|
Or look up any number of jrod's idols talking about the apartheid government in South Africa.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Jrod, is now a good time to invest in bitcoin? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:hey jrode remember that time you said it was impossible to engage in war for profit except by States using fiat money? Wait he actually said this hahahahahahah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is not a good faith debate tactic. loving rich coming from you, you dumpster fire. You do nothing but regurgitate the same bullshit arguments and post mises links and refuse to engage with the things people are actually saying, in favor of preaching from the altar to the unwashed masses and crying foul at the first insult while doing some pass agg poo poo talking of your own. People have been trying to get you to answer specific questions for six months now, reposting them every time you pop up, and you ignore them every time. You don't get to talk about how other people behave until you demonstrate a modicum of awareness about your own behavior and a willingness to engage. Get hosed coward. BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Wait he actually said this hahahahahahah. No that is a mischaracterization of what jrod said ... Jrod said that war is impossible without fiat money or taxes To be fair, he backpedaled on that and tried to redefine the word "war" to include only modern large-scale conflicts like Vietnam
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Jrod, how do you envisage homesteading working in perfect conditions? What is the limit of how much land you can claim? As much as you personally can work? If you employ a dozen people to work a farm too big to work by yourself, is that still homesteading? Is there a limit to how big an organisation can be to be considered a homesteader? Say we've just landed on a newly discovered planet, Eden Prime. It's beautiful, lush, with space for all and no government or indigenous population currently claims it. How is the land divvied up? Is the end state: a) we all live in an agrarian society, each of us claiming no more land than we can personally farm b) CEO of BastardCorp stripmines the whole planet and becomes richer than God
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, I could say the exact same thing about any one of you. "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". You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Every single one of your arguments is engaged with and debunked here, whereas you refuse to engage with arguments to which you have no answer. That's the difference between you and the rest of us; we're willing to reevaluate our beliefs on the basis of evidence, but your beliefs are immutable because they are based on intellectually bankrupt concepts like praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Hey jrod I want to tell you something. You might want to sit down for it; this will be a massive revelation. You outed yourself as a complete dumbass when you spoke of Africa as one singular, monolithic entity whose problems can all be solved very simply. Go look at a map. Africa is loving enormous. It has over 50 nations and a poo poo load of cultural, ethnic, and religious groups, many of which absolutely loathe each other. It's also a diverse continent from a terrain standpoint. It runs the entire breadth from wet jungles to blasted, dry wasteland. Which is really the other point...whether you like it or not some people are born into a situation where it is literally impossible to expand the economy. This is very, very common in Africa; how do you farm where it never rains and the water is 200 feet down? How does a nation produce anything if it has no mineral wealth? How do people who can't even afford food mix their labor with anything to create wealth? What do you do if your inviolable property rights means that one family owns the entire country's land and won't let anybody else use it? Worse yet, what do you do if the only land available is literally useless?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:750$ a tablet. When Shkreli begins price gouging, his competitors will setup production lines for Daraprim and undersell him. Shkreli's own employees will notice the obvious opportunity and begin smuggling pills out of his factories and warehouses, earning a tidy profit on the black market. Neighbourhood pharmacists, filled with libertarian "can do" spirit (and freed of regulatory shackles), will quickly learn to synthesize the drug from household materials. If the price-hike was actually effective, then most of Skreli's customers would quickly die of toxoplasmosis (since we don't have any of that commie-human being socialized medicine anymore, and most people aren't productive enough to absorb a $225k/yr increase in their cost of living). Shkreli, being a captain of industry with rational foresight and enlightened self-interest, will recognize the price-gouging plan as self-defeating. He will continue to sell his goods at the optimum price. And the ghost of Ayn Rand will gaze down in beatific splendor, fondly regarding the world she has created. In fact, the only regime in which price-gouging is even possible is one wherein men with guns will initiate violence against any competitor who attempts to manufacture Daraprim in violation of Shkreli's patent. As with all negative things, it's the state's fault. Please ignore the opportunity cost of setting up a new pharmaceutical production line, the huge amount of capital and risk involved in doing so, the possibility that the competitors' drugs will have unforeseen interactions or side-effects (due to rushed deployment and minimal testing), the deaths which would result from people buying black market "Daraprim" (actually relabeled acetominophen), the inherent difficulty of cloning a drug when its composition and pharmacokinetics are kept as trade secrets instead of being held on-file at the FDA, the possibility that Shkreli will collude with his competitors to maintain monopoly pricing, the implicit assumption of long-term thinking (if Shkreli is focused exclusively on quarterly results, then the temporary profits from gouging are too attractive to pass up ... and the self-defeating consequences are irrelevant), and the observed fact that market competition is unreliable for very low-volume products (need orphan drug? prepare to be gouged, sucker!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The issue I am trying to get across is that if you took a situation where humans are suffering in abject poverty and starvation in a third world African country and your solution is simply for them to implement redistributive policies that take the wealth of the dictator and the (relatively speaking) "wealthy" and divided that money between the poor people of that country, you would have hardly helped anyone. Redistributing wealth in a tiny pie where there is not much wealth to go around skirts the real issue. Yes, if tyrants run your government and hoard all the wealth that does exist, they can seem relatively comfortable. And there is no question they ought to be ousted from power and are clearly exploiters of the poor and everyone else who isn't a member of the dictator's regime. Okay, you don't seem to have realised the problem I was drawing up that the premise and conclusions to your argument are simplistic strawmen that do not represent either reality or the views of 'left-progressives'. The problem I pointed out with your Africa example was that it was a simple binary choice between letting someone in starvation keep their loaf of bread or taking some of it to share was that neither option is what the "left-progressives" would be suggesting in that instance and the idea would be to get the starving person MORE commodities so they weren't in such dire needs, not to leave them the same amount or take from them. Although you've taken this on board a little in your response, we're now offered a ternary choice where the third option still doesn't represent the views of socialists, social democrats, etc. I could have gone into it more on my end (although I did think that if you were going to criticise other people's positions you'd be aware of what they are first) so I'll hold up my hands here say "my bad" and elaborate for you on what the actual positions being put forth as a counter to your own are. There are a variety of different left-wing views about how different developing economies should work. Although there are differing opinions, they all fit within a certain framework that rules out the possibility of a free-market approach being beneficial. They aren't based on simply "Let's redistribute because it's right" they're focused on "let's have a more regulated and redistributive economy because it's fairer and helps develop countries" Let's look at a few. Ha Joon Chang, a popular introductory figure to left-wing economics, who is a Professor of Political Economy of Development at Cambridge University has looked at the economic set-up of modern developed countries while they were developing and concluded Ha Joon Chang posted:"that the developed countries did not get where they are now through the [free market] policies and institutions they they recommend to developing countries today. Most of them actively used 'bad' trade and industrial policies, such as infant industry protection and export subsidies - practices that these days are actively frowned upon, if not actively banned by the WTO (World Trade Organisation" (Kicking Away The Ladder). His view is basically an expansion of the one I out forward in my post here. The crux of it is that your claimed are an economic urban myth that you have bought into without looking at the evidence, that rather than countries being built up by relying on laissez-faire policies they were actually heavily protectionist. In the post I've linked to I've given examples of the USA throughout the 19th and early 20th century but the same applies to other countries like France and the UK and if you're interested or dispute this then I'm happy to elaborate on this. In turn, this gives us a good indication that these policies are the kind of ones that countries should be using to develop now - even though the larger countries are trying to push free trade on them. From historical precedent, which you attempt to cite with no evidence, the government has a big role to play in ensuring the industrialisation and development of a country and claims of it being based on laissez-faire policies are simply false. This ties into the position of academics like Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize Winner, who in books like Making Globalisation Work and Globalization and Its Discontents who has pushed similar ideas: Stiglitz posted:"If developing countries are to enter into such industries, those industries have to be protected until they are strong enough to compete with established international giants. Tariffs result in higher prices - high enough that the new industries can cover costs, invest in research, and make the other investments that they need in order to eventually be able to stand on their own feet. This is called the "infant industry argument" for protection. It was a popular idea in Japan in the 1960s - and in the United States and Europe in the nineteenth century. Most successful countries did in fact develop behind protectionist barriers: critics of globalisation accuse countries like Japan and the United States, which have climbed the ladder of development, of wanting to kick the ladder away so that others can't follow." (Making Globalisation Work) Tariffs and dumping duties and other protectionist measures are vital tools that have been used by the now developed countries to get where they are. Disallowing these powerful strategies from the countries today is simply harmful to their ability to develop. This isn't to say that free trade can be harmful in every instance, but it is specifically trying to develop and industrialise a country and the areas where it is useful rarely see free trade happening. Agriculture is a key example of where free trade would be helpful for global development but free trade in agriculture is not in or itself going to industrialise a country and the areas needed for development require protectionism.For the developing countries the current system of free trade in some areas and protectionism in others is set up to be the exact reverse of what is needed. Stiglitz points out a good example where in 2005 the US opened itself up to 97% types of goods when produced in the least developed countries. The 3% which was kept protected was things like Bangladeshi textiles and apparel which they do produce at low cost and would want to sell in a fair market to undercut the US and other developed nations, while the 97% that was opened up was things like jet engines and all manner of other things what are beyond the capacity of the developing nations to produce. Simply put it was a free trade agreement which did the complete opposite of what the developing countries wanted, giving free trade in the areas it didn't matter and where they specifically didn't want it and keeping protectionism in places where they needed free trade. Free trade can be helpful, but only in some situations and understanding why involves needing a good knowledge of the processes involved. The fact that you try and take the example of Hong Kong (which actually isn't that free trade seeing as the government owns ALL the land and the companies are merely renters) and assume that the system which applies to a small city-state trading post with unique geographical and historical advantages will apply to all nations everywhere without any critical analysis just shows your comparisons are fairly superficial.. Economists are typically split into three camps in terms of the contributors to national capital accumulation. There are those who believe geography is the primary factor, those who believe market integration is the primary factor and those who believe institutions are the primary factor. I think Rodrik, Subramanian and Trebbi's fairly well known 2004 study gives a good overview of these positions in the introduction. You'll also note that the findings of the study give primacy to institutions as the key driver of growth, with some support from geography and with free trade policies actually having a negative effect on growth. And as we're talking about development and inequality, I would also suggest you have a look at Branko Milanovic's work and especially his conception of the most relevant type of inequality (simultaneously looking at the inequality internal to a state and in comparison to other states) and how the current neo-liberal more free trade orthodoxy has resulted in record highest of equality that may be decreasing soon - but only because of the effect of the non-free trade economies of India and, even more so, China. Basically your idea that the third alternative is simply "Redistribute all the money" is wrong. Frankly redistribution is needed as Piketty made such a big splash about in Capital in the 21st Century but equality is not the sole concern. A non-laissez faire approach is being pushed by other specifically because there is historical evidence and modern academic studies and logic which show it is more effective and allows countries to develop effectively in a manner that free market policies do not. The co-operative aspect of your response I'm going to spend less time on as I'm not really willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there about how you've missed the point. Your position was "A problem with "democracy" and all forms of collective ownership either of the factory or of public spaces is that use for such resources is heavily constrained by the need for consensus to act. If all workers owned factories together, endless meetings and deliberations would be required to make any decisions about the use of capital and production. Furthermore, conflict is enhanced rather than reduced. Who would REALLY have the final say on the use of collectively owned property?" Now you don't agree with by rebuttal because it is anecdotal, but the problem is you agree with the basis of my anecdote (and in having to do so have had to specify that you're only talking about if the entire economy was run on a co-operative basis) and in support of your view you have nothing, not even an anecdote or any other scrap of evidence. I don't usually use anecdotes, but the reason I did here is because it was just one of any number of examples which showed your point of view is wrong. We know Co-operatives are not doomed to failure because they exist now and the circumstances you describe don't happen. You now apparently believe that in a fully co-operative economy everything we know about how co-operatives work would suddenly changed for no given reason and all co-operatives would suddenly change to work in an inefficient and obviously stupid manner? Why would anyone possibly think this would occur? You've offered no rationale and it seems to be based on everyone suddenly getting very very stupid and changing the basis of how these companies are run for absolutely no reason. Hence why I say you're holding onto unsupported ideological narratives; you make these wild sweeping statements that at face value seem absurd and do nothing to back them up. Democratising the workplace does not mean democratising every single decision. Having a once yearly meeting to elect directors of the company, decide on a way forward and cast votes on important workplace matters democratises the workplace. Staying half an hour late once a month to have monthly meetings of each office/factory to discuss and deal with local issues democratises the work place. It does not involve democratic unity of every single mundane decision and trying to frame it as that just shows how irrelevant your comparison is. The nature of a co-operative is not that you have "to achieve democratic consensus for every single business decision" so your point is irrelevant. Hell, a lot of good business will spend this kind of time with employees anyway. The Human Relations school of business management thought (used to good effect in Japan) specifically focuses on working with and engaging with employees in the nature of running the business and many non-co-operative business will spend similar amounts of time discussing workplace issues even if automatic primacy isn't given to majority opinions of the workforce. Not to mention the issues which come with a lack of democracy in the workplace, where strikes are a notable drain on efficient. You also don't seem to have responded at all to my pointing out how countries did not grow by lassie faire economics, which is what you had claimed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:Incidentally to the discussion above, I've been pondering doing a let's read of Atlas Shrugged for laughs for a while now as a warm up exercise before I start work on a given day. Would anyone be interested in reading that? I certainly would. I think it'd be very interesting to see what a former Libertarian has to say about it. If your Let's Read is even half as informative as your replies to Jrodefeld, then I imagine that I'd learn quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
OP, gently caress you, you loving evil piece of subhuman scum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
sorry i'm not posting more in this thread guys, i'm too busy getting my 763rd CAT scan and my 229th MRI since moving to the glorious communist republic of canada earlier this week. because they're free, and therefore my demand for them is infinite, because simple reciprocal supply-demand calculations are literally the only thing anyone needs to, or indeed could, understand about economics jrode i was at the FDR presidential library a while back and it was pretty good, explained how people like you caused and prolonged the great depression and only massive government spending got us out of it, it was pretty good, you should probably read up on it. or, well, anything at all for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
jrod how exactly would you reconcile competing land claims between migratory pastoralists and settled agriculturalists? I mean since the issue of land use in Africa has been raised an extremely important part of the issue, and a major contemporary conflict driver, is negotiating disagreements between those who have customary used land for grazing with the expansion of settled agriculture in part driven by the emergent middle class reinvesting their wealth primarily in optimal farming land, pricing subsistence farmers out of land they have used for decades. It seems you inherently favour settled agriculture as the SOLE way to use land which is indicative of a fundamental world-view informed by European colonial norms. Furthermore how would you deal with traditional communal land rights? Would these be converted to simple freehold with a simple shrug of "get with the times"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I mean, I've spoken with you a whole lot and you STILL don't agree with me? The reality is that smart people have lengthy discussions and debates with each other for literally DECADES without either party changing his or her mind on their core ideology. So, you just come off as obnoxious with this type of post. lmao, ladies and gentlemen the man born without a brain!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state . Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. Have you ever heard of a fascist police state that doesn't aggress against people? Got two words for you. South Africa. Want me to dig up some famous libertarian paeans to he glories of the advanced capitalist natural elite that heroically tried to keep the lessers in check (for their own good, and with violence if necessary) and create prosperity, or can we just skip that step because you'll ignore it? Hell, even in TYOOL 2015 you can go to Reason and other libertarian publications and see SA (And Rhodesia for those who are more, ahem, passionate) used as examples of the failures of democracy and the virtues of harsh ruled by "natural" elites. Natural as in white. Also, hot drat your ideology has bad faith bred into its very bones. What exactly counts as 'proof of property' when we are talking about the plundering and relocation of thousands of people? What proof of ownership would native people al across the world be able to offer to conquerors then or now that they would have accepted? "This is the hole in my land that our great ancestor hosed to claim it for us. Get back on your ships and leave, trespasser". Even if for some twist of fate a tribal leader managed to sneak off to London/Rio or some other imperialist capital and somehow get a deed for his people's lands, that would have been subverted/anulled in no time by the property-minded invaders. Plunder WAS the enterprise. And I love it when Hong Kong is brought out as a gambit. That' when you know they have nothing. Yeah, a historically strategic port, stolen (guess the Chinese lost the deed somewhere, or we'd surely have given it back) by the world's top imperialist power as its crown jewel in the region and protected/developed, it's just the same as any dust-farming village west of Tibet. Here's a hint, Jrod: if you wanna argue the virtues of laissez faire, steer far, far away from anywhere and anything Imperial Britain touched. Because 1- they eft a wake of misery and death in their wake that even Stalin would be proud of, and 2- their adherence to "property rights" was endlessly flexible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:And I love it when Hong Kong is brought out as a gambit. That' when you know they have nothing. Yeah, a historically strategic port, stolen (guess the Chinese lost the deed somewhere, or we'd surely have given it back) by the world's top imperialist power as its crown jewel in the region and protected/developed, it's just the same as any dust-farming village west of Tibet. What really works about this logic is watching Libertarians explain how Hong Kong is proof that unfettered capitalism is the way to go but the Irish Potato famine is the result of all that filthy statism in the air
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You are stipulating that the settlers don't have any friends or family that would notice that they never made contact again and would want to know what happened to them? So what mechanism would exist to adjudicate this claim? I mean, I know we're talking hypotheticals and all that, but you are arguing for angry mobs to dole out justice. If lynch mobs have shown us anything, mob justice never has any serious issues. Also, at what point does it stop. Let's say my dad killed the current home owners and took the home from them, then I was born, and 25 years later, he gives the house to me. Now, the previous owner's brother comes back (he was in a coma due to my daddy's raid on the house and just woke up) and exposes the crime. Do I lose the house? Should I be made to pay because of something that happened before I was born that I didn't even do? This is why we have rules and regulations to account for these circumstances, since an angry mob would not likely know what to do here. quote:I'm sure you're thinking "what is the difference between abandoned property which can be homesteaded by others and absentee property where the owner is simply not present at the moment but retains rights over its use? This is a good question and there is no exact perfect answer. But that's not a safe assumption. I could be a fan of the dilapidated look, I could be crippled and unable to tend to my property. Who knows. But that's why we have laws. They cover this stuff. So if my dad stopped mowing his lawn, he could be fined by the town he lives in. If he let's his house become a safety hazard, it can be condemned. You're over simplifying the world and ignoring all the little complications that can come up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:You're over simplifying the world and ignoring all the little complications that can come up. This is the appeal of libertarianism: the world is simple and you can solve all problems by applying this easy algorithm. Nevermind that it doesn't work; all that matters is that you feel like you can be an expert in all subjects and dominate the world because you have found the secret skeleton keys that unlocks all mystery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:What really works about this logic is watching Libertarians explain how Hong Kong is proof that unfettered capitalism is the way to go but the Irish Potato famine is the result of all that filthy statism in the air
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:So if my dad stopped mowing his lawn, he could be fined by the town he lives in. Really? That seems kinda harsh. I also didn't expect to see jrodefeld, a strong defender of property rights, defend squatting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Really? That seems kinda harsh. I also didn't expect to see jrodefeld, a strong defender of property rights, defend squatting. Depending on where you live this could decrease property values and cost your neighbors money so a fine makes sense. It's still kinda messed up how real estate values get decided by a bunch of arbitrary rules that often heavily contribute to pollution and resource scarcity (While also being racist as hell) but that's an issue for another time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
In a lot of places people will mow other lawns ont he block just because they're paranoid about real estate values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You are stipulating that the settlers don't have any friends or family that would notice that they never made contact again and would want to know what happened to them? I'm not stipulating anything of the sort. They could certainly have friends who could stop by and ask where the old settlers went. Of course the murderers could just lie and say they sold the land and left, and by your own rules the friends would need to rigorously prove that not only were the new inhabitants guilty of murder, but also that the plaintiffs are the ones to rightly inherit the land. After all, if "you got that land through murder" alone was a significant enough reason to kick someone out of their land, then pack your poo poo and move back to Europe rear end in a top hat. jrodefeld posted:I'm sure you're thinking "what is the difference between abandoned property which can be homesteaded by others and absentee property where the owner is simply not present at the moment but retains rights over its use? This is a good question and there is no exact perfect answer. I mean, no, I wasn't thinking that at all, but it is a good question. If property rights can become invalid through reasons, it is probably a good idea to figure out what exactly those reasons are! Of course you object to the idea of laws, so that's a hopeless dream. What would actually happen is that the absentee landlord and the squatters would get locked in endless litigation between two DROs that don't recognize one another, until one of them actually tries to use the land, which is obviously aggression and kicks off a proper war over it. jrodefeld posted:Private property is "public" in one important feature. The owner, in order to maintain his or her use rights over the property, must make a clear distinction on where the property borders are. A fence must be erected for example or a sign posted. The purpose of property is to be easily identified by others, so that they can avoid trespassing. If a piece of property is abandoned and left to crumble and decay, and no effort is being made whatsoever to maintain the look of occupied and privately owned property, then a reasonable person will assume that such property has no present owner. So in order for something to not be considered up for grabs, you have to fence it off with signs and poo poo? And therefore the Native Americans didn't own the land at all and the genocide was actually their fault for not having white picket fences and their names on mailboxes. jrodefeld posted:This of course does NOT apply in metropolitan areas and in current heavily populated areas where there are always clear laws about property transfers. After all, cities don't allow property to be available for homesteading if an old man dies and has no heir. There are specific methods for addressing this in most cities and States. Wait, now you're okay with city laws having precedent over the Supreme Property Law of homesteading? I thought you axiomatically opposed governments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Instead of given him a wealth of responses to cherry pick from the thread really ought to settle on one particular example and try to force him to talk about it at length. I for one would love to see him actually forced to explain his beliefs about history but it doesn't really matter what the subject is. I'm genuinely curious whether there's some insane Libertarian scholar who came up with a history of the US where slavery, military conquest, public government works and protective tariffs were not central to American industrialization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Instead of given him a wealth of responses to cherry pick from the thread really ought to settle on one particular example and try to force him to talk about it at length. I for one would love to see him actually forced to explain his beliefs about history but it doesn't really matter what the subject is. I'm genuinely curious whether there's some insane Libertarian scholar who came up with a history of the US where slavery, military conquest, public government works and protective tariffs were not central to American industrialization. This was tried, once, in the other thread. That's when jrod chose to leave and then the thread became boring By flooding the thread with responses for him to cherry pick from the thread is merely proving that a free market solution maximizes the entertainment value of a libertarian thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Private property is "public" in one important feature. The owner, in order to maintain his or her use rights over the property, must make a clear distinction on where the property borders are. A fence must be erected for example or a sign posted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Really? That seems kinda harsh. I also didn't expect to see jrodefeld, a strong defender of property rights, defend squatting. Yeah, some cities have ordinances. It's not "Oh, hey, your lawn is looking a little shaggy today," it's more like "the grass is over 12" high, maybe you should mow the lawn." Sadly, doing further research on this matter takes you into a really dark and racist corner of the internet. The far right really has a problem with mowing their lawn, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Caros posted:we stole this land from the native americans, but its okay because we didn't give them a receipt. This is the best distillation of libertarianism I've ever heard. Well this and Ron Paul's magazine's hagiographic tributes to apartheid, but this is shorter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Define "oppression". There's no reason to respond to a post like this but it makes a clear point nonetheless. You know the libertarian ideology fairly well by now after all that I've posted. You obviously cannot think that any libertarian would support a fascist police state. Remember the loving non-aggression principle I remind you of every other post?! It is literally the starting point of libertarian ethics. You, like all libertarians, do not and have never actually believed in the Non-Aggression Principal. You are more than willing to defend and even participate in unwarranted aggression if you believe you can get away with it. Your other posts extolling the virtues of lynch mobs proves this. You are immoral to your core, but are held in check by your cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Hey jrod why are you ignoring substantive posts challenging you on the history of industrial development in America and instead writing replies opening withjrodefeld posted:There's no reason to respond to a post like this but People are making good points which you're ignoring in favor of cherry-picking insults in order to complain that no one is willing to engage with you on the issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You, like all libertarians, do not and have never actually believed in the Non-Aggression Principal. You are more than willing to defend and even participate in unwarranted aggression if you believe you can get away with it. Your other posts extolling the virtues of lynch mobs proves this. You are immoral to your core, but are held in check by your cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
This isn't a thread it's a massacre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This isn't a thread it's a massacre. Just like every time. But if he learned from past experiences, he wouldn't be a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Wait, how do you have privacy without private property?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This doesn't have to be some libertarian anarchist paradise, but the last half century has taught us (some of us at least) that liberal reforms of previously authoritarian nations have lead to drastic reductions in poverty and the creation of considerable wealth and middle classes. jrodefeld posted:This is absolutely true of the United States from the Industrial Revolution until the Progressive Era of the early to mid 20th century and it is also true of Sweden which had an incredibly laissez-faire free market economy during much of the same period of time and, even after their nominal shift leftward during the mid-20th century, the bulk of the socialist program so loved by leftist commentators is barely forty years old. Hmmm....
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Instead of given him a wealth of responses to cherry pick from the thread really ought to settle on one particular example and try to force him to talk about it at length. I for one would love to see him actually forced to explain his beliefs about history but it doesn't really matter what the subject is. I'm genuinely curious whether there's some insane Libertarian scholar who came up with a history of the US where slavery, military conquest, public government works and protective tariffs were not central to American industrialization. For the bolded part at least: http://www.amazon.com/An-Empire-Wealth-American-Economic/dp/0060505125 The first page literally says that Europeans found a wilderness with no history in North America. Published in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is a division of labor in the economy, and successful businesses hire specific marketing research people to help the ownership make important decisions about the company. And VERY successful businesses are headed by CEOs who are often visionary and uniquely gifted in anticipating consumer demand. What if Steve Jobs decided to democratically survey each and every Apple employee and go with whatever the majority wanted when designing the iPhone? Yo: Who appoints those CEOs of successful businesses? I'm talking specifically about publicly traded corporations. If I own stocks in a company as part of a retirement portfolio, I may get ballots in the mail to vote on issues related to the company. I am entitled to do this as a shareholder even though I may not have any loving clue how that company works. Yet this is how corporations work. All this stuff about the endless paralyzing deliberation of democratic decision making, it already applies to corporations where shareholders have to make collective decisions about the company they collectively own, and a lot of shareholders may be way more ignorant about what goes on in the company they own than any janitor in the HQ building. (Hell, it applies internally, day to day management of privately owned and operated businesses often gets bogged down in meetings and deliberation between multiple managers and stakeholders; this is a digression though.) Somehow the shareholders collectively are often able to make decisions like "Hey this Steve Jobs guy has some pretty good ideas that have made us money, we should let him continue making decisions about product design." It's not clear to me why this would be so but the employees of Apple (or any other company) would not be able to discern that the really creative good ideas guy who was one of the company's founders maybe is good in a visionary leadership role for the company. They might not let him dictate all the working conditions and payroll in precisely the same way, though. Edit: In hindsight it's a little strange that a guy who thinks limited liability corporations and patents are illegitimate government force distortions of a free economy is upholding Steve loving Jobs. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Yeah, some cities have ordinances. It's not "Oh, hey, your lawn is looking a little shaggy today," it's more like "the grass is over 12" high, maybe you should mow the lawn." When it's a city ordinance telling you to mow your lawn, that's THE TYRANNY OF THE NANNY STATE. Elected/appointed officials telling me what I can and cannot do with my property? No thanks, I prefer to remain free When it's Homeowner's Association CC&Rs telling you to mow your lawn, that's just the free market at work. You entered into a binding agreement to follow the will of the elected/appointed officials on your HOA board Conservatism is nothing if not hypocritical. I wonder if we could get a bunch of would-be conservatives on-board with a bunch of liberal policies and taxation if we just had people sign something before graduating high school or somesuch. "If I choose to join society then I agree to be bound by its rules, otherwise I'm free to leave and go live somewhere else" or something like that QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Conservatism is nothing if not hypocritical. I wonder if we could get a bunch of would-be conservatives on-board with a bunch of liberal policies and taxation if we just had people sign something before graduating high school or somesuch. "If I choose to join society then I agree to be bound by its rules, otherwise I'm free to leave and go live somewhere else" or something like that Hey Jrode, if I emmigrate to a different country and agree to abide by their laws and pay all taxes as a resident of that country and in return benefit from public services, have I entered into a voluntary contract with the state?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:03
|
|
