|
jrodefeld posted:No "society" doesn't "ask" me to pay my taxes to give medical care to others. I don't understand why clear language is so hard for some of you to grasp. If I don't have the option of saying "no" without being forcefully thrown in a cage, you are not "asking" me anything. You are threatening me and using violence to fund your idea of social welfare. Exactly! So because that won't happen, you are being asked voluntarily by society. You would only be thrown in jail for pretending that you paid all the taxes you owe (such as falsely filing a tax return that states you owe $0) when you in fact owe a different amount. You would never be imprisoned simply for not paying what you owe. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jan 19, 2016 |
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Andrast posted:Isn't the libertarian argument for an area having laws you don't like usually "you can just leave if you don't like it"? Because it's a bit trickier to do that and he just got a couch that feels good to sit in and really it'd be easier on all of us if you fled your home instead of him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
JRod, I have read your arguments and considered them closely but upon reflection I feel it is in my own rational self interest to continue taxing you. Thus you will be taxed to pay for food stamps.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Also he supported notorious racists Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for POTUS. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 02:53
|
|
Murray Rothbard's Idea Of "Liberalism" Was Ending Apartheid
|
spoon0042 posted:You could say the same thing for, I don't know, Scientology. At least Scientology is supposed to actually be a religion and so citing their holy texts and church leaders makes some sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Ron Paul in fact is a massive racist. Non-racists oppose genocide. Non-racists are not friends with David Duke. Non-racists do not meet with A3P members. As for the newsletter, this too is evidence of his racism. Even if he did not write it, he allowed his name to be attached to it and is responsible for its content.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
The only place I've seen JRod quote Spooner is when Spooner said the Civil War was bad and the North should have just let the south leave. Not really sure supporting slave-states is a left-wing value, Reconstruction was great while it lasted and the only sad thing about the Civil War was that Southerners forced the US to fight it.
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Suppose you kidnapped a person off the street and enslaved them in your apartment refusing to let them leave. This post is incorrect. Then you, the slave owner, decide that your neighbors seem to be a bit too nosy and show too many signs of anti-slavery. You declare your independence from the HOA and refuse to pay your HOA fees anymore. You beat your wife and murder a couple slaves when they object to this move. Nobody responds to your demands so you start firing rockets at a neighboring house. Finally, the abolitionist police respond, shooting you and your militia sons. The other members of your household are alive and as well as they could reasonably be given the warzone you forced them to live under. Whatever you posted had so little to do with the actual US Civil War, if I weren't positive you were an American I'd ask to make sure we were talking about the same war. The USA was responding to aggression by terrorists, it was wholly justified and every Confederate soldier and politician serving of their own free will earned their deaths. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Marx wrote a letter to Lincoln congratulating him on him on ending slavery at the end of the Civil War. Spooner wrote a letter complaining that slavery didn't end the way he wanted it to. I think that's all the that needs to be said about Libertarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? Yes. Supporting something in theory and then arguing against any effort to actually do it is a classic failure of armchair liberals. Ooh slavery is bad, but defending yourself from a Civil War the slavers started is worse. Yeah, I don't like Apartheid but oh Lord please don't replace it with black people ruling. Look, we can all agree that genocide is wrong but we can also all agree that defending Poland from Nazi aggression would be an even greater evil. ETC quote:If I believe that there was a more ethical, more effective manner by which emancipation could have taken place without the bloodshed and horrific ramifications of the Civil War and I point this out, in what rational world does this make me "pro racial slavery"? Because you make up revisionist lies about every step of the civil war, from what started it, to how many people died, to how much support for the war the South had and what the South did to dissenters. You are either so misinformed about the war that your beliefs are based in fantasy, or you are a liar hiding your support for slavery behind concern trolling over the method that ended slavery. quote:You've discredited yourself. You stole the words from my mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
You can only argue the USA defending itself in the civil war was a net increase in human suffering compared to waiting for the independent CSA to ban it itself if you don't consider black people or abolitionists human. I understand why this poses problems for Libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
JRod, for your opinion on the Civil War to make sense, even given your incorrect version of the history of the war, you need one of three things to be true: a) Slavery would end in the CSA in a reasonable timetable/fashion, despite the CSA constitution making this impossible, and the explicit purpose of founding the CSA was to preserve (and even expand) slavery. Now that the CSA is free of the northern abolitionists (and its own abolitionists have been silenced or outright killed), it will obviously radically flip on the issue of slavery and amend their own constitution immediately to ban it. b) As bad as slavery is, the damages from the CW are worse. The ~4 year war (that the CSA started) and the suffering it caused totally overshadows the pains and sufferings of the slaves who would have continued to be enslaved until whatever future date the CSA banned slavery. While the civil war ended slavery, innocent people were hurt and died along the way. Slavery does not hurt or kill innocent people, as all slaves are guilty. c) As bad as the CSA was and as certain as we are slavery would continue, it was a democratic legitimate government that we had to respect. If we look at it by the standards of the times, it went through the normal democratic procedure to declare independence by having a supreme court rule that states did not have the power to declare independence without amending the US constitution, and then ignoring that ruling and declaring independence anyway, and then losing the subsequent war for independence. If we look at it by the standards of today with modern notions of self determination and liberty, we can also see it was legitimate because the decision to declare independence was made by politicians who were not explicitly elected on platforms of secession and who were voted in by white wealthier males, the only demographic that existed in the south at the time. The slaves that were wealthy white men had their chance to voice their opposition to secession and were outvoted. Please clarify for us which of these three positions best explains the morality of surrendering to the CSA, thank you. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
theshim posted:He could make it easy on himself by saying "the CSA wanted to make another state, the worst of all evils" but instead he (read: DiLorenzo) chooses to frame it as a group of people who wanted freedom from the illicit regulations and unfair restrictions pushed on them by brutal, authoritarian tyranny, so Yeah that's the big reason I enjoy seeing Jrod debate this. He is an alleged anarchist. The CSA was not only a state, but a state dedicated to the promotion and protection of slavery. He can easily say he has no skin in that game other than celebrating the USA's abolishment of slavery. Instead he hops in with both feet to support the far more authoritarian state and spouts revisionist lies to make the CSA out to be the poor faultless victim of genocidal Yankee aggression.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Step 3: Spread the population of earthquake prone California out throughout whatever disaster-free zone remains. At this point we're all living in.... northern Ontario I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The existence and tolerance of a State in society requires the belief that some human beings be granted the right to seize the property of others yet those not in government do NOT have this right. Those humans do not have that right. The posts have that authority, granted to them by the consent of the governed, and the humans who fill those posts are selected by the people. Obama does not have the power to sign bills into law, the President of the United States has that authority, and we have selected Obama to be the President of the United States. By this time next year, someone else will be the President of the United States and Obama will no longer sign bills into law. I am sorry this concept seems hard for you to grasp. 1000101 posted:No. It was Jrod. In this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Given that we have been discussing healthcare reform, I have a simple question I’d like to pose: No. jrodefeld posted:10. Murray Rothbard You identify with fascists, supporters of slavery and Apartheid. You are a collaborator at best, a closeted fascist at worst. You are abhorrent. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Jrod, the better question is why would should we surrender to you? I'm not afraid of you Jrod. You can't force me to accept Libertarianism, and Statism rules supreme. We have no need to meet you in the middle on anything. It is you who has to sacrifice what you want to work with us. We don't need your approval to have the FDA do its job, it works pretty well as is, and the only area for improvement involves giving the FDA more funds and more authority. If you want to find common ground, you need to moderate your views so that they are closer to what we want. We are getting along just fine without you, and if anything the future of America looks like more big government and big welfare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Jrod, do you understand what the FDA does and what clinical trials are for? Your posts only make sense if you think the scientific method is bunk, clinical trials are not for observing the effects of a drug but to pointlessly restrict its availability, the FDA has the authority to ban drugs for no reason other than "WE WANT TO HAHAHAH!!!", and there are no mechanisms in place to deal with bribery/corruption. Don't worry Jrod, if we just increase the funding and authority of the FDA a bit, they can keep you safe from conmen who pointlessly drill out your fillings, all without a War on Drug 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Jrod you know so little about how medicine works and the risks of bad/fake medicine hitting the markets that you only prove the need for a central authority to regulate and approve drugs so that people illiterate in science/medicine like yourself don't kill yourselves with fake drugs. It's okay Jrod, we don't mind that burden, we'd rather have you alive and angry than dead from lead fillings
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Jrod I have read your arguments and considered them closely but the convenience of being able to pick up peanuts at the store without having to google the store I'm in to make sure they don't regularly violate health and safety standards, google the company that assessed the store to make sure they're not in the pocket of Big Store, find the name of the farm the peanuts came from, googling it to see if it's a known bad peanut farm, googling the assessor company that assessed the peanuts as edible to make sure they're not in the pocket of Big Nut, googling the transportation company to make sure they store the peanuts in a way that keeps them safe to eat, googling all the previously mentioned companies again to make sure they don't have "no fags, spics, or nigs" hiring policies, etc. The FDA and other similar government agencies save me so much time that it is in my own rational self interest to tax you until the day you die, and then celebrate with one last tax upon your death. Sorry Pththya-lyi posted:I'm still wondering how he knows that Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and the Tea Party were all anarcho-capitalist movements that got hijacked by statist infiltrators. Wait has he said that? Does anyone have a link because  Tea Party I'd give you, but loving Occupy and BLM as an an-cap movement lol.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Not quite. Holy poo poo . Thank you overwhelmingly white Libertarians, for telling black people that the criminal justice system is bad to them, they had no idea at all before Ferguson! Ferguson was a landmark moment where black people finally realized they had it bad after decades of saying and doing absolutely nothing about police brutality because the educated white man hadn't shown them the way yet!Liberals maybe didn't understand the racism of the criminal justice system until Ferguson. Actual leftists and African Americans have been talking about it since before Ron Paul hosted his first white supremacist neo-confederate rally.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Remember how Occupy broke up the big banks and lobbied for all those bills to reform Wall Street? Me neither. Remember that time Libertarians did loving anything? Me neither.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the price of oil goes up, would you expect people to drive less? Would you expect them to buy more fuel efficient cars? No and no. My driving needs have not been affected by the change in oil price. I don't suddenly lose my need to drive to work because gas is expensive, grocery shopping doesn't go away because gas prices went up, etc. I might review my schedule to see if I could maybe cut down on redundant trips, but without an alternative to driving I still need to drive everywhere I needed to go. People will not sell their cars and buy new more fuel efficient cars because of an increase in oil prices. It would take a long time for the initial investment of the new car to get made up for by the savings in gas bills. In that time, my capacity to spend, need to spend, or options on what I can do to reduce my gas bill will change drastically, even ignoring the interruptions to my life of switching cars. The same applies to minimum wage and workers. If my factory needs 500 floor workers to operate, raising the minimum wage doesn't suddenly mean I only need 300 floor workers. I will still need every person I already have. I might review my company's organization to see if I have any redundancies I should have cut anyway, but overall the bulk of my labor needs do not change. In addition, spending an insane sum now to (in a few years) possibly make up for an increase in labor costs doesn't make any sense. Either I was going to do that anyway and the increase in cost at worst only speeds up my timetable, or that's still just as risky and problematic of a change to make. Please learn basic logic Jrod 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Black people: We'd really like it if the jobs that we disproportionately have actually paid enough so that we could live-- White Libertarians: SHUT UP, YOU'LL BE FREE ONCE YOUR BOSS PAYS YOU EVEN SMALLER SCRAPS, THANK ME LATER! Jrod, how would you respond to the fact that polls suggest African-American support for minimum wage increases is much higher than support among whites? Blacks not knowing what's good for them, or state-conspiracy to trick blacks into supporting minimum wage increase but the state-conspiracy forgot to let whites know it's all for them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Jrod, I've been following your posts without preconceptions or ideological bias and have concluded you're a white supremacist, a misogynist, and a classist. You are free to act or not act on this information as you see fit. It is the objective truth however.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:If minimum goes up people won't get jobs, that's why I get hired back at my comic book store when I moved home despite minimum going up almost two dollars in the year I was gone, because it's an onerous restriction crushing business Now hang on a hot minute there, are you claiming that the minimum wage going up didn't change the number of people needed to adequately staff the comic book store? The store didn't fire half its staff on the assumption that the higher paid workers would suddenly work 20 hour days? Well that's just crazy talk, I praxed it out (see:hosed a watermellon), and the result I got was that a store that needs 10 employees at current minimum wage will only need 5 once the minimum wages goes up to $15!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I don't know why you guys bother we've gone over every single point he's made multiple times before and he never, ever acknowledges facts that contradict his suppositions I'm just waiting for the part where he tries the zinger about "if civil rights are so great, why don't you support a law forcing you to invite black people over to your house?" just so I can quote that post, and the post asking where Libertarians support apartheid both within the same thread. Like, I could go back and find that post here: Jrod posted:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? But this is a dusty 2014 post. I want to see him rephrase it slightly for 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
The best proof that someone is racist is if they argue that they cannot be racist due to the nature of a group they belong to. "Libertarians can't racist, we're individualists!", "Christians cannot be racist, we're all God's children!", etc. Being against racism isn't about identifying racist thoughts and actions of yourself and not thinking/doing them, it's a badge you iron onto your coat and show proudly. You've reached Unracist status. You are forever free from self reflection. Go forth and build a new Apartheid, hero.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I worded that imprecisely. What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? Nope, still Klan levels of racism. Racial profiling is never the answer full stop. quote:I didn't mean to imply it would be reasonable for average people simply to be nervous and uncomfortable around Muslims because of the existence of ISIS in the world. That would be prejudiced and probably bigoted. That would be hosed up, law enforcement looking on all Arabs and Muslims with suspicion though is right on and in keeping with the
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
As a white dude, cops having the power to suspect every brown person of terrorism is great, just like Martin Luther King Jr (my personal hero, so I'm Unracist) said: "I'm a black so I probably did something wrong, proceed with the beating officer."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Yellow! The gold of angry men! Black! The skin of neighbors past! Yellow! A DRO about to dawn! Black! The state that ends at last! jrodefeld posted:Let me cite another common "lifeboat" scenario that is thrown against the libertarian position. If a poor person is starving and steals a loaf of bread from a store, is he or she committing an act of unjustified aggression? So instead of an efficient solution to hunger, like say food stamps or food cash subsidies or state-run soup kitchens or just straight up guaranteed food minimum rations, we should have a nonsensically complicated system of people being sued for stealing bread we all agree they have the moral right to steal and so we in turn try the baker in a court of public opinion to force them to give up their lawful right to sue the poor person? Is the free market normally this inefficient, or only when you realize how abhorrent your positions are?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Jrod, you have stated your support for police racially profiling Arabs, and despite our efforts to shame you, you still seem to support that position. In light of this, why should we believe that public shaming is such a powerful tool it will smooth over all the bumps in Libertopia, like poor folk starving in the streets? It clearly doesn't do anything to you, you still think racial profiling is awesome as long as cops are the ones doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:He is not good at faking empathy, which makes me wonder why he thinks he can proselytize to leftists. His efforts to find middle ground policy proposals have been hilariously pathetic, from "Strengthen labor by repealing the minimum wage for teens" to "Completely gut the FDA by revoking their ability to ban/stop the distribution of drugs". I don't know what exactly he was trying to do there, if he sees the world as statists V non-statists, then there's no need to compromise, statism is dominant and shows no signs of letting up. If he recognizes that there are a whole lot of ideologies under the umbrella of "statism", then why does he think a bunch of leftists who want to weaken businesses and strengthen workers want to kill a watchdog agency and make low skill workers compete with kids who are paid cents on the hour?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
This thread, as past Libertarian threads have done, has reaffirmed my support for the emancipatory science of Marxist-Leninism. Some capitalist fanatics try to hide their inner imperialist, but with time, they descend into fascism as they realize their religion is incomprehensible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Might wanna check on that again, I praxed it out and it looks like states and nationalizing the means of production actually work way better. Did you remember to take the natural log at the end of the third step?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Real quick:jrodefeld posted:To create the wealth in society that would be needed to generate a comfortable living standard for the maximum number of people, as history has taught us, you need to embrace a free market economy, private property rights, and keep the State restrained to the adjudication of disputes and the defense of individual rights. Regulations, labor rights, and limitations on private property were brought on in response to problems like rampant deaths from fake or bad medicine, horrendous exploitation of workers, and segregation. History has taught us we in fact need to reject a free market and accept restrictions on property rights to improve the living standards for the most people. quote:This is so staggeringly disingenuous. I never claimed to be any sort of expert in the policies of Qatar or UAE and my goal was simply to give a sample of the sort of literature that has been done on the subject of economic freedom around the world. If you would look at the broader picture, you would see a very strong correlation between adherence to free market principles and the general prosperity and living standards of the populations of those countries. You support the CSA's struggle to promote and protect slavery, and you see nothing wrong with citing modern slave states as economically free nations. They were awarded their high positions on the list of economically free nations due to how much slavery they had. Ergo you are, as usual, defending slavery. quote:Hong Kong is oft cited as a success story. The ease by which an entrepreneur can start a business and the legal defense of contract and property are critical to capital accumulation and investment which creates prosperity and enables a middle class to emerge. Just because Hong Kong produces all the kung fu movies you like to pirate so much doesn't mean they're Libertarian. You can't just say "Hong Kong has startups, ergo they must be doing Libertarianism." Hong Kong really isn't Libertarian. quote:Take all your favorite Progressive policies, workplace safety regulations, minimum wage laws, occupational licensure laws, punitive high tax-rates on the highest income bracket and so forth and apply them to Malawi (one of the poorest nations in the world), see how much better you will make the poor in that country. The logical result will be, at best, no discernible effect on poverty rates, and more likely an even worse experience for the people who have to suffer in that third world nation. This is mindless gibberish. "If you take any policies I don't like and do them in Malawi, you'll have turbomegadeath forever, logically speaking". How? Why? Show us your work! Why is Malawi going to have turbomegadeath if it introduces a higher estate tax? Explain! quote:The most effective way to improve working conditions for the poor and eliminate child labor is to adopt policies that attract capital investment to make the economy more physically productive. This raises real wages and stocks store shelves with an abundance of goods that allow people to work less hours, have more leisure and purchase the needed products that allow for a comfortable standard of living. Have you heard about these little places called "Qatar" and "UAE"? You may want to look them up, they got some crazy investment going on but there seem to be some quote:The message here is that by moving towards greater economic freedom, making it easier for entrepreneurs to start businesses quote:reducing tax rates and government spending which allows more capital investment, quote:The effect of these reforms would be that less people would need charity and there would be more disposable income to provide for those that still did. It is an absolute fallacy to think that the private economy would need to match, dollar for dollar, the amount spent by the State on social welfare. If observable reality about the way governments and the private market work has taught us anything, it is that private sector enterprises can produce equivalent or superior results at a fraction of the cost of the State. No actually as we learned, these reforms will cause turbomegadeath forever. Please correct your thinking to account for the turbomegadeath you will cause thank you. quote:somehow ignoring the century of relative laissez-faire economic freedom which permitted such a massive creation of prosperity, capital accumulation and physical productivity. Those centuries where we didn't have GI bills, high taxes, etc and all the money was concentrated at the top while everyone else got scraps, yes I remember that century. It's almost like the taxes and GI bills were done in response to a problem we had going on! I'm sorry your religion is false, but we still have no interest in converting to your church at this time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Imagine implementing Libertarian policies in Kansas. Logically speaking, it would lead to turbomegadeath forever. And oh look, it did!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If child labor laws only make poverty worse, and the only reason they seemed to work in the US is because we just happened to become prosperous enough to not need child labor anymore at the exact moment those laws were passed...then why do businesses lobby so hard and spend so much money trying to repeal them? We got real lucky with segregation too. Banned it just as racism became such a small problem we didn't really need to ban it anyway. So let's just legalize it again, just for shits and giggles. I'm not a racist, I probably wouldn't ban any people from my businesses (unless they look like the thug gangsters or Arabs), but the government wastes infinity trillion dollars stopping segregation, so lets just legalize it, mkay?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Having read all of Jrod's posts, his suggested reforms will logically lead to turbomegadeath forever. This is a logictruth that you must all accept. Only the emancipatory science of Marxist-Leninism can save us from the turbomegadeath, speaking logically.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 15:03
|
|