Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Oh man oh man oh man :dance:

jrodefeld posted:

It is often stated by misinformed left-Progressives that libertarians or other free market advocates have a fetish for private property rights; that we elevate property as a right above human rights, that our insistence on private ownership creates conflict between those who have more and those who have less and encourages human greed and alienation between different groups of people.

As to the first claim, this one is always amusing because it is so crystal clear to a libertarian that there is no meaningful distinction between property rights and human rights.

See, right off the bat you're at odds with virtually everyone in the world. Human rights are not property rights. You can trade property, you can own property, you can acquire property. None of the above applies to humanity.

quote:

The reader should be disabused of the notion that libertarians have some obsession with private property or criticize public, or society-"owned" property based on any shallow ideological grounds. The reason we oppose socialism is that its core tenets are in conflict with observable reality. Were reality to be different than it is, libertarians would gladly abandon the concept of private property (outside of our physical bodies) as meaningless and of no use.

praxeology

quote:

This should not be controversial. If we can agree on the vital necessity of the recognition of private property rights for human evolution and survival, then what rules ought to be in place for the attainment of legitimate property that should be legally enforced? The libertarian answer is that the first user to appropriate a resource out of its naturally environment and transform and improve it for the furtherance of his well-being has the best claim to ownership of that scarce resource. This, as you already know, has been referred to as the homestead principle. And it predated John Locke as a recognized norm in primitive civilizations millennia before he coined the phrase for the modern science of economics to make sense of an existed social phenomena.

What is someone to do if there is no unowned territory to homestead? We're quite low on places that people don't already live on this little planet of ours. Even assuming we buy into the homestead principle as the be-all end-all arbiter of how property is acquired, what happens when the very scarcity you keep mentioning hits right here?

quote:

Had any other principle of property ownership and use-rights been adopted, the human race would have died off. This is not hyperbole. Let's suppose not the first user of something has the right to exclusive control of a scarce resource, but rather that the fifth user was the one who had that right. How could we eat? If I'm the first person to claim ownership of a coconut tree, or a water spring, but I don't have any property right in that thing, then I wouldn't be able to justly use that scarce resource. I'd starve and die of thirst. We'd all have to wait around for the fifth user of everything. Naturally, humans desired above all else to survive and improve their condition. And it makes intuitive and logical sense to most people to give the earlier user precedence over a later user.

Orrrrrr...there could be multiple people with the rights to use something? It's not a binary of "EITHER THE FIRST PERSON GETS IT OR...ANOTHER, LATER PERSON GETS IT??" and that would be ridiculous. Public use of things that are held in a mutual trust makes a lot of sense when it comes to a lot of things, like, say, drinkable water.

quote:

Given the reality of scarcity, what humans need more than anything else are social rules and a legal system that facilitates ever greater material production such that people can attain more and more of their needs and desires. What we are essentially doing is moving towards less and less scarcity through greater and greater productive capacity in modern economies. This, of course, should be considered a great thing for human welfare all around.

Left-progressives frequently speak about the plight of the poor and the continuing social problems that exist throughout much of the world. However, the engine that drives the greatest and most robust increase in society-wide wealth for everyone is one in which property is private and the division of labor, capital accumulation, investment and a free price system are permitted to function unhampered.

If by "society-wide wealth for everyone" you mean robber barons and factory owners glutting themselves while the poor are trapped in a hellish circle of inescapable poverty, sure.

I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist?

quote:

I'm going to throw in a curve-ball here and talk about another so-called "property" right that isn't actually property at all. That is what is called Intellectual Property. Libertarians oppose the existence of so-called "intellectual property" at all. But why would that be? The reason is that property is only a coherent and useful concept when it applies to things that are scarce. Copying a movie cannot be theft if you owned the original that you made a copy from. No one else was deprived of any physical possession whatsoever. Since copying can be done, theoretically infinitely, without depriving anyone of their copy, there is no scarcity and no theft. Patents on inventions present a similar case. Ideas are not scarce. If you freely share an idea and someone emulates or improves upon that idea, society is all the better off.

Society has been made incalculably poorer and many corporations unjustly wealthier than they ought to be because of this grotesque State-monopoly privilege known as intellectual "property".

Okay, let's say I write a book. However, I want to make sure I write a good book, because bad books suck. I spend a lot of my free time (because I'm working to feed myself, of course) improving my writing and editing and getting a good work out that people will enjoy.

Three hours after it's published, there are - in your system - entirely legal copies of it floating everywhere, and in truth I will never see a dollar for any of the work I put in.

Why the hell would I ever bother doing anything besides producing physical goods if anyone else can walk off with it? Why innovate if there is nothing in it for anyone? (I mean, never mind the fact that good ideas are, in point of fact, pretty goddamn scarce.) No one could make a career out of writing, or making movies, or acting, or anything of the sort, because all of the cost of producing said works would be borne entirely by the creative personality, with virtually no compensation. I mean, if I was a billionaire in Libertopia I could dedicate myself to writing full-time, but honestly if I was a billionaire in Libertopia almost none of the traditional criticisms of anything you wrote are applicable.

Maybe you should stop and think about that.

quote:

Left-progressives frequently rail about the need for a legally mandated "right" to a service like healthcare forgetting or never understanding in the first place how the services needed to supply the growing human need are most efficiently produced and allocated. You might have an abstract "right" to a heart surgery, but if the sort of economic system and the State regulations and mandates heaped upon it don't produce enough hospitals, doctors and medical equipment, you won't get the care you need despite what politicians might claim.

Again - why do you think there are licensing requirements and regulations for doctors and hospitals? (Never mind the built-in assumption you make that in socialized medicine people die on waiting lists for critical surgeries, something you've been repeatedly challenged on.)

You'd have a better example if you picked something like needing an organ donor, which is critically limited by other people, and even then society as a whole has a vested interest in people's kidneys staying where they are the overwhelming majority of the time.

quote:

If you're concern is largely for the material well-being of society's most vulnerable, surely you'd want the economy to be as physically productive as possible? The problem facing the poor is not that they make $8.50 and not $15 an hour. The problem is that they don't have enough basic "stuff" to give them a reasonable standard of living. And why don't they? They economy is not physically productive enough to provide them with needed and desired goods or there are artificial impediments to employment and/or entrepreneurship that constrains their available options.

Well, our economy produces a loving shitton of goods, so I'm going to go with the latter...except that where to you that means the government interfering with people, to me that speaks of things like the near-criminalization of poverty in our day and age, institutional racism, and the overwhelming imbalance in labor relations in favor of the employer.

On an unrelated note, have you ever hosed a watermelon?

# ¿ Oct 9, 2015 15:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:10

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

JeffersonClay posted:

Jrod this is why we should care about property rights.

Oh man, he's gotta respond to this one.

I mean, after all, Jrod's love of bell curves is well known...

# ¿ Oct 9, 2015 20:33

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Oh, Jrod, I know you've got a lot of people yelling at you, but I did have a first page response that I'd really like it if you could respond to. If nothing else, to just these three tiny questions:

theshim posted:

I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist?

On an unrelated note, have you ever hosed a watermelon?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 17:06

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

paragon1 posted:

The angel's sons have been hungry recently.

The significant owl hoots in the night :black101:

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 06:09

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

None of us can undo the atrocities committed by people in the past. The best we can do is provide a consistent theoretical framework for understanding what constitutes just property and which constitutes stolen property. This of course means that some of us will be the unfair beneficiaries of past theft that cannot be proven or completely overturned. There isn't any perfect solution to this problem no matter what ideology you subscribe to.

Some past land theft can be proven. Whether it is to provide reparations to descendants of black slaves or descendants of Native Americans who were murdered, libertarian justice would compel us to provide restitution for past damages if sufficient evidence is provided.

It is patently unfair to criticize libertarianism for not having a perfect solution to a difficult problem when no competing ideology has any better of a solution.

Is it any more "just" to take money ad hoc from white people, whether they or their ancestors had anything to do with slavery and give it to black people, whether or not their ancestors were enslaved? Furthermore, is it "just" to kick tons of European-Americans out of their homes and give them to descendants of Native Americans even if there is not the slightest evidence that the redistributed property belonged to their ancestors?

Hmmmmmmm.

(Seriously, though, read that. Please, for gently caress's sake, read that.)

jrodefeld posted:

You might be able to anticipate my response, but the problem you faced has everything to do with the fact that the police are a part of the State. They have absolutely NO incentive to retrieve your stolen stuff. If, on the other hand you could hire competing security forces to secure your neighborhood and catch and punish thieves then you would be far more likely to see much better protection of your property rights. After all, a private business that depends on your voluntary payments rather than coercive taxation has every incentive to provide you with a good service. If they don't, you can fire them and hire a different security company.

A bunch of people have pointed out how hilariously terrible an idea this is, but I really have to point it out again. Basically you're calling for mercenaries to replace the police, who you could totally fire at any point with no repercussions, and of course there's definitely no issue with people being too poor to afford justice in this system, right?

It boggles the mind.

jrodefeld posted:

Where did I say that? If laissez-faire just came naturally, the world would be made up of libertarian countries. No, people have to have some economic literacy. People aren't born knowing everything. You'd have to read Bastiat's "The Law" or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" or something similar to be able to think like an economist. Remember, the primary difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that the good economist takes note of the "unseen" as well as the seen. This is not natural. It requires an understanding of economics and opportunity costs.

There is not an :ironicat:

big enough.

jrodefeld posted:

gently caress you and get the gently caress off of my thread. I don't have any goddamn patience for your loving poo poo anymore.

You are the coward. You wouldn't dare speak to me that way in person but, surrounded by 25 of your like-minded internet buddies and made anonymous by your IP address you act like a tough guy.

I have to say, unlike everyone else, I appreciate this response from you, man. This is the most genuine, unpretentious, straightforward thing I've ever seen from you. You should always post like this. Spice up your word walls with a few good cusses, man! Live a little! :buddy:

Also, since you seem to have skipped over it again:

quote:

Oh, Jrod, I know you've got a lot of people yelling at you, but I did have a first page response that I'd really like it if you could respond to. If nothing else, to just these three tiny questions:

theshim posted:
I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist?

On an unrelated note, have you ever hosed a watermelon?

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 16:04

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Literally The Worst posted:

he challenged me first, i get first crack at this and I choose to set up a boxing match

RuanGacho posted:

I think my favorite part of these threads is when people get tired of libertarian's poo poo and just explode into a bout of unpolite truth telling.

These people are literally trying to obliterate all that is good and just in the world through a chosen ideology, not a heritage imposed on them, not a sense of obligation to carry out a hired job but a true and completely voluntary decision to not only take selfishly and hypocritically from the commons, but also try to remove that option from others.

They are the unveiled and true evil actors in this world and a cancer on society and only because of the civility of better men and women than themselves does our figurative society politely gaze down at our navels and entertains the idea that "hmm yes perhaps there is room for the serial rapist and murderers of society at the bargaining table, everyone has their place after all..."

gently caress libertarians and shame every single one agressively and vehemently until their ideology is properly left in the trash bin of history.

A couple amazing post/avatar combos here. :v:

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 17:15

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

TLM3101 posted:

Naaah. This way we'll get to watch him hilariously backtrack with the quickness. Assuming he doesn't just ignore the fact that he just held up slavery as a shining beacon of economic freedom, I'm expecting an essay that can be boiled down to "Oh, I never said that Qatar and the UAE were more libertarian than the US" anyway. Which doesn't change the fact that that's what he did. And he's actually kind of right! Being able to own people is more economic freedom than there is in the US!

I'd expect something more along the lines of "while I may have referenced them once or twice I also have had my disagreements with the Cato Institute and I personally do not agree with their ideas here but they have also had some very important essays that illustrate critical points ron paul murder you're famil."

# ¿ Oct 15, 2015 19:09

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

No, but you see, the Little House on the Prairie was illegitimate homesteading because it was the State that was parceling out the territory, the same State that perpetrated such horrific actions as this:

Caros posted:

Homesteading is the only legitimate form of property rights.

Without the coercive apparatus of the State and its monopoly on violence being used to displace the native population, America as we know it would be a glorious land of freedom and equality.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 21:51

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

O blessed probation,
That frees us from these tired shackles,
Of trolls and horse lords.

Give us this day our jrodefeld,
That we may mock him, and ask of him,
"Hast thou hosed yon melon?"

And let it be so,
Amen.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2015 21:31

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Nolanar posted:

Oh man, speaking of confirming our worst suspicions, remember the time that JRod said it would be morally okay for a Libertarian to be a literal Nazi concentration camp guard as long as he killed fewer Jews than his hypothetical replacement would? Like, he actually used Nazi prison guards as his example. It wasn't even in response to a hypothetical we suggested, it just sort of happened, out of nowhere.

edit: Found it!

One of my favorite things is that, as with all things libertarian, it reduces it to a question of property, and the guard must accept the judgement of the families to "make restitution for what you have stolen".

Never mind the fact that one man can kill a dozen others, and has only one life of his own to offer in recompense. It's almost like life and liberty and people aren't things that can be dealt with via property law!

SedanChair posted:

Do not become addicted to justice, or it will take hold of you and you will resent its absence.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 20:43

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

OwlFancier posted:

Weregild would like a word.

Members of the Blue Spruce clan approach your ring. "Your weaponthane, Jrodefeld, has slain one of our people on the road for no reason at all and refuses to pay the weregild. We demand that you give him up to face justice, or convince him to pay."

When asked, Jrodefeld says "The Blue Spruces were aggressing on Orlanthi property by walking with a higher degree of time preference on my road, thus lowering its value. I did only as Orlanth himself would have done, and protected that which is mine."

1) "Jrodefeld is no Orlanthi, and you may do with him as you please."
2) Force Jrodefeld to pay weregild, violating the NAP.
3) Outlaw Jrodefeld.
4) "We will deal with him ourselves. :chef:

"
5) "Ron Paul end the Fed."

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 22:19

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Liquid Communism posted:

The hilarious part is that it fails to address the reality that quitting your DRO would thusly be considered admitting to criminal intent.

Hope you like that company store...

No, being without a DRO is. If you were unfairly treated by your DRO, all you would have to do is transfer your ~~allegiance~~ membership to another DRO. Bonus points if the new one is Valhalla DRO - then you can kill and still be covered!

_{_{conflicting DRO rules? what are those}}

# ¿ Nov 2, 2015 19:11

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

The more your DRO tightens its grip, the more star systems will slip through its fingers.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 16:24

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Nolanar posted:

Oh, we're trying to bring him back, are we?

*draws alchemical symbol for gold on the floor in chalk*

Chant with me: The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience. The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience...

Ia! Ia! Lincoln fhtagn!

(seriously, in the collection of jrod's greatest hits, the time when he went off on Lincoln was one of my favorites)

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 21:27

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

All I can think of with all the "fite me irl" posting is this

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 18:57

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Caros posted:

You called it a good question twice. That is weird. You are weird.

get outta here brightwing :argh:

GunnerJ posted:

Having skimmed the rest of your post, I'll say that your shilling for another libertarian makes me feel good about my decision. But I will return your favor of suggesting reading for me by suggesting that you read a case for reparations that shows how the legacy of slavery continues to the modern day better than I ever could: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

For the record, I posted that article a good thirty pages ago. He hasn't read it. He will not read it.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2015 19:00

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Captain_Maclaine posted:

quote:
The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss

Yes they do. :psyboom:

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 22:21

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

However, let me be a little firm with you for a minute. This is not a subject I take very lightly. There are many people who will go through similar tragedies of losing loved ones because of an inability to access needed drugs (not approved by the FDA or prohibitively expensive), not having insurance or inability to pay the inflated medical costs.

Holy poo poo are you really trotting out this same bullshit again? Do you not remember people tearing you a new rear end in a top hat about thalidomide?

# ¿ Jan 17, 2016 22:43

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

EvanSchenck posted:

Ok I guess we're done talking about benefit societies

The thing about his perspective on these, as well as many other things (like healthcare, for example), is that they all rely on one simple assumption, and if you start with it, Jrod's only arguing the logical chain of events.

The assumption is that, in the absence of the State, everyone will have a lot more money (think how much you'll be recouping just from taxes!) and everything will cost less (with no drop and frequent increases in quality). This means that we are all bringing up claims with no basis in his hypothetical reality - everyone will be wealthier and happier, and even if someone is faced with a rare, catastrophic event, the fact that everyone has considerably more money available means that they will be freely able to give to charities without coercement, and aid societies would never encounter the issues of insolvency because dues paid in would be able to substantially exceed benefits paid out.

It's a beautiful image that unfortunately has absolutely no congruence with observed reality, history, or even a basic understanding of economics. It's sad, really.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2016 18:09

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Ograbme posted:

Who's freer: Qatar or the CSA?

SedanChair posted:

a rustling thicket of white supremacists

Truly, this thread is the gift that keeps giving.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 17:53

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Wolfsheim posted:

You guys are overthinking this. The reason jrode is being even more blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical than usual about the Civil War is that, no matter what, the answer has to be "federal government bad." So when the federal government does something good, even if only by virtue of combatting an entity worse than it by any conceivable metric, it still has to somehow be the villain of the story, because to admit that the federal government did something right, ever, would go against everything jrode believes.

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 :bravo:

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 21:15

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

Now a shorter post.

Given that we have been discussing healthcare reform, I have a simple question I�d like to pose:

In the interest of productive reform of an obviously broken US healthcare system, would you support changing the mandate of the FDA from either permitting or banning certain treatments, drugs and procedures onto the market to merely recommending or not recommending said medical products but not having the power to prevent their free sale to those who desire them?

t h a l i d o m i d e

# ¿ Feb 2, 2016 06:13

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

You know, there are times - like when it comes to the ongoing health of the population - where a purely reactive system of fixing problems is a loving terrible idea.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2016 19:10

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Oh, dear, dear, dear Jrod. Of course you would double down on something that even has its own wikipedia page on it being bunk as the reason your scam treatment was totally the right idea you guyssssss :allears:

# ¿ Feb 2, 2016 22:16

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

My favorite part is when he tries to play the collectivist argument again:

quote:

Libertarians are incapable of being racists. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice. A libertarian sees all people as not members of groups but as individuals who should be judged by their character and actions, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.

The wheel turns, and we go nowhere.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 02:47

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

JVNO posted:

How many years has JRode been parroting the same talking points and apologetics about libertarianism? Must be north of 5 years now. I applaud anyone who addresses him in sincerity because it's clear he believes he's found the 'right' philosophy and will not budge on any ground.

Well, given that the earlier posts on neo-confederacy from straightdope were from April 2010, he's coming up on at least six years now. It's impressively depressing.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 15:38

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Cingulate posted:

If that is so, then no Libertarians exist, because it's basically impossible for humans to think like that.

Pff, that's just what a statist would do, write off humans as a group rather than understand them on an individual level :rolleyes:

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 19:36

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Zanzibar Ham posted:

4. Take the kids and demand weregild for their release.

Members of the Blue Spruce clan approach the ring again. "Your weaponthane, Jrodefeld, has not repented his ways. He has turned to kidnapping children now, and demands the worth of a weaponthane each to ransom them. We demand that our children are returned and Jrodefeld punished."

When asked, Jrodefeld says "These Blue Statists had aggressed against me by entering my lands without my consent after I homesteaded this earth. That they are children is immaterial - if their fascist clanmates want them returned, it is my right as an Orlanthi to be recompensed for the trouble."

1) "Jrodefeld is no Orlanthi, and you may do with him as you wish."
2) Force Jrodefeld to return the children, violating the NAP.
3) Force Jrodefeld to return the children and strip him of his weaponthane status, violating the NAP and the Second Amendment.
4) "Well, if you think about it, you were going to vaccinate these children, weren't you? So, in reality, Jrodefed is actually preventing aggression against them by defying Big Pharma."
5) "We will deal with him ourselves. :chef:

"
6) "Ron Paul end the Fed."

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 21:22

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

What do you mean by "economic coercion"? Let's not play loose with words and definitions now. "Coercion" actually has a definition. Suppose I go up to you and say "hey, I've got a job offer for you. It pays $6 an hour. Will you accept it?"

No! Because the existence of a minimum wage means that I don't have to accept this, when I can find work pretty much anywhere else, doing unskilled labor, and make more. This isn't a condemnation of the minimum wage, it's a condemnation of you and yours. Because $6 an hour is not enough to live on.

quote:

Explain how this is coercion. I don't think you'd ever accept this offer because you, if you are employed, are probably making much more per hour than the $6 I'd offered you so you'd never seriously consider my offer.

Unless, there are some side benefits to taking on the job that would compensate you for accepting a lower wage. Or maybe you'd take it on as a second job to get another mark on your resume and connect with more people and learn different skills.

This is the exact reasoning used by people who think they can pay artists in "exposure". It's a nice ancillary benefit that in no way aids in being able to eat. It's bullshit of the highest order.

You see, if people were able to take jobs on the merits of "is the position worthwhile" and were able to make cost/benefit analyses and come to enlightened conclusions, you'd have a point. But, somehow, oddly enough, your purported scenarios always manage to skip over a critical issue: How the gently caress do you eat while doing this?

quote:

Or perhaps you could be offered a low wage in place of what otherwise would be an unpaid internship? In such a case, the main reason for taking the job is that you'd learn very valuable skills that will in the near future help you to apply for a job which pays many times that much?

There are jobs that are not hiring at present. Abolishing the minimum wage would allow you to make a lowball offer to a potential employer. You could say "I know you are not hiring at present, but I want a chance to prove my worth for a six week stint. I just ask $5 an hour compensation and after the six weeks is up, if I have proven my value, I'd like to apply as a full time worker making the market wage for this type of work."

You are not permitted to do this under today's law. How could these voluntary choices ever be considered "coercion"? This would require a perversion of language. Coercion is almost a synonym for "aggression" and voluntary economic contracts cannot, by definition, be aggression.

Because if I were the one hiring for unskilled labor and people tried this on me, I'd gleefully say "sure". Once every six weeks, that is.

There are always people looking for work and always unskilled positions. People will take these positions to survive. If you create a race to the bottom on wages, as your proposed plans do, people will still take the positions, if only just to be able to live. They will never acquire useful skills or transferable, marketable qualities. They will be bounced from one lovely position to another, falling deeper and deeper into debt just to survive, with no hope of anything improving.

quote:

There are many libertarian authors who have written extensively about how, in a genuine free society, there will be many more economic opportunities available for people and it will be MUCH more feasible to start a business for yourself or with a number of colleagues. Without occupational licensure requirements and other regulations, opening a business and selling your services on the market becomes a much more viable option.

Holy gently caress. I mean, this is still one of the most insane points you keep returning to. I've asked you this repeatedly in the past, but god drat it.

theshim posted:

I've seen it asked before and I have to ask it again, and if you answer nothing else I say, answer this: Where do you think regulations on business came from? Why do you think they exist?

Seriously, jrod, answer the loving question.

quote:

And even if you don't go into business for yourself, the very fact that so many more OTHER people will be able to, will create millions more jobs who will all be competing for good laborers and so your choices as a wage earner will expand substantially.

The idea you are proposing that millions of lower-class people will be somehow "coerced" into take very low wage employment because they literally have no other options is really a fallacious scenario that is unlikely, or far less likely than in any State-run alternative, to exist in a truly free society.

You've delivered no proof, nothing beyond simple assertion, and flagrantly ignored people pointing to all of observed history as to why this is not the case. You are just bandying assumptions around and expecting us to go along with it in the face of reality.

quote:

Nobody said the poor choose to be poor. But there are two types of poor people.

Oh, no. Don't die on this hill.

quote:

There are those of reasonably sound mind and body who are capable of working and acquiring the skills necessary to earn a decent living on the market. Some of these people were unfortunate enough to be born into poverty, or to a broken home, or some other unfortunate circumstance. For others it is a result of a temporary fall from middle class due to either bad luck, or drug problems or whatever the case may be.

For these people, there is clearly hope and the ability for them to acquire the skills to earn a reasonable standard of living. For these people, society (by which I mean communities, churches, mutual aid societies, charities) should focus on helping these people to find good employment, or help them get the training necessary to find good employment.

Just answer me this, jrod. Why?

Why would some nebulous concept of "society" suddenly decide to aid the poor in your scenario, rather than continuing to view them as they do now - as leeches, parasites, people who are clearly less than they are?

What, in short, would make people stop believing in a Just World?

quote:

The second class of poor people is much smaller, but the prognosis is much less optimistic. There are those people who have a significant mental or physical handicap which renders them unable to earn much on the market due to a low productivity that is unlikely to get better regardless of how much training they receive. These people are likely to need some sort of ongoing help in some capacity.

There is a moral, but not a legal, obligation for people to help out these truly desperate people who have mental disability or handicap so severe that their employment prospects are very slim. I sincerely think that everyone who is able should have an occupation of some sort, even if they are not able to earn as much as someone without any significant limitation.

But ongoing help for this small number of poor who genuinely need it on an ongoing, not temporary, basis is the obligation of mutual aid societies, charities, communities, churches, neighborhoods, and so forth.

In a very prosperous society, having the resources to take care of the mentally and physically handicapped and others unable to acquire significant marketable skills would not be a significant issue.

And again, the blind assertion that not only would your society magically provide wealth and prosperity to all, but also would revolutionize how people interact with and perceive other social groups.

Let me take a different tack on this. Suppose, in your society, charity ends up unable to cover some people who genuinely cannot provide for themselves. What happens to them? Surely you can't mandate a way to take care of them - that would require coercion and ultimately aggression, of course - so what happens to anyone who falls through the cracks? Or do you just handwave that away with:

theshim posted:

The thing about his perspective on these, as well as many other things (like healthcare, for example), is that they all rely on one simple assumption, and if you start with it, Jrod's only arguing the logical chain of events.

The assumption is that, in the absence of the State, everyone will have a lot more money (think how much you'll be recouping just from taxes!) and everything will cost less (with no drop and frequent increases in quality). This means that we are all bringing up claims with no basis in his hypothetical reality - everyone will be wealthier and happier, and even if someone is faced with a rare, catastrophic event, the fact that everyone has considerably more money available means that they will be freely able to give to charities without coercement, and aid societies would never encounter the issues of insolvency because dues paid in would be able to substantially exceed benefits paid out.

It's a beautiful image that unfortunately has absolutely no congruence with observed reality, history, or even a basic understanding of economics. It's sad, really.

I mean, seriously.

quote:

And if you want to talk about a "poverty trap" there is none more fiendish than the Welfare State which has trapped people into a cycle of poverty and dependency. Politicians brag about the number of people on the doll and never about the number of people they help gain their independence and the ability to sustain a middle class living without outside assistance.

Poverty-aid in a free society would be focused on helping people find employment and move up into a comfortable middle class existence so they no longer require charity, rather than encouraging people to remain dependent on hand outs for long periods of time.

I sincerely don't think that a compassionate person, if they are familiar with the facts, could honestly support the Welfare State when they understand the sort of harm and perverse incentives it creates for those unfortunate enough to be dependent on them.

You do know that welfare fraud is incredibly rare and small, that the trap of people on the cusp applies to only a very small number of people (and should be corrected), and most of all - that some people simply cannot live without assistance? I mean, I asked it above, but how do you square your loathing of state-run welfare with the fact that the free market simply prices some people out of life?

quote:

Humans ARE capable of taking care of their fellow man without State aggression. For whatever reason, peoples imaginations have been castrated by the media and public schools into thinking social progress and social welfare can ONLY come about through politics. Politics, in my estimation, is precisely what is holding society back and entrenching these social problems.

Capable? Yes. Will?

Hah.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 17:09

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Oh, what's the turn of the phrase here?

You don't oppose providing aid and support to people, you just oppose any and all effective means of doing so.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 23:26

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

For the libertarian, the store-owner would have the right to sue for restitution. If a store-owner was so petty as to make a Federal case about a starving person stealing a $3 loaf of bread to keep from starving, there are all sorts of social pressures that come to bear even where the law doesn't tread.

M A R T I N F U C K I N G S H K R E L I

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 23:39

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Your constant harassment of Jrodefeld, in contravention of the NAP, has finally come back against you. Howling about how "this totally isn't initiatory violence you guys", a force of libertarian Beastmen has come to his aid and virtually destroy your clan. Almost all of your combatants are dead. Half of your non-combatants are slain or were taken as voluntary indentured workers with no coercement or aggression. The victorious libertarians destroyed your fortifications, drove off most of your livestock, looted your steads and clan hall, and hosed all your remaining melons. Many ring members were slain fighting the members of FurryDRO. In short, the future looks bleak for your clan. Should the survivors seek membership in other clans, or soldier on, despite impossible odds?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I don't think this thread is going places. How about a page of closing statements followed by closure?

As the last clan members left the tula, one of our more poetic carls gazed back at the empty steads, ruined fortifications, and hole-filled melons. Before turning away for the last time, he uttered our final words: "We will not be remembered as a great clan. Or even an adequate clan. If the sagas mention us at all, they will recall our terrible mistakes. We acted when we should have listened, propped up the State when we should have devolved to feudalism, and failed to Ron Paul end the Fed. Our people dispersed, our ring disgraced, our tula abandoned, our currency devalued. Thus ends our sorry tale, the tale of clan Goones."

# ¿ Feb 15, 2016 05:21

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

jrodefeld posted:

I've cited studies that rank the countries of the world in accordance with their adherence to economic liberty as defined by libertarians to bolster this position. There are many such studies that have been done by libertarian and free market institutions. Instead of understanding the larger point, all you replied with was "why are the United Arab Emirates and Qatar on the list?", "This just proves libertarians are really racists."

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.

Holy gently caress. This is the most impressive handwave I've ever seen. You, instead of admitting that the study was absolutely loving insane (which it is on many metrics, and you should really read all of the breakdowns of it people have done), double down with a mealy-mouthed appeal to a "broader picture". This for a study that says Qatar and the UAE are more economically free than the US.

I can't even imagine how it is possible for a living, breathing human being to come to this conclusion.

quote:

If you deny that market liberalization and restraint of the State are necessary prerequisites for creating the prosperity needed to provide the poor with jobs and a decent standard of living, we only have to have a thought experiment. 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.

Exporting "Progressive" policies to third world nations has actually been tried, with predictably disastrous results. Eliminating child labor in third world nations had the horrifying result of sending children into child prostitution and other more dangerous and degrading occupations. The reason should be obvious. Children don't work in poor countries because they want to, or that they all have horrible parents. They work because the economy is so poor and unproductive, they will starve if they don't. 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.

This is facetious and sophomoric. The progressive outlook is nice because - unlike libertarians - it is malleable, can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, rather than demanding everything fit into its specific mold and stamping its feet when people don't agree. There are different policies that should be put into place in a developing society in a poor country, and basic human rights and protections are still loving part of them. Or do you have any reason to state that in the absence of any form of oversight, a warlord with a few guns won't end up running most of the country?

quote:

The message here is that by moving towards greater economic freedom, making it easier for entrepreneurs to start businesses, eliminating occupational licensing, reducing tax rates and government spending which allows more capital investment, the predictable outcome will be greater economic productivity, which results in lower consumer prices, higher real wages and more economic opportunities for both wage earners and entrepreneurs.

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.

This is magical thinking. There is no evidence to support this assertion, and I've called you out on it repeatedly. You simply demand that we take for granted that everyone will be wealthier and healthier in the absence of regulation. If we agree to this completely unsubstantiated claim, it is indeed difficult to argue against Libertarianism.

I also have to call you out on this again, because people have pressed you on it over and over and you have yet to ever respond, but: What the everloving gently caress is your beef with licensing requirements? What do you have against people actually having to know what they're doing, especially in cases of people's health?

quote:

What I'm trying to get across to you is that it is economic freedom and the market economy which is the engine by which prosperity is created and adopting policies which needlessly hinder free economic transactions and opportunities hurt all in society but especially the poor.

Even places like Sweden which have State-funded social programs so loved by the left are only able to finance them due to decades of relatively laissez-faire, free market policies which produced such a level of prosperity that their economies don't crumble under their weight.

It reminds me of the Progressives who argue that the general prosperity and healthy middle class that we observed in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States is attributable entirely to the GI bill and the high marginal tax rates imposed on the wealthy, somehow ignoring the century of relative laissez-faire economic freedom which permitted such a massive creation of prosperity, capital accumulation and physical productivity. THAT is the source of the vibrant middle class and the living standards we enjoy. The State interventions and programs piled onto this productive base only hinder the rising living standards and economic opportunities that would help out the poor and vulnerable.

Have you ever heard of this tiny little thing called World War II?

Just curious.

quote:

I'd hope you'd agree with me that a good job with a good wage is more valuable to a poor person than being dependent on a State hand-out. I also don't believe that people are as helpless without daddy government as you seem to think. Free people, communities, charity, mutual aid societies, entrepreneurs and churches will be able to assist the few remaining poor people in a free society as well as any system could ever help them.

To think that only the State is capable to helping people is to someone assume that the motives of people in politics are somehow much more pure and altruistic than people in the private sector. You'd have to assume that perverse incentives don't exist in politics and social welfare programs are really designed to ultimately help uplift people rather than buying off people with bribes in exchange for votes. I'd really suggest you check out a field of study called "Public Choice Economics" which evaluates the motivations of public officials through an economic lens.

What you are falling victim to is the inevitable inertia of tradition. We've been taught for several generations that the only way to help out with social problems, take care of the elderly, provide medical care to people and help the poor is through government policy and democratic elections. Public schools inculcate these ideas in peoples heads and we lose the ability to imagine innovative alternatives. We assume they don't exist.

No, you cretin, we know that they exist, they have been tried, and they are loving insufficient. The fact that a large portion of our government treats the current programs in this way, views people on welfare with suspicion and disgust, and believes wholly in a just world if only because they started six steps up the ladder is the poison in the well of dialogue around this, not your hazy insinuations against schools and licenses.

jrodefeld posted:

If a starving person stole a loaf of bread from a baker, then just restitution would require that he pay the baker back when he is in a position to do so. In fact, most decent people would gladly provide a starving person with a loaf of bread with an agreement to be payed back later.

No, no they would not. After all, if this person is starving and has had to resort to stealing in order to survive, odds are good that they are unemployable by society's standards. In this case, this is like a bank giving out loans to people with rock bottom credit ratings. Every loan they make would be considered a loss. There is no reasonable expectation that they would be paid back.

In an individual case, a person might make this decision. In the larger calculus of business? You know drat well it wouldn't happen, especially if these people can be processed as a cheap source of labor.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 04:04

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Jrod do you still subscribe to the belief that there are women who get pregnant as a means to collect more welfare?

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 04:22

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Caros posted:

I have a friend who manages a local pizza joint. He has worked there for a decade starting as an evening cook. He makes a grand total of $16/hour Canadian. Why is his decade of pizza cooking not correlating into a great job?

Obviously because the business's profit margins are so slim thanks to the overwhelming tyranny of the Canadian government that they haven't been able to pay him more. In a truly free market, the company would easily be able to compensate their employees better - and of course they would, or people would be poaching his pizza proficiency!

# ¿ Feb 17, 2016 23:05

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

E-Tank posted:

Still waiting for OP to explain why we should care about property rights.

Well...

Caros posted:

Mods, please change thread title to "Why Should We Care About Property Rights? Because I will fight you!"

# ¿ Feb 18, 2016 21:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 07:10

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Yeah, if there's one thing I'd say, it's that I hope people keep demolishing jrod - not only for the vicious enjoyment of it, but because we tend to learn a lot when people with solid knowledge and background on subjects drop truth bombs on his drivel.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2016 22:16

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?