uh, the small arms industry? Interest groups for "gun rights" massively outspend lobbyists for gun control every year. The NSSF, which is actually funded by the gun industry, brings in $27 million per year according to their latest financials, compared to the NRA's $250 million. Your next post is gonna be about secret industry contributions to them, a claim high on hype and low on evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:One was literally a big pile of sand dumped on top of a coral reef in the 70s, and it has since eroded away to nothing. Didn't a tiny country nearby invade it and take it over without any resistance?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Government doesn't FORCE people to do anything outside of preventing their unlimited expression to obliterate society around them. Interesting hypothesis. Care to test it by, say, lighting a joint in front of a police station? Or how about crossing an invisible line through the Rio Grande?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Yeah, when I first read The Road to Serfdom I was really confused because I was expecting mises.org level poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? No, which is why pharma companies never do their own research, Apple didn't take chances creating new products, and we're all posting from mainframes.  America.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Obviously, stealing from someone would not constitute initiating the use of force against him, but why would you not have the right to physically intervene in someone attempting to steal from you? That would be aggressive against them, which we all know is immoral right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Hey ancap guy the NAP is retarded and the onus is on you to justify it. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:That's not a very good point. As things stand now, anyone with political connections (or enough money to buy them) can pollute as much as they want, and you think the fact that there's a system to bribe away before polluting makes extorting everyone alright, because without it the system would not exist?  Nobody cares about some lovely radio show you listen to or books you read. This thread is about debating libertarian ideas, so go post some. I'll start: absolute property rights are immoral because people are sentient and things aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:So yeah, that's why we need the FCC. If the free market could choose between PAL and NTSC, would color TV ever taken off?* That's like saying you need the FCC to choose between Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. A stereo AM standard was never needed because it's going to be inherently inferior to FM stereo no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Actual arguments in this thread are way better than imagining how ancaps would solve X problem and then jerking off about how dumb the imagined solution is imo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:That is what I was saying. If you say workers supply and employees demand labor like any other good then it also has to act like any other good. That isn't caused by labor being unique, it's caused by the supplier also having a demand for leisure time. I'm sure you'd see the same thing for crap being sold on Etsy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Hans Hoppe on empiricism: Has HHH proved these statements from his axioms or are they empirical: quote:if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements quote:[T]rue libertarians cannot emphasize enough [...] that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. quote:vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality quote:They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. quote:Unlike states, [insurers] could and would not want to disregard the discriminating inclinations among the insured towards immigrants. To the contrary, even more so than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in discrimination, i.e., in admitting only those immigrants whose presence adds to a lower crime risk and increased property values and in excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Businessmen cannot, under libertarian law and ethics, commit aggression against the person or property of another. And there is the fundamental issue. It's not like self-ownership is much of a controversial thing, but we don't accept that you try to bootstrap it into including property as well. Economic schools are just dancing around that difference of opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How do you make the decision about how property rights are allocated? If it is not the first user of something that has a greater claim to property ownership over something external to their bodies, who else does? It's fuzzy, which is why the political and legal systems exist. There's no inherent need for a concept of property to be "coherent" unless you've already decided that it's the bedrock of your moral system. Property is just means to an end for me. jrodefeld posted:Nearly everyone has some breaking point where they abandon civilized behavior and resort to aggression in order to survive. If someone owned property and had his property violated by a desperate person, say a starving person on an Island, then he could sue the thief later. He could press charges. Society would no doubt criticize him heavily and society, in my opinion, should ostracize and heavily criticize such abhorrent behavior. But you didn't break your principles. You said that society should criticize the property owner suing the starving person, but you didn't say that he shouldn't have been allowed to do that. Even in this scenario you claim that the starving person was in the wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The spending cuts AFTER World War 2 got us out of the Great Depression. On the other hand, reality. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Have there ever been ancaps that actually succeed in business? At all?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 13:27
|
|