|
jrodefeld posted:The writing tips seem like an evasion. You can avoid the issue we are discussing and be condescending at the same time! It's a win-win. Except for the times we caught you plagiarizing. Other than that, yeah, I believe your word vomit is entirely typed by you. I just don't think there's much of a gap between what you read from a Good Libertarian Source and what you say - it doesn't get filtered through much thought.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also what kind of weird consumption driven robot would think that's actually a good idea? Jrod is a faulty AI trying to wirehead itself with property rights. It's not very good at this, however, so it wanders the internet proselytizing poorly. If you think about it, this explains everything. Jrod's inability to change writing styles. Jrod's inability to take in new or conflicting information. Jrod's use of Mises as a sole source. Jrod's complete lack of arguments that make sense from a human perspective. The need for logic chains instead of consequentialist reasoning, the assumptions that are axiomatically true. The idea that people will follow the rules of NAP because how can one not follow one's rules?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
There's another consequence of the homestead principle that I don't think has been mentioned yet. It completely precludes the ability to have national parks or other nature preserves. Hell, it even prevents strategic resource reserves (oil or mineral) without farming on top of them. Why is this not terrible?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've read my share of Proudhon and, honestly, if you'd be willing to adopt a Proudhon-style of Anarchism then I'd consider us close enough ideologically to be considered allies on most issues. So you're down with a national bank that is funded by a high capital gains tax? With currency that is detached from the gold standard? Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Since no one has jumped on this yet, let me.jrodefeld posted:Take a look at this graph in particular: Oh, look, you again show you don't know how to do something as basic as read a graph. This graph actually shows that the teenage unemployment rate stays the same until the economy crashes, at which point it goes up like most other kinds of unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf). The fact that they found a spurious correlation is as meaningless as the relationship between Nicholas Cage movies and pool drownings.  Or do you have an argument for why minimum wage hikes in the U.S. caused unemployment in the UK?  I'll help you out. It wasn't their own minwage increasing:  The fact that you can look at a graph of unemployment increasing during the biggest economic collapse in recent history and go "I know!  It's the minimum wage increase's fault! This is strong evidence." is exactly why people are accusing you of regurgitating your sources without critical thought of your own. And generally being dumber than a doorknob.jrodefeld posted:And exactly how familiar are you with the Davis-Bacon Act, which was a Jim Crow era minimum wage law which explicitly was intended to harm blacks and keep them out of the labor market. This is history that we really ought not to forget. Cool, now please show me the current white-only unions campaigning for higher minimum wage and applying pressure to make companies and the government only hire their white union workers at that minimum wage. Because that's the mechanism that was used for racist oppression in the Jim Crow era. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
So Scott Horton seems a little more palatable than most at first glance, with his consistently anti-war, anti-drone, and anti-cop-overreach stance. Let's take a bit of a deeper look at his twitter. Oh, look. He constantly hates on Sanders, Hillary, and (Rand) Paul, for their "hawkish" foreign policy, but not Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. And supports a Bloomberg run. Shocker, I know. He also cheerleads Trump insulting people, argues with people insulting Trump, and hates Megyn Kelly. He is campaigning for Ron Paul 2016. He calls the government the enemy and calls for it's end without anything I can find (I'm not going to go through all his tweets) about what things look like without it. . . . Yeaaaaaaah, I can see why he's Jrod's favorite. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Yup. He'd much rather talk about how Sanders is a warmonger/drone lover/literally hitler than anything negative about Cruz.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Yes, the relationship between the price of a raw resource and one of it's products is exactly the same as that between ice cream sales and drowning deaths in pools. It looks like a smoothed function that's lower in amplitude and maybe slightly phase shifted but otherwise pretty close, and there is a reasonable mechanistic explanation for why. If you have evidence that other factors matter more, making "crude price a quite minor factor", please present it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
It's like you never read anything anyone said last time you brought up minimum wage. A minimum wage job doesn't prepare one to move up the ladder, it prepares one to take two minimum wage jobs when one has dependents. A minimum wage job is often just about having a body there, that requirement doesn't go away even if the body has to be paid a slightly greater portion of the revenue. A minimum wage job that pays less than the cost of living damns people to a life of needing public aid. If you want to find in-depth arguments making a better case for these statements than you've ever made for anything in your life but eugenics, go back to the last time you talked about minimum wage. Or the time before that. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think this is a good time to talk about the limits of empirical studies when looking at social phenomenon. Empiricism in the hard sciences is pretty straightforward because studies can be conducted with great specificity and are easily reproducible by other scientists. In contrast, human behavior in a complex economy is much more difficult to evaluate purely on an empirical basis. I've studied this issue for a while, and what has come up again and again is an empirical economist releases a paper that purports to prove a specific assertion, and then subsequent economists find it impossible to reproduce the results found because they cannot isolate the variables with regards to human action in a complex environment. Well, it's not shocking that you don't understand how science works. Science doesn't actually make positive statements, it shows that successively more specific null hypotheses are inconsistent with reality. It doesn't do this in a single study, even for the hard sciences. Bleeding edge applied physics papers these days are often very stats heavy, and the author's interpretation of their results is frequently shown to be off. But, over time, theories are effectively disproven by showing that there is an infinitesimal chance they are consistent with observed reality in study after study, until they have been winnowed down to a single likely explanation for a single question at a single level of scope. Then, using that, scientists develop new theories to destroy. It's entirely possible to build good models for complex systems, as long as you hold to a scope and accept that it's not going to be 100% accurate. More than that, it's _easy_ to show that particularly bad theoretical models don't work. Which is what's happened to Austrian economists' theories again and again. jrodefeld posted:I don't think a study from 2006 qualifies it as "old". Bolly for you. It's an active domain that has been getting a lot of attention lately, and you are pointing at the discourse from years ago. You are also not addressing Vital's point, which is that it's old enough to have a discussion about it, which you missed and, now that it's been pointed out to you, are ignoring. Science works because it's an ongoing process - no single paper, even a meta study, even a meta study of meta studies on a subject, is immune to criticism regardless of when it's levied. Simply put, if there is a reason to doubt a paper, it should be doubted until a convincing followup handles the concerns. jrodefeld posted:There are a few more things I think it is important to say on this subject. The national unemployment figures are bogus for a number of reasons related to political pressure to make the numbers look better. If a person has been unemployed past a certain amount of time, even if they WANT to find work were it available but they eventually stop looking, they are not counted as being unemployed. No. Just no. The official unemployment rate is only one of many consistent metrics that the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out. Researchers who have a compelling reason for using another one can do so, but they generally don't because the discourse has decided that the official unemployment rate is a good, useful metric. jrodefeld posted:There are a large number of groups that are made up of lower skilled people who have been unemployed for a long time due to the minimum wage laws and these accumulated casualties of these laws are not considered in these studies. [citation needed] One thing that you keep ignoring is that there are plenty of people getting paid less than minimum wage. Yes, it's illegal, but desperate people are willing to take money under the table to do those jobs none-the-less. Many are undocumented immigrants, but there are native born Americans doing these jobs too. jrodefeld posted:Another thing to consider is the way in which political pressure, as in advocacy for a particular policy has corrupted the economic profession and clouded the impartial scientific judgment of many of the economists who participate in the studies that purport to show no negative effects of minimum wage laws. The modern economy is incredibly complex and it is extremely easy to subtly adjust one variable and/or limit the scope of the study such that the negative repercussions of the minimum wage are disguised. You do realize that most of the partisan think tanks fall on your side, not ours? That the moneyed interest favors suppressing minimum wage? That "anyone who doesn't agree with me is corrupt" is just being an rear end in a top hat? That you accusing others of willfully and intentionally ignoring evidence to follow a narrative is literally painfully ironic? jrodefeld posted:What if we had a very deep depression and just as we were in recovery, the minimum wage was raised by a dollar? Then unemployment dropped. Would you say that the minimum wage was the CAUSE of the drop in unemployment? Or was the drop in unemployment more likely attributed to the overall economic recovery which resulted from innumerable other factors? Maybe the unemployment rate would have dropped even faster if the minimum wage hadn't been raised. Fortunately, a vast amount of work has gone into developing methodologies for establishing causality. Also LOL because this is exactly what you did that I debunked here with plenty of graphs of my own in a post that you conveniently ignored like you do with most substantive responses: Etalommi posted:Oh, look, you again show you don't know how to do something as basic as read a graph. This graph actually shows that the teenage unemployment rate stays the same until the economy crashes, at which point it goes up like most other kinds of unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf). jrodefeld posted:So since there are some studies showing negative employment effects from the minimum wage and others showing none, are we to throw up our hands and say that we just don't have a loving clue about this important topic? Hardly. There is a role for sound economic reasoning and logical deduction. Science doesn't stop because people disagree. Papers on a subject get published, critiqued, incorporated into the literature or ignored, until the gestalt moves in a direction. Communicating this is one of the places where science currently has enormous issues, as the public is subjected to an onslaught of contradicting papers in isolation and overblown press releases. But that doesn't mean that it's all useless or it's impossible to extract meaningful knowledge from it. jrodefeld posted:There is a very important reason why statements of economic law by Austrian economists are preceded by the latin phrase ceterus paribus, which as I've stated means "all things being equal". We cannot control for every variable in a complex economy, so to logically understand what is going on we have to compare apples to apples. We have to hold everything else constant in order to isolate the role of the minimum wage in employment. No, it's because they are pompous blowhards. No poo poo everything is based on axioms and assumptions, but most people are able to state their givens without douchebag ostentatiousness. jrodefeld posted:These are the sorts of things that these studies find difficult to adequately control for. However, with recourse to economic law, we know that demand curves slope downward and as the price of a good increases, the demand for that good will decrease with all other things being equal. Even the purely logical theoretical economics is comprised of more than just supply and demand curves you dolt. See any of the explanations of inelasticity for one of many, many examples of how it's more complicated. jrodefeld posted:It is true that if a price increase is tiny enough there won't be any obvious decrease in demand that is generally visible. If the minimum wage was increased by five cents, you could not produce any study that would show employers laying off massive numbers of workers in the next six months. Maybe a few workers will be let go over an entire State by companies who are barely making ends meet and even the tiniest increase in their cost of doing business will hurt them. These won't register with the empirical economists but the insidious effect of slow and steady increases in the minimum wage will accumulate. Maybe these workers will eventually find their way back into the workforce, and maybe they'll be resigned to permanent unemployment. So there is some threshold beneath which it does not have a negative effect but above which it does. Cool, I think everyone ITT agrees with that. This is something we can work off of. The question then becomes "how do we figure out where the threshold lies?" That's not something that can be reasoned out from first principles. It's something that must be measured. And guess what? That's exactly what economic scientists are doing. Why did I have to wade through all this word salad of you discarding empiricism for you to essentially agree with everyone except about the amplitude of change needed to be detrimental? Learn 2 write. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I recognize you are nearly entirely ignorant of Scott Horton, AntiWar.com and the positions he holds. Scott Horton actually hosts a radio show/podcast and you can listen to it at scotthorton.org. If you don't immediately see that he is as devoutly anti Trump, Cruz and Rubio as he is anti Sanders, Clinton and Rand (?) then you don't have much of a clue. Do you even think through the logic of what you are saying before you say it?  Oh look, I got a Jrod response, not to my substantive takedown of his perspective on empiricism (here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3745862&userid=177752#post455906759 if you want to engage with something actually substantive, Jrod), but to the aside where I looked at one of his heroes' twitter and reported what I saw. If Scott Horton is so against Trump, Cruz, or Rubio why do you think he doesn't manage to talk about it ever on Twitter? I read about a thousand tweets. Not one of them was called out, even when he was covering debates in which they said abhorrent things. In fact, everything I saw him say about Trump was positive: https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/status/677507593644961793 So you tell me, why the hypocrisy? Why the focus on Hillary and Bernie over actual warmongers? I think it's because he's a closet conservative, just like you. I frankly could not give two shits about what he has to say on his podcast. It was painful enough to go through his concise written statements. If you have anything in particular, link to that with the time & jrodefeld posted:If Scott Horton blasts Rand Paul for being too hawkish on foreign policy, what on earth would make you think he'd be more favorable towards Trump, Cruz or Rubio who are in every way more hawkish than Rand is? He seems to blast Rand Paul for pandering and not living up to the legacy of his father, despite that being exactly what he's done. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Like I said earlier though, it is true that market economies closer to libertarianism have less general income inequality than do more Statist societies. I'll let someone else do the rest of it, but please post a ranked list of the closest economies to the Libertarian ideal. The last one you posted had literal slave countries on it, and I don't think even you are daft enough to argue that economies largely powered by slave labor have less income inequality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Nope, just the U.S. there you loving moron That's not true. The U.S. might be terrible, but it's in a whole cohort of countries. Like El Salvador and South Africa. Oh, you wanted first world countries? Uhh, we're only a little worse than Israel. And we're pretty even with Russia in the second world. That's not bad, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You absolutely choose not to reciprocate this courtesy to the libertarian. On the contrary, you are welcome to VOLUNTARILY live in a Libertarian society, a gated community where you all choose to interact only in contracts and commerce. As long as you pay your taxes and follow the greater society's laws & regulation. The problem comes if or when someone tries to run a hospital out of their garage with no training or sell food that will make people sick. Most Libertarians are unable to do this without aggressing against the societal contract, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
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? Which terrorist attack on a 1st world country since 9/11 would have been stopped or was stopped by the police being properly suspicious of a Middle-Eastern Muslim foreigner? Though you do have a point, maybe all white boys in school should be viewed with extreme distrust, stopped and frisked, and have their communications monitored by the police & the NSA. P.S. WTF does this have to do with anything? You were using the Muslim terrorist analogy to defend Zimmerman and being afraid of black people, so it pretty clearly isn't a matter of national defense. You very much meant to imply it would be reasonable for average people to be uncomfortable around Muslims and black people. jrodefeld posted:If Trayvon had a history of criminal abuse, that IS relevant to whether it is likely that during an altercation with Zimmerman, Trayvon became the aggressor and Zimmerman had legitimate reason to fear for his life. It is not unreasonable for the defense to bring up issues with Trayvon's past.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Although, if you did sell your worldview as a never-ending homosexual orgy, I think you might get a lot more support. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: You Are Racist > Property Rights: A Never-Ending Homosexual Orgy Nolanar posted:I guess I should buy an avatar, to make me more memorable. someone should make a GBS style one for the "Jrod hit squad"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
It's got all the  posts of d&d with all the  one could wish for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 02:21
|
|