|
Who What Now posted:This is patently absurd, because ideas are scarce. Ideas and inventions do not just spring from the æther fully formed like Athena from Zeus' head, they take huge amounts of effort and most importantly time, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this because you love wasting so goddamn much of it, but a person's time is precious and highly limited. Which is why we waste so much of our time arguing with Jrode. Because that's an effective use of our precious and highly limited time. jrodefeld posted:As society becomes wealthier and more physically productive, people are more able to engage in charity and goods naturally become more "common" and shared freely. Scarcity and private property rights become much more important as concepts that closer people are to a subsistence level of existence. A person starving in Africa really loving needs you to recognize his property right in a loaf of bread he acquired and don't even think of asking him to share. But more prosperous societies have the luxury of freely sharing goods that are produced in such abundance that we feel less urgency about attaining what we need to live at a decent standard of living. Yes, this is a reasonable explanation for why poor people give on average a greater percentage of their wealth to charity than rich people. Yup. You do realize that what you actually made there was a very convincing argument in favor of taxing the rich, right? Because their property rights are less important than someone at subsistence?
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd like to take a break from this for a moment and just ask an open ended question. What are you guys into besides politics and posting on the internet? Do any of you have degrees? What are your hobbies? I'm a senior mechanical engineering student right now, concentrating in manufacturing and machining processes. My current side project is machining small models of cats, but I also do a lot of cooking. Any chance you're into food? We could trade recipes. I'm also employed by the school machine shop to do tool management, order supplies, assist with student project work, and teach classes. One of the classes I teach is a re-education program for long-term unemployed workers, training them on machine tool operation and programming. Over the six or so years we've been running this program, we've trained a couple hundred people, with a 98% placement rate in local industry. This has resulted in an estimated $200 million in benefits to the local economy: the wages paid to the workers, increased productivity for the companies, reduced welfare checks, etc. The government has done the math, and the cost to train a student is recouped entirely within 3 months solely by reduced welfare checks and paying taxes. So. Tell me how this is wrong. It takes people who would otherwise be useless to the companies, which are highly reluctant to train their own workers even in light of the huge nationwide shortage, gets them not just jobs but good jobs, paying on average $18 per hour starting wage, with literally nothing but benefits for the society. It's revenue positive for tax payers. Explain to me how this work is immoral. (But really I do give you kudos for trying to branch out and calm this discussion down. Your utter disengagement with anything else on this website is definitely a lot of the reason people accuse you of proselytizing.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
My reputation agency will cut out the middleman and certify their own reputation. We'll pass the savings on to you, the customer. Karia Reputation Agency and Police (KRAP) has received an A+ rating yearly since their founding, with great customer service, well-maintained premises, and a non-aggression pact with Valhalla DRO*. Only $99.99 per month for our basic plan, with full coverage for sudden fires**, charity***, and homicidal decisions to kill your wife****. * Shh. We haven't told them we exist. Maybe if they don't know they'll leave us alone. ** On properties own by KRAP. *** Since you didn't want that money anyway we'll be glad to take it off your hands. **** Intent to commit crimes will result in immediate termination of contract and transfer over to our problem solving division.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:1. Size of Government Take a close look at this list. Who cares about these things? Do you honestly think that workers give a flying gently caress about regulatory tariffs? They don't matter to most people. At all. You've got some fantasy that lowered tariffs will create more better paying jobs for everyone, but the data doesn't support this. Businesses love protective tariffs, it prevents cheap labor overseas from flooding the market. But forget that. I want to focus on 4D. D. Controls of the movement of capital and people (i) Foreign ownership / investment restrictions (ii) Capital controls (iii) Freedom of foreigners to visit Don't you think it's interesting that the movement of people doesn't matter here? Foreigners coming to visit is a big issue, but whether the people in this country can visit other countries doesn't matter. Nor does it discuss sending money to your relatives back home. Instead it's concerned about whether the rich can own property in other countries. The things that Cato judges countries on do not make life better for the vast majority of people. Remember your target audience here. We couldn't care less about your deontological ethics. Convince us that it will help the majority of people, or shut up and go away.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
bokkibear posted:I had to read this Rothbard quote twice, because as far as I can tell this argument can be perfectly generalised to any contractual agreement where one person agrees to do something in the future. Observe: A reasonable and consistent response is that it absolutely does apply to that contract. In signing the contract you give away some portion of your free will: you will either in the future: pay the $100, suffer the terms for contract breaking outlined in said contract, or successfully contest the contract and prove that it does not apply to you. This is not ridiculous, we do it all the time. Hell, our legal system is exactly this: you have implicitly agreed not to shoot anyone by living in society and taking advantage of our benefits. If you do shoot someone, you have to either suffer the consequences, or successfully prove that you fit in one of the loopholes that society acknowledges (self defense, being in the military during times of war, being a cop shooting a black person, etc.) Libertarians, though they don't acknowledge it, have the same thing about the non-aggression pact. However, this provides no argument against slavery. Since an-cap insists that all rights must be derivable from property rights, any right that doesn't spring from property can't exist. But rather than either owning up to it or accepting that their starting axioms are wrong, they kinda bullshit an answer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Walter Williams. Not Walter Block. Did you even read the post? Walter Williams is a black libertarian and economist who I have mentioned in passing before. And the criticisms that have been leveled at you have been: 1. The nations claimed to be top ranking nations generally have significant socialist policies in addition to free market liberties. 2. The bottom ranking nations are generally hellholes that neither socialists nor libertarians would claim. Combined with point 1, they essentially show the trend that developed nations are more free than undeveloped nations. Woop de loving do. 3. The liberty rankings have some unaccountable placements that suggest significant inaccuracy in their rankings. The inclusion of slave states shows that the rest of their scale is similarly doubtful and can't be trusted. Slaves have no economic freedom at all. Examination of their criteria show that the scale only judges the freedom of the wealthiest people in society. How can you not see this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He has never watched a love one die, but he has probably dumped, so that must be the cause of Caros' loathing of Libertarians. Hey, now, I'm not sure I can buy that. Jrod could never be dumped. Remember how hot he is? Everyone's probably swooning at his feet to have sex with him. He surely has far more experience doing the dumping than getting dumped. Besides, as a Captain of Industry he has a ton to offer in a relationship (which also explains his supernatural attractiveness.) Come on, it's like you haven't even read Atlas Shrugged. Jrod is John Galt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I disagree vociferously. He is clearly a donkeyfucker. Humans are too good for him. He is a watermelon fucker, whether he admits it or not. Jrod, have you stopped loving your watermelon?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
I'd be in. Probably just spectating, but we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If anyone wants a TL;DR of Jrodimus' post: VERY misleading. They're pirated Blu Rays.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, I'm legitimately interested in what your opinion is on the standoff in Oregon. Was it wrong for the ranchers to light fires on federal land that they had contracted to use? Is the fact that they're infringing on the ability of others to enjoy the nature preserve wrong in any way? And, the most important question: have people committed aggression against them by mailing them dildos?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know all the details of this story but I'll tell you what I do know. In the first place, the ranchers at question here (a father and son) lit a controlled fire on their own property. Ranchers do this all the time. Supposedly there was a wild fire raging and by lighting a controlled fire in a particular way you can protect your property from being in danger. They never intentionally set fire to any federal lands. The fire got a little out of control and spread to the State-owned property. As was noted: they accidentally lit public land on fire three times. One of these instances is probably to cover up illegal poaching, burning 140 acres. One time could be a mistake, three times indicates that they don't know how to handle fire. And unfair treatment? They get leased this public land for pennies on the dollar, and have an obligation to avoid damaging it. There's a contract here, explicitly signed. I don't have a copy of this contract, true, but I would be incredibly surprised if it states that they can light the land on fire. And lastly: it doesn't matter whether someone got hurt or not. They engaged in risky behavior, clearly without the proper ability to control the fire, and whether someone got hurt at that point is just a roll of the dice. Would you say that driving drunk is totally ok if you just happen to not kill anyone? Also, you didn't answer the last part. Dildos. Aggression, or no? jrodefeld posted:In the meantime, abolitionists in both the North and South should both continue to maintain the underground railroad which would, as efficiently as possible, transport runaway slaves from the South to freedom in the North. Even more directly, private non-State militia movements should mount a form of domestic guerrilla warfare targeting and killing slave owners who refused to free their slaves. The cost of maintaining the institution of slavery would soon be far too much and negotiations for total emancipation would soon be possible. Slavery was literally the primary economic driver for the South. It's incredibly profitable for everyone involved, and a few runaways aren't going to change that. If enough slaves ran away that it actually disrupted the economy, they'd go to war to protect slavery rather than get rid of it. EDIT: Got a source. Slaves produced over one quarter of white people's incomes in the South as a whole in 1960. Imagine what would happen when 25% people just suddenly become unemployed because their profession (slavery and slave-produced goods) became illegal. Yeah, they're going to fight for that. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/ Karia fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Promontorium posted:U.S. Navy So what does this look like? Frankly it all seems a bit vague. You want a strong central government that people can choose to be a part of or not, you seem to disagree with traditional property laws and understanding, but you don't provide any clear examples or proposals of your ideal system. I understand that you may not have a perfect vision for how exactly this works, but anything you can say would help. We can't engage in an honest discourse if we don't know what you're arguing. To make this clear: I'm not trying to hold you to a stricter standard that any other poster in this thread. Everyone here has a set of beliefs that they're arguing from, and I'm sure any of them would be more than willing to discuss their beliefs so that you can engage with them. For example: I believe in a representative democracy which enforces equality of opportunity, ensures the safety of all citizens, and provides societal direction. Once that minimum baseline is ensured, a relatively open capitalist market can take over everything else (unless elements prove unsafe.) One key element is that the society must be fundamentally slow to change so as to prevent radical factions from taking over politics. Please understand that this doesn't refer to things like passing individual laws. Instead, I meant that the fundamental values and goals of the government must be resistant to change so that they can only be revised after careful deliberation and broad consensus. It seems the obvious point that we should engage on is the timeline of societal change, so I'm going to make an argument here. You want it to be fast so that people can easily choose how the government works. I don't know what timescale you're thinking of exactly, but it seems like you want fundamental shifts in how society works in the course of years. I think it needs to be slow so that all changes can be fully deliberated and discussed, to ensure that rules are applied evenly across everyone, and to prevent radical minorities from destabilizing things a la Nazi Germany. Fundamental shifts should take generations, though smaller changes can happen much faster. Example: If California wants to secede, then they have the right to do so if it's best for everyone. But that should only happen after all effects have been fully analyzed and a broad consensus is reached among all affected parties. Critically, this consensus should not just be a single vote at one time, but a sustained belief that this is the best course of action measured over years. If this is met, then CA can secede, via a gradual transition that can be reversed if things go wrong. But CA shouldn't have the right to just up and leave one day, because that only requires a very vocal minority yelling really loudly, and may not be what's best for CA or the rest of the union. The fundamental weakness of this is that it can hurt groups in the mean time, since it can be slow to adapt to their needs. For example, gay marriage may have taken much longer under this system. However: A. Equality of opportunity is a societal value. We don't have to change the value, just the interpretation, to include gay marriage. This can be much faster, though it should still undergo a review and trial process. B. I don't believe that my proposed system should have preference towards one set of beliefs, because that set of beliefs could be wrong. C. In the short term, some people may be hurt because the system doesn't work fast enough, but this will be counterbalanced by the reduction in harmful ideas that are eliminated. It's a trade-off, but in the long term I believe it will ultimately work better. D. Violence should never be part of the process (which I think we can agree on.) This can at least lower the risk presented by slowing down change. So that's what I believe. We have a specific disagreement, I have presented a specific argument in favor of my belief, now you get a chance to respond. If there's a point of confusion please ask. EDIT: That ended up longer than I originally intended. tl;dr: please describe what your beliefs are in specific, concrete terms so that we can engage with them directly. Similarly, ask if you're confused about our beliefs so that we can all get on the same page and start having some useful discussion. Karia fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I genuinely do not believe JRod could write posts that short. And he actually acknowledge criticism about his writing style. If it is a sock puppet, I think we should keep it rather than the original.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Welp, looks like Promontorium ditched us. Surprise. Good work all y'alls, better luck next time. Maybe more yelling at him about racism? That's got a proven track record of getting libertarians to stick around.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before. I generally agree with this idea: ethics should be universally applied. I don't see this as a contradiction, though: no individual may steal. However, the people as a whole can perform actions that individuals can't. Some individuals are therefore empowered to perform actions (collect taxes, for example) on behalf of the people and with the people's oversight. They still can't perform those actions on their own behalf, therefore it's not a violation. jrodefeld posted:Now a shorter post. Hell no. We want everyone to have access to effective healthcare, keyword being "effective". Homeopathy getting to pass itself as medicine all of a sudden doesn't do that. Why would you even think we might support this?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:fight me jrod, fight me. my body is willing, my arms are spread wide, embrace me with your tender caress and let us wrestle together, naked, oiled up You fool! Are you forgetting how attractive Jrod is? Only the fairest of us can truly battle him fairly. We must recruit a champion! Now announcing: Something Awful 2016 Fashion Show! Winner gets the greatest prize of all: the chance to go one-on-one with Jrodefeld, and maybe, just maybe, scratch his face enough to become the true victor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:im pretty as all hell son  Excuse me, you haven't compared yourself to a celebrity so we can judge for ourselves. We have a right to select the one who will represent us in honorable single combat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. You must support prohibition of alcohol also, right? All kinds of people develop alcoholism and drink way too much. Don't we need to protect people from themselves? Oh, wow. Oh, wow. It's better than I could have even imagined. You know what? I'm going to double down on this, and I'll probably be the only one in the thread, but hey. I am totally down with the intent of the War on Drugs. People shouldn't do mind-altering chemicals that distort their perception of reality. Pretty much period. Willing to make concessions under some circumstances like medical marijuana (under the argument that removing pain allows them to perceive reality more accurately, same argument as, say, anti-depressants), but I do not morally support recreational use. IF locking people who used drugs up and throwing them in jail served as an effective deterrent to stop others from doing so, I would support it. The fact that it doesn't makes it more complicated. As it is, I would support a pivot to mandatory treatment over straight-up legalization for anything besides marijuana. The ultimate goal is to make people safer: right now, in our current climate, it is much safer to legalize and regulate marijuana than it is to just let people at it. Drugs are bad, and our society should make every attempt to stop people from doing them. In this case, education is better than jail time. But I do not give a drat about people's ~inherent moral right~ to smoke a joint. Oh, and everything you said is an enormous logical fallacy that makes an absurd number of assumptions about what people believe. Just FYI.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The whole argument that "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves" is a very dangerous argument since it justifies all manner of tyrannical Orwellian policies. The whole argument is stupid and has already been tackled, but I'm going to focus on this one line: laypeople aren't qualified to judge results in a technical field. It is necessary to have independent oversight that is not beholden to the drug companies to verify this. Do you seriously think you're qualified to judge the design aspects of, say, a space shuttle? You have no goddamn clue what goes into making a shuttle work or not. Leave that up to the guys at NASA, leave judging drugs to the FDA, because you and most of the public can't tell. jrodefeld posted:A lot of people would agree with you that "drugs are bad". I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that judicious use of marijuana and other substances can have profound and sustained beneficial effects. But putting that aside, the fallacy is in thinking that things we would consider "bad" should be illegal. You accept that drug prohibition doesn't really deter drug use, but you ought to stick to a consistent moral principle. People own their bodies and therefore they have the right to put what they want into their bodies. The purpose of laws is to make society a better place. Some things, like murder, should be outlawed because they are bad for society and because making them illegal can effectively combat them and reduce their negative influence. Other things, like marijuana, make society a worse place, but can't be effectively combated with law (at least not right now) and aren't immediately pressing so they shouldn't be illegal. My views are consistent. But to counter your underlying moral principle? No, I don't think people own their bodies and can do whatever drugs they want. Society owns your body, bought and paid for with the food you eat, the books you read, the air you breath, the roads you drive on, the medicine you take. You want to go pass out in the middle of nowhere and pump heroin, fine, be my guest. But while you're in with the rest of us, you do not have the right to try to escape reality and avoid paying your dues.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
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. Wait, you've refused in the past to consider the USA's health care inefficiency as proof that free market health care is worse because even though the USA's is worse than single-payer socialist systems it's still really far from libertarian and thus can't be used as evidence. Which states do you consider libertarian enough to serve as good representations for income inequality, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Ok. Then I'm going to brag for them. I work at a university to help train long-term unemployed people on modern CNC machines for manufacturing. Everyone's been out of work for months, some of them literally are off the street. Over the last seven or so years, we've trained hundreds of people, with a nearly 100 percent job placement rate in legitimately good jobs ($18+ per hour.) The economic impact has been calculated as something well over $100 million dollars, due to lowered welfare costs, them spending more money, additional profit for their employers, etc. This program is funded by government grants, and they get paid back by payroll taxes and lowered welfare in less than two months. This is not the only program like this. We just helped set up a similar program at another school, and they just finished getting their first class of twelve students through. A lot of schools are actually doing similar things, though I can't provide numbers. Do we need more of it? Absolutely. The US needs more people in manufacturing, and lots of people in the US need jobs. But the government is doing something, just not enough, and ignoring it shows a worrying lack of research. Additionally, it is the absolute height of arrogance to suggest that the people who do not have the opportunity to enroll in programs like this deserve to starve and die in the streets. While we work on expanding these programs, we should absolutely provide food and shelter to those who can't afford it. If we can get to a point where nobody needs welfare? Phase it out, I'm all for it. But until then, there is a moral imperative to take care of everyone who needs it. And just before you suggest that the companies who are hiring people would gladly pay for this training on their own? They don't. It's been offered to them, and they've said no, and I don't know why, but unless the government was subsidizing this it wouldn't be happening. Karia fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I REFUSE TO CREATE JOINDER We're trespassing on Alhazred's property, D&D, and thereby initiating aggression against him. He has the right to non-initiatory violence against us, and we can only hope that he is merciful. Of course, any reasonable store owner would be willing to forgive our trespass, because we would die without this source of libertarian bullshit. If Alhazred does commit non-initiatory violence (AS HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO BECAUSE THIS IS HIS PROPERTY), surely he would be shunned from modern society and driven into bankruptcy and death.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I worked jobs as a teenager. I had a paper route when I was 13. When I was 16 or so, I worked at McDonald's, hardly a cushy position. I worked at Taco Bell and I worked at Ralph's grocery stores. I worked at or slightly above minimum wage during those years. It didn't matter that much to me. I got a bit of money and saved some of it. I had some disposable income and got to hang out with my friends at work. I got a few pay raises but I never stayed at one job long enough to work my way up in any one establishment. But it is flatly untrue that there isn't a path upward in even retail companies. Every manager I ever talked to during those years started as a regular employee and worked their way up until they were making $30 an hour or whatever they made as manager. Now, nobody is claiming that managing a Taco Bell is the height of accomplishment, but management skills certainly translate to other occupations. Even if this poo poo was true, it still wouldn't solve the problem, because how many managers does McDonalds need? Three or four per location? Compare that to the number of other employees that they have, I'm getting a high end of 50 staffers per, more likely 30-40. That means that an absolute maximum of 10% of the people who start on the floor are going to get advanced to manager. Everybody else is poo poo out of luck.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 05:56
|
|