|
VitalSigns posted:And while we're at it, I still want to hear the method to determine the exact amount of money every employee's labor is worth. So far all we've got is "whatever their paycheck says." Wait, does America have different minimum wages per-state?
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The federal minimum wage lies somewhere between "gently caress you" and "crime against humanity" so certain less-lovely states and municipalities have instituted a higher one. You're not allowed to go lower though, obviously. Ok that makes a little more sense at least. Having no national minimum wage would be pretty amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
I'm not sure "it was a good idea but the people hosed it up" is necessarily the best apology for an ideology. If your idea can be hosed up so readily, that is a criticism of the idea, not its implementers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
I'm curious how someone who hates violence and involuntary coercion can support the dissolution of the state, which on the whole, exchanges murder and slavery for laws and taxes, in favor of anarchism, which will apparently afford some mechanism of not only avoiding murder and slavery, but also laws and taxes? Is everyone just supposed to hold hands and have a sing along?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No this has been covered. You sign up among your choice of equally oppressive totalitarian omni-surveillance security companies that controls every aspect of your life from whether you're allowed to turn off the security webcam in your bathroom to whom you're allowed to marry, with any dissent swiftly and finally punished by being blacklisted and unpersoned, with all other members of society forbidden from dealing with you under threat of being cut off from society and starved along with you. Is that seriously the answer?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
And at no point the person writing that thought "hey this sounds a lot like a totalitarian state"? Because I'm having a lot of trouble seeing the difference. Edit: It's satire, surely? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that, they could probably be repurposed into a massive folding@home cluster.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If their value is based on their looks, how does this follow? Unless every partner is mutilating them or something. Given the kind of person it appeals to I would imagine they probably think that you get incurable cock breath or something from sleeping around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Trent posted:All legal arguments should be homonym based I don't think we should resort to name calling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Not available in my country, clearly this is the state's fault! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:"Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle." i.e, reality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
I'm not averse to the idea of a deterministic universe, I'm just rather skeptical of any ideological outlook that purports to bring the entire fabric of existence into focus simply by adopting it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Karia posted:Randomness just doesn't make sense to me. If we have exactly the same situation two times, perfectly and exactly, how could we expect a different outcome? The idea of hidden local or not-local variables makes a lot more intuitive sense. We can never predict it perfectly, of course, so from a practical standpoint it's random. If you want to visualise it, it would be basically like a dice roll, only the dice roll is black box. You can't see any of the processes which produce the result because there aren't any.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Everyone sounds good and TLM very English. And the thing is pretty fun to listen to, most of the way through it at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Objective studies are not subject to confirmation or invalidation by experience or facts, obviously. What could be more objective than that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
I still don't think I entirely understand praxeology, is it supposed to be some kind of pure mathematics for general reasoning or something? Because they do know that, like, pure maths by its nature isn't applicable to reality?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
I was more meaning in the context of the Einstein quote, whereby one detaches reasoning from reality to discuss things entirely in terms of logic, but apparently they read that quote and then said "no actually that's not true for my argument" so I don't even know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:What are some details on that idea? This is now the second time I've seen feminism brought up as a counter to libertarianism, but I'm just ignorant here so if you could point me to a source or quite something that would be cool. TIA. I'm not super familiar with it but I would imagine you can get a fairly good idea by considering the concept of property rights. If you own your body you have all the rights to it that you would to any other piece of property. You have (or should have) exclusive moral and legal control over what happens to it. But generally feminist concepts of bodily ownership do not include the ability to sell or transfer that ownership, as libertarians would. They would probably instead view the concept of self-ownership as immutable, something you cannot trade away and which certainly cannot be bought. It's a bit of an... odd idea to me because I'd worry that framing it in such a capitalist/commercialist/materialist manner is perhaps a little harmful but it has merit on the basis that property is something we all are rather familiar with and it is an improvement over not defining it which is a common alternative. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
I suppose the most obvious quibble is that a completely capitalist concept of self ownership necessarily puts the self under pressure to be traded, and given the existing inequalities in our society and the inertia of capital, that will primarily serve to make it something which is coerced from the disadvantaged to the already advantaged, which is sort of the exact opposite of feminism. The problem is less the acknowledgement of the rights normally associated with property as applied to the self, and more the specific allusion to the self being a property which implies trade-ability. Because that way lies chattel slavery. Which, admittedly, if we are to understand correctly is actually the path to economic freedom so maybe this is a feature. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I guess I can't see this bolded bit this being antithetical to feminism in the purely abstract formulation here. Feminism is not socialism, and doesn't care about economic classes being coerced, as long as those economic classes are also stratified along sex / gender / orientation / race / etc. lines. If it's white dudes and black trans women suffering equally, there's nothing really unfeminist about it—it just wouldn't be that way in the real world. I suppose it's not in the purely abstract but when you already have women statistically on the disadvantaged end of things, the concept of tradable self-ownership would serve to entrench that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Wait does this idiot think that socialized medicine is where you can just wander into a hospital and have a go with any of the machines or drugs you want to and the staff are obliged to help you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
And he doesn't, like, understand that the hospital is allowed to say "no, you don't need anything, go away"? Is the concept of getting everyone to pay into a fund that pays for centralized establishment and operation of hospitals, which treat people on a per-need basis as established by the government, really that hard to understand? Does he think you can ring up the highway department and order a them to repave your driveway once a week? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:what are you talking about dude, my canadian friends get a weekly physical for that irresistable finger up the butt pleasure. I mean technically you can jam your own finger up your butt whenever you like so why isn't that a commodity with infinite demand?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Look he's a savvy businessman, he only pays for just the amount he needs, and won't allow himself to use it all posting. That's also why he posts a million words at a time, doesn't want to waste any bandwidth loading the reply page more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Here's some free advice, this forum is loving brutal. You can not just roll in here, post bullshit and then expect everyone to respect your opinion. You need facts, logic and an effective communication style. Fail just the latter and generally you'll be ignored. Fail at the first two and you can expect to be immediately called out on it. Brilliantly enough, that'll tend to happen even when the same people agree with your overall position! Most here do tend to believe in an objective truth so they tend to really hate when people gently caress up facts especially. There are a ton of really really smart dedicated and probably entirely too well read and educated people who post here. The forum's pretty good for that, if you argue in good faith and are simply wrong you'll get corrected, if you still want to be wrong afterwards you can be, but you'll be expected to explain why. If you argue in bad faith, everyone will hate you for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Statist monopoly etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Literally how I feel all the time, if that was the conclusion people came to instead of libertarianism I would have far fewer complaints.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yeah, I've wondered what Benatar is like. It's hard for me to imagine thinking that an infinity of good is outweighed by a single morsel of bad, or that an absence of pleasure is not a negative. That seems like the sort of thing someone who is so depressed they can't even remember what happiness was would propose. It's set out in what you quoted, the idea is that pain is always bad, and absence of pain is always good. Pleasure is always good, but absence of pleasure is only bad if you know you're missing it. It sort of hinges on the idea that pleasure itself doesn't really have a point, it's just that if you're alive, it's good for you to have it, but there's nothing inherently constructive about it that justifies creating lots of people to experience it. While conversely, pain is always destructive, it takes whatever value you might ascribe to life and destroys it, so it's always something to be avoided.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Yes, I understand logic of the points he's laid out. I just don't understand how you could agree with his premise. *shrug* I guess I don't see anything obviously incorrect about it? If you don't know what you're missing you don't feel bad about it. Human society sort of runs on that premise otherwise we'd have overthrown capitalism by now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Capitalism is also based on people not finding out just how much money and cool poo poo they could get if they told the wealthy to get hosed. It's a very specific degree of comprehension you're looking for. It doesn't work without making people aware of the potential pleasure of participating and it also requires people to not be aware of the potential pleasure of annihilating it. w/r/t Benatar I get why it's not intuitive, and certainly if you believe there is some objective value in experiencing pleasure then it won't make sense. He's arguing that the absence of pain is in itself a good thing, and so pleasure and pain being equal in a life (I would dispute this as overly simplistic, but possibly in the opposite direction to how you would) it's still better to simply not live at all, because then you have an overall good, rather than a zero sum state.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Depends on whether he's good enough at logic to overcome his survival reflex, I guess. He might also consider that if he can get more people to not have kids he will be preventing more pain than if he just offs himself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Logically we should exterminate the human race. If killing everyone is your goal you do logically have to leave yourself till last. And it's not like he would have a choice either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
I'm beginning to wonder if the solution to capitalism is to legislate that hairstyle, because apparently it turns you into a really good communist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
What is with libertarian goldbuggery anyway? Or at all, for that matter, I don't really understand what the difference is between fiat currency and currency you can exchange for gold, a material whose primary function is as a currency.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Wait so goldbuggers literally believe that gold is magic? I thought that was just a joke in Making Money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
I guess I never really thought of natural rights as being, like, an inherent law of nature but I can see how that would be a cool idea to enlightenment thinkers. It's weird how people would believe either in this day and age though. Guess I shouldn't be too surprised mind you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 22:39
|
|