|
Goddammit dickeye stop posting the things I was going to post. gently caress it i'm posting it anyway. Jrod I've come to accept by now that you will absolutely refuse to retain any facts about history, economics, ethics, or reality in general that isn't convenient for you and your perpetual state of delusional idiocy, but must you really concuss your head on your own stupidity so hard that you forget your own posting history as well? Even if Caros had been trying to  poison the well against you , it would have been loving impossible because everyone in D&D at the time who bothers to read threads like this already knew who you are and thought you were a loving moron. Because you had already tried this poo poo multiple times and got banned for it multiple times. It's only through Caros' near infinite patience with you and mod leniency that you posted so terribly for so long in that thread and didn't get punished for it. Now, please, answer this question you never got back to me on: Have you, J. Rodimus Prime, Esq., ever hosed a watermelon? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 9, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
this thread is just beating up a mentally ill person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
there is no honor in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Me and my mental illness resent that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:this thread is just beating up a mentally ill person. Insanity is no excuse for being an Anarcho-Capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:this thread is just beating up a mentally ill person. but the mentally ill man keeps running into our fists screaming HIT ME HARDER
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:but the mentally ill man keeps running into our fists screaming HIT ME HARDER Oh no! I'm reliably informed by the historical documentary Rocky III that that sort of behavior means he's rallying and will win in the end! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Insanity is no excuse for being an Anarcho-Capitalist. when people are switched meds when insurance drops them to others, they become either manic or depressive adjusting to new meds. it takes 3 months to flat line brain salts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
its not their fault they are mentally ill, insurance caused that
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh no! I'm reliably informed by the historical documentary Rocky III that that sort of behavior means he's rallying and will win in the end! Libertarians all think they're going to be Rocky Balboa but they're actually going to be Jean-Claude Van Damme's older brother in the first act of Bloodsport
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:when people are switched meds when insurance drops them to others, they become either manic or depressive adjusting to new meds. it takes 3 months to flat line brain salts. Yes, but those of good moral fiber among the unmedicated talk about the NWO, or the FBI shooting green rays into their house to make them want to gently caress Jenna Bush, or perhaps just push this one weird reading of a popular cartoon way too hard. Instead of jrode's posting, which is almost certainly not a result of changed medication, seeing as how it has remained consistent across the internet for like a decade now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yes, but those of good moral fiber among the unmedicated talk about the NWO, or the FBI shooting green rays into their house to make them want to gently caress Jenna Bush, or perhaps just push this one weird reading of a popular cartoon way too hard. ok fine,
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Libertarians all think they're going to be Rocky Balboa but they're actually going to be Jean-Claude Van Damme's older brother in the first act of Bloodsport Or Apollo in Rocky IV. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:make them want to gently caress Jenna Bush Do you not? That aside you guys have it all wrong. It was clearly a result of the Mercury poisoning jrodefeld got when he failed to get his amalgam fillings out in time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Or Apollo in Rocky IV. I was gonna go with that but that would imply a successful career in prior movies and lol. Caros posted:Do you not? No no no, you are Caros, not Caro. Caros. The s is very important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I think some property rights are good, because it is nice to have a home and privacy and the ability to accumulate stuff for a rainy day, or to better yourself in the long term, etc. However, I would agree that the well being of humans is a more important factor; not, perhaps, to the absolute limit, but certainly to the point where if a modest infringement on property rights creates a very great increase in human welfare, it is a good policy. I'm a statist, aren't I? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I was gonna go with that but that would imply a successful career in prior movies and lol. There but for the grace of an s go I.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think some property rights are good, because it is nice to have a home and privacy and the ability to accumulate stuff for a rainy day, or to better yourself in the long term, etc. However, I would agree that the well being of humans is a more important factor; not, perhaps, to the absolute limit, but certainly to the point where if a modest infringement on property rights creates a very great increase in human welfare, it is a good policy. Well good news, property rights are predicated upon the existence of a state to recognize and enforce them. So the notion that Taxation is a violation of private property doesn't make sense even in principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
I care about property rights and I care about other rights. Sometimes I care about other rights more. Oh the bliss of not clinging to an ideological extreme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
The phrase "property rights" makes me shudder, in the sense that like the US flag its usually corrupted by association. The declaration "Governments only role should be to guard property rights" makes me exsanguinate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:The declaration "Governments only role should be to guard property rights" makes me exsanguinate. You should be permabanned then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Money is a sign of poverty. Libertarians are a sign of bourgeoisie privilege in a society. Jrod is a sign of mental poverty, bourgeois privilege and the failure of the state to take care of its most societally destitute. Small wonder they're most common in America; libertarians like most parasites cannot exist outside the host body and America has a much richer incubator for terrible ideas than average. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
your understanding of the commons and of the slaughter of the buffalo seems flawed, op
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Matt Bruening refutes anything libertarians could possibly contribute to this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Threadshitting aside, being serious for a second JRod, please consider the three questions I always pose to you when you're around: 1) Do you now, or have you ever, desired to sell yourself into slavery, but found yourself unable to because of the State? 2) Do you now, or have you ever, had a child enrolled in primary education that you wished you could pull out of schooling and get them started with a 100 hour a week job, but were dismayed when you realized the State forbade both child workers and forced an 80 hour work week onto workers? 3) If the minimum wage were abolished, would you start looking for one of the new $3/hr jobs? If not, are you holding out for $4/hr job, or will you just grab the first $2.50/hr job you can find?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Samog posted:your understanding of the commons and of the slaughter of the buffalo seems flawed, op Yeah, I'd like to see his explanation of how the Native Americans managed not to almost totally exterminate the buffalo despite the fact that they didn't have any sort of system for recognizing them as privately owned capital. I say "like to see" because I don't actually expect a response; he will ignore this issue like he's ignored so many others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah, I'd like to see his explanation of how the Native Americans managed not to almost totally exterminate the buffalo despite the fact that they didn't have any sort of system for recognizing them as privately owned capital. I say "like to see" because I don't actually expect a response; he will ignore this issue like he's ignored so many others. It'd just be a euphemism-laden version of "that just proves them red savages didn't know how to properly capitalize on their resources, and justifies confiscation/slaughter of same by the superior white man. Now, back to my original point about how race-blind libertarianism is..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:3) If the minimum wage were abolished, would you start looking for one of the new $3/hr jobs? If not, are you holding out for $4/hr job, or will you just grab the first $2.50/hr job you can find? In the face of zero minimum wage, what I imagine would happen first is that most of the current minimum wage workers would be put on some ruinously low pay rate. Perhaps, maybe, there would be a slight expansion of positions (also at these comically low, insulting wages) but the idea that somehow it is virtuous to produce value for the guy who owns the Burger King franchise and earn $16 a day is axiomatic for these people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Well the idea is that the price of everything will have also fallen. But considering that income inequality will still exist and will only exacerbate, if prices do fall they'll fall much, much slower than the lowest wage. Any decrease from minimum wage labor will be offset or mitigated by the rents/wages for skilled labor increasing/staying the same. This has to be true since, remember, total GDP = total income, so costs for 'resources' are going to workers extracting that resource, renters/owners of machinery and deposits, etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This one always kills me (and it may yet literally kill me later in life!) because it seems to suggest that SOMEHOW there would be some inherent virtue, to the worker, to work at these wages. And that there would be this sudden flood of such jobs opening up. A common assumption is that the higher you make the minimum wage the more you eliminate jobs. So reducing the minimum wage will by default employ more people as jobs would be created that otherwise would not because it is not profitable to pay people the current minimum wage to do certain things. Because there are more jobs there are more people buying things which will no doubt stimulate the economy and drive all wages up overall. Supposedly it will create a feedback loop that will usher in a magical era of prosperity for everybody. This works if you ignore, you know, all the reasons and history that led to the existence of a minimum wage in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Note to mods: You know who I am. I'm a libertarian who is staring his own thread, which is acceptable according to the rules, I assume? There are two reasons I want to start a specific thread rather than retread over the "other" libertarian thread and just post comments there. In the first place, I want this discussion to be more narrow in scope. And I want to say something at the beginning that everyone will have a chance to read. On Caros's thread, he specifically poisoned the well from the very beginning by writing an OP describing libertarianism and its adherents in an unflattering and, from my perspective, misleading way. By the time I first posted on that thread, there had already been something like two hundred pages of people making GBS threads on libertarianism before I had a chance to defend it. And since the thread was almost entirely directed at me in particular (it would not exist without my having posted here in the past), you can understand how I'd like to have a bit more discretion about the framing of the debate when I am outnumbered 30 to 1. how loving stupid do you have to be to start a thread this way i literally can't even get past this paragraph is there any sign that he's figured out elasticity of demand yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:how loving stupid do you have to be to start a thread this way hell there's no sign he's figured out anything yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Do you not? Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Fixed. More realistically it's probably the 'huge' (comparatively) amount of mercury that gets released when you have them removed that gave him the 'tism but whatever. As an aside, this is a really weird post even for Jrod. Normally he hits a couple dozen times during one of his comebacks. Today he managed the grand total of one post before going off. I hope the overwhelmingly negative response didn't scare him away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
he's still doing the thing where he replies to like 5 posts a day in chronological order right? also you're a sociopath, gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A common assumption is that the higher you make the minimum wage the more you eliminate jobs. So reducing the minimum wage will by default employ more people as jobs would be created that otherwise would not because it is not profitable to pay people the current minimum wage to do certain things. Because there are more jobs there are more people buying things which will no doubt stimulate the economy and drive all wages up overall. Supposedly it will create a feedback loop that will usher in a magical era of prosperity for everybody. This also privileges the idea of "employing more people" as an inherent good, with the assumption that menial work for $2/hour is somehow exalting to the spirit or provides anything other than "cheap janitorial services" to the employer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Property rights are essentially incoherent as a concept. Most civil rights consist of guarantees that you may do something without interference. Property rights consist of guarantees of your ability to interfere with things. Most rights are about relationships with people. Property rights are about relationships with things.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Property rights are essentially incoherent as a concept. Most civil rights consist of guarantees that you may do something without interference. Property rights consist of guarantees of your ability to interfere with things. Most rights are about relationships with people. Property rights are about relationships with things. I'm pretty sure that doesn't make property rights incoherent as a concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:And, to be clear, this isn't just "worth" as "market value." It is also a moral judgment. Yeah, libertarians have this quasi-religious attachment to markets not just as a means of allocating resources and as a means of assigning moral value to people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
To put it more plainly, describing "no one can control your speaking, generally" and "you may control who walks on this ground" as identical phenomena called "rights" is nonsensical on any level beyond "these are what the state guarantees", which itself is incoherent for thinking about these phenomena. Or, rather, it's nonsensical in a society that has rejected hermetically sealed social classes and believes "rights" are universal. With "rights" being restricted to the elite, we can understand the aforementioned phenomena as both being signs of authority- the ability to control, and the ability to live without being controlled.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 04:48
|
|