|
jrodefeld posted:And why would the politicians have an incentive to pay only a little as opposed to inflated costs for the cell phones (or medical care services or whatever other example you choose)? It is not their money after all and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be paragon's of frugality in other areas. You need to account for what is currently happening before asking hypothetical questions. Drug, procedure and doctor costs are cheaper in Canada than the US directly because of the State and neither country disallows lobbyists.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
I have absolutely cut ties with people for being only a small bit as racist and homophobic as the bigots you continue to defend. The free market advocates I know would never defend bigotry or try to legitimize it the way you do, nor would they show such a blatant disregard for the poor. So no, I disagree that I know people who are as terrible as you. Your continued defense of the indefensible makes you a loving monster, and society would be better off if you simply voluntarily excised yourself, either by moving to Somalia, or by shotgun. And literally gently caress you for the homesteading thing again, it's not like we have to discuss the literal impossibility that homesteading granted anybody who is currently owner of land their rights. That's also something that only an unrepentant racist turd would believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:It's been a trip watching this thread slowly become more and more angry and scornful of Jrod over the last year. It's the usual pattern, the only real anomaly this time around is that he keeps coming back. Usually, he ducks out after a few weeks and vanishes for a year or so. Really, though, anger and scorn are both predictable and acceptable, perhaps even necessary, reactions to terrible posting. When, over and over, things go: Jrod: Offensive assertion A Goons 1-n: Historical/empirical refutation of offensive assertion A. Jrod: Either pretends entire exchange never happened, or "nuh uh." Then it'd try the patience of a saint to not get a wee bit sore at his constant and deliberate refusal to debate in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
The real question is how Libertarians plant to enforce the seperation of church and 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I have absolutely cut ties with people for being only a small bit as racist and homophobic as the bigots you continue to defend. The free market advocates I know would never defend bigotry or try to legitimize it the way you do, nor would they show such a blatant disregard for the poor. So no, I disagree that I know people who are as terrible as you. Your continued defense of the indefensible makes you a loving monster, and society would be better off if you simply voluntarily excised yourself, either by moving to Somalia, or by shotgun. You big silly, libertarians this doctrinaire aren't useful enough to earn the money for a firearm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Jrod: Either pretends entire exchange never happened, or "nuh uh." I don't honestly know if I have ever seen someone so utterly dedicated to ignoring everything that refutes or questions his assertions before. It is a terrible and wondrous thing to behold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As I've previously explained, it is NOT normal in a free market for tens of millions of Americans to be under-served or not served at all. Some reasonable standard of medical care services should be provided by an entrepreneur who wants to tap into this underserved market. What's preventing an entrepreneur from tapping into this underserved market today, right now? I mean, after all, if the OSC can exist, why can't you start a cash hospital that will have cheap prices that most anyone could pay? Why aren't you putting your money where your mouth is? Prove me wrong, Jrodefeld. I will gladly support any options that people put on the table to make healthcare affordable, as long as they can show me it works. So show me that it works. You can do this today. quote:Cell phones and computers and televisions and iPads and whatever new innovation or product comes to market next year are all priced at levels where most if not all Americans can afford them. They are readily attainable. No, they're not! New products and innovations often come out at significantly higher prices than when they catch on at the mainstream level. Have you heard of this thing called Google? This wonderful little website that lets you type words and phrases like, I don't know, "Cost of HDTV 1999" into this box, and then you click search, and you get a link like this: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/11/business/hdtv-set-prices-are-falling-but-consumers-remain-scarce.html where you can click on said link and find out all this amazing stuff, like an HDTV, around 1999, costed about $3,000 on the low end, but in 1998, they costed about $7,000 to $12,000 for a TV. I know, I know. It's not Mises.org, which must be the only other website you go to. The average American can not afford to spend 7,000 dollars on a TV. They probably can't really afford to spend 3,000 on a TV. They definitely can't afford 12,000! See, innovations come out at very high prices, and as they start to catch on, the prices go down. At the point that Apple gets into a market, they're able to get in when they can have significantly lower costs, allowing them to innovate in a different way. Rather than coming out with a new product idea, instead, they come out with a product that so well designed and useful that people really want it. I've said it before, but I'm going to say it again. STOP BEING SO INTELLECTUALLY LAZY. You are one of the laziest people I know. You just make assumptions about how the world works and start talking authoritatively from that, without realizing that no, you're wrong about everything. quote:Why does an MRI cost $8000? I'll admit I am a bit out of my element since I don't personally know the cost of an MRI machine (probably more than a million dollars) so I don't know EVERYTHING that goes into the price. However, what would prevent a free market from devising cheaper and just as reliable alternatives for the diagnosis of serious medical problems? Stop that. Stop assuming that the free market is the solution to everything, and can solve every problem. First off, there's the loving science behind it. There may just NOT be a readily available alternative that is superior to an MRI. And the other alternatives can't do the same job as an MRI. That's why we have MRIs. The free market just can't create it's own facts. Secondly, what's preventing that from happening today? You know who supplies these MRI machines? I'm going to let you in on a secret - companies and corporations. Some are privately owned, some are publicly traded. But they are all private companies. Don't you think if you could make something as good as an MRI but cheaper that somebody would and it would have caught on. After all, hospitals are trying to make money. They need money to survive. Which is something I think you keep forgetting. There is already competition with hospitals. There is competition within the various areas of medicine, including the medical device arena. So, why are you talking like these companies don't need to make money to keep operating? FOR SOMEBODY WHO ACTS LIKE AN EXPERT ON THE ECONOMY, YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW ANY PART OF THE ECONOMY ACTUALLY OPERATES. Can I ask you an honest question: DON'T YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE TRYING? From a humanitarian point of view - getting cheaper tools allows them to be used in third world countries where they need medical care badly. From a business point of view, it allows you to increase the margins, make more money, but also not have people in a position where they can't pay for a needed test. MRI machines are incredibly expensive to build, install, maintain, and use. The amount of power require to run them isn't just something that you can get from a wall outlet. Don't you think that hospitals would love to cut down on their bills if they could? quote:I am a member of a local state-of-the-art gym that has a swimming pool, basketball courts, sauna, steam room, tanning bed, every exercise equipment you can imagine and several stories. No question this facility is worth millions of dollars. Yet I have unlimited access to it all for $35 a month. I said this before, but YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MONEY WORKS, OR WHAT IT IS WORTH, OR HOW PEOPLE PAY FOR THINGS. Also, so loving what? Your gym is not a hospital. The costs required to run a successful gym are not the same as a hospital. For example, does your gym require a room that has to be kept COMPLETELY STERILE? Does your gym have a cafeteria running to feed not just its employees but also its patrons? Does your gym employee highly skilled experts who require 8 additional years of training in order to do their jobs competently? What is the upkeep on your gym's equipment look like? A lot of gym equipment doesn't require the same level of maintenance as some of these machines in a hospital. So maybe you spend 500 dollars on something, but you might only spend 75 a year keeping it up to snuff. Chances are, that gym requires a lot less staff. And you could possibly have a lot more customers. Also, gyms make a lot of money by people who pay for the gym but don't really use it. Where as hospitals have the opposite problem. They have people who use the hospital's time, services, employees, equipment, and so on and so forth, and yet they can't pay for the services rendered. Finally, I don't believe that you go to the gym. That would require you to leave your house. And given your general naivety, I can't imagine that you going out into the real world and trying to interact with people ends up without you getting killed, maimed, or sent to prison. quote:If you lost your job and thus your insurance and you suspect you might have a brain tumor and you want to rule it out? Cough up $8000 or live with the uncertainty. BUT THERE IS PRICE COMPETITION... DO SOME loving RESEARCH. And no, Mises.org or other libertarian resources don't count as research. Do some real reading. Get some expertise. And for god's sake, use your rear end just for making GBS threads and sitting, and let your brain do the thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I don't honestly know if I have ever seen someone so utterly dedicated to ignoring everything that refutes or questions his assertions before. It is a terrible and wondrous thing to behold. He'd have a future in politics if the GOP had any use for butt-sniffing Austrian "economists." But Reagan already pimped them out decades ago, and took everything he needed from them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Wait jrod do you think the only reason prices are so high is because the state and private insurance pay for medical care and everything would be cheaper if we all paid cash out of pocket? Seriously? Do you not get that medical insurance and programs like Medicare only exists because that was and is literally impossible for 90% of the population?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's suppose that tomorrow libertarian property rights were respected and people could do whatever they wanted with their property provided they didn't initiate force against others. I think that there would be virtually no private business that would put up signs refusing to serve blacks or Jews or any other category of oppressed minority. The exceedingly few that would enact blatantly racist policies would have to deal with the public backlash from people who abhor this type of racism. The owner of such an establishment would be harassed and hounded every second he was in public. Unless that business owner lived in one of the many extremely racist enclaves that still exist in this country. For instance, a restaurant owner in a small white town in Alabama isn't going to get harassed for banning black travelers. quote:Just how racist do you suppose the country is? I get the sense when talking to many progressives that they truly believe that without the Fed's stopping everyone, society would just slide back to 1960s Birmingham Alabama and we'd have massive segregation and Jim Crow and everything else in many parts of the country. You say this, yet Georgia high schools still hold segregated proms. The state had its first desegregated prom in 2014, just last year. If schools there all became privately owned, you can bet your rear end that segregation would return. In many places throughout the country, you'd probably be right. But in many more, you'd be dead wrong. quote:I, on the other hand, feel like we have turned that corner and people will NOT stand for such behavior. The racism today is more like people who have a stupid stereotype in their head or tell an off color joke and things like that. The racism is more of institutional holdovers from the past when attitudes were different. That's because you're naive. You believe that people won't voluntarily fund wars. You believe that wars can't be waged for profit. You believe that modern racism is not a systemic problem that runs deeper than the occasional racially-driven joke. I read a good quote about people like you once: "For anti-anti-racists, accusations of racism are a greater concern than actual discrimination against blacks." quote:If we had the right to discriminate on our private property, I feel like this would be mainly a right in theory only because most people would not want to discriminate on racial or religious grounds. Most people want an integrated society and enjoy being around people of different backgrounds and cultures. i know I do. I actually agree with you on hate speech, but I feel like it's a tangential discussion that deserves its own thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I just love comparing a gym membership to using an MRI machine. Yeah, totally, let's compare this superconducting machine to getting access to a room with some heavy weights in it. It's like comparing the cost of purchasing a car to the cost of purchasing a pineapple: totally reasonable! It's flabbergasting that cars aren't cheaper when pineapples are so cheap!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I can't believe the regulations on cars, I can grow my own goddamn pineapples!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes this is self evident. But that doesn't explain the healthcare phenomenon. I mentioned that we can compare an apples to apples comparison like heart surgery in 1960 and heart surgery today and see price inflation far higher than the CPI. This isn't explained because heart surgeries are so much more sophisticated now. They still require a skilled surgeon, a bunch of assistant, a few hours in a hospital room and several days to recover before heading home. Yet the costs have increased quite substantially, much more than could be anticipated by comparing general price inflation in the broader economy. First of all, no we cannot do an apples to apples comparison of heart surgery with the 1960's, because the most expensive types of modern day heart surgery, namely transplants and open heart surgeries, were still considered experimental surgery in the 1960's, and did not see full realization and common usage for up to another two decades that followed as seen here. You are comparing the easiest and least invasive methods of heart surgery with some of the most tramautizing and expensive medical treatments in human history and saying that it is "Apples to apples". This same problem can be seen throughout your comparisons. All you are doing is looking at prices of "Cancer treatment" or "Heart Surgery" in 1960 and today and just assuming that they're pretty much the same thing. They aren't. These treatments are vastly more complex and more expensive as a result. This in part accounts for the rising medical costs. quote:I don't know why you feel the need to make the obvious point that if you need a surgery for a medical condition for which no treatment existed fifty years ago, your medical care rates would be higher than if you got no treatment fifty years ago. You would live of course and not die which seems a fair trade off to me. Because your whole argument is that medical costs per capita have increased. Well part of the reason that is the case is because treatment options have opened up entirely new avenues. If your treatment before consisted of an aspirin and the statement 'good luck' then the cost of medical care for you was lower than it would be fore a similar person today with the same disease who has a treatment option that runs in the tens of thousands. This is not a difficult thing to understand. quote:Of course having a life threatening or permanently debilitating illness for which no treatment was available in the past likely meant that the overall cost to your family would be massively greater than if a cure was available, no matter how inflated the cost. That is also self evident. So what the gently caress is your argument against it? You're just agreeing and then continuing on like that shouldn't be impacting your thinking at all, which is bizarre. quote:I don't know why you fight the notion that when consumers are completely divorced from the cost of their medical care, they don't care about costs and costs naturally are inflated higher than they otherwise would be. How exactly is this a point that you feel the need to argue with? I actually don't disagree with this, though I think you fail to understand that this applies far more the the USA than say... Canada. quote:Let's say that tomorrow, the Federal Government took over the cell phone industry. Nationalized it completely and created a "single payer" system of cell phone service available to everyone. You would be eligible to receive the newest iPhone every year for free. The State contracted out the actual production of the phones to Apple and the service to Verizon. I would expect the cost of the iphone to drop dramatically. But Wait Caros you magnificent fucker! You are sure to cry. The government doesn't have any incentive to reduce costs. Apple would charge whatever they gently caress they wanted and the government wouldn't care because they are stupid and corrupt. Apple will charge $7,000 a phone and the government will simply drop to its metaphorical knees in front of the mighty capitalist, unable to think of an alternative. Well guess what JRodefeld, we have real world evidence of what happens. quote:Conclusions: Higher in-hospital costs were found for the American hospitals despite the fact that they had a significantly shorter patient length of stay compared with Canadian centers (p < 0.0001). Canadian hospitals should follow the lead of their counterparts in the United States and implement strategies to decrease the length of stay in the hospital, while institutions in the United States should revisit their ability to better manage the costs related to a primary total hip arthroplasty, particularly by controlling unit costs. If you don't have access to the paywall there, here is a slightly less scholarly take on the same information. quote:One of the most striking data points in this report is the 2012 total hospital and physician cost for hip replacement, as well as the cost for a hip prosthesis. For the total cost of hip replacement, the U.S. average was $40K versus $28K in Australia, $12K in the UK, and $11K in France. For the hip prosthetic device itself, the cost was $12,222 on average, versus $10,863 in Australia and $2,682 in Spain. The gist of this is that countries that have universal health care pay less than the US does for its quasi-sorta-morethancanada-free market when it comes to paying per unit costs on medical devices. And this makes sense when you think about it. Despite your assertion that the government is a drooling autistic child with no sense of the value of things, the government is run by people, people who know how to save money and who ultimately do have incentives to do so in the form of budgets and various forms of financial oversight. When the government of Canada buys artifical hips, they do it like this. They put out an open offer for bids and say, whoever fills this bid will get to make.. I dunno, 2,000,000 hips. Its probably less than that but its a solid number, roll with it. Being given the option to make two million of anything that costs thousands of dollars is a goldmine to companies, because being the exclusive supplier of fake hips means that you get total market penetration. However, the government also says that you have to make them cheap, and you have to make them safe and you have to make them on schedule. So you get competing bids, each company trying to outdo one another until you are ultimately left with the one who has provided the best, cheapest hip. And through this process we know that the price for the hip is ultimately lower, much lower than the one offered in the United States, because of a combination of bulk purchasing and the significant advantage provided by being the sole person on the demand side of the equation. To go back to your example, the government wouldn't just go to apple. They'd say "Who can make us the best cell phones at the lowest price." at which point apple and samsung and blackberry would clammer over one another to be the company that gets to sell 330 million phones every single year unto forever. The government would ultimately get a better deal because when your option is 330 million at say... $500 a phone or $400 a phone instead of $600 a phone, it is still better than the $0 a phone they are going to get if the government is the sole provider of cell phones to the entire country. And I have to stress, this isn't a hypothetical. We know that this is how this works because we have seen it in action for over half a century in Canada. This is a huge part of the reason prescription drug prices are lower in Canada, and that just about any individual medical procedure costs half of what it does in the US. So if you want to continue on this train of thought you really, really need to address this point rather than just trot out your argument that the government will stupidly throw money after bad. We have dozens of countries in all parts of the world that disagree with your tautology. Reality disagrees with you, are you going to try a different argument, or are you going to keep arguing that reality is wrong. quote:Now suppose another scenario where the government didn't nationalize the entire cell phone market but a small pocket of companies also offered a few models and plans that people could buy for themselves. They also contracted with the State but you could purchase a phone on your own as well. Oooh it is a medicare analogy! Well first and foremost, the private insurance market is not "A small pocket" its roughly half. Secondly, you are vastly overstating the effect that medicare has on the private system, because the private system is for people under 65, while medicare is only for people over 65. Medicaid does cover the poor, but it doesn't account for nearly the same percentages as medicare. Its also worth noting that both medicare and medicaid actually do the opposite of what you're bitching about. Medicare doesn't vastly over inflated their medical costs, in fact medicare typically pays significantly less than a private insurer would for a similar proceedure because medicare is a government program is well aware of the fact that it has an immense bargaining advantage. The typical complaint from doctors is actually that medicare reimbursement rates are too low. They argue that medicare is actually paying them less per patient than the cost of treating the patient, not that they are paying so many bazillion dollars that there is no incentive to treat private patients. In fact many private doctors refuse to take medicare patients because they think they'd make less money overall. The only way your 'overspending' medicare system makes any sense is if you look at overall costs. Medicare spends half the US spending on healthcare to treat a smaller percent of its population. The twist, however, is that Medicare covers the elderly, who bare the brunt of all medical costs on account of being old. The bast majority of all medical costs incurred by a person are incurred in the last two years of their life. It isn't that medicare is pissing away money, its that it is an insurance pool that consists entirely of the most high risk individuals. No poo poo it is going to cost a lot overall. If you were serious about getting medical care to people in the US there is only one option, single payer. quote:In a normal market system, entrepreneurs will provide levels of healthcare service catering to every income bracket and people would just go and purchase the healthcare services that they need. In a distorted market however, costs are so inflated that most people cannot afford to pay for basic healthcare service if the insurance companies or the State don't pay for it for them. So... we're just going to go back to the idea that healthcare inelasticity isn't a thing then are we? Just going to pretend that there aren't massive barriers to entry, inscentives to collude and to keep prices high? We're going to pretend that people are informed enough to be able to shop around for the most complicated purchase they would ever buy while in the middle of a heart attack, or that they could somehow make rational loving choices while in extreme pain.  For the record, this part of your post reads like a cultist belief in magic. The market would fix anything if only we let the market fix it because... Immmmmhoooooteeeeeppppp.... the market market.... what was I saying? quote:You frequently speak of families who go completely bankrupt because a family member gets sick. Or others who literally die because they can't pay for a relatively simple operation that could save their life. The costs are so out of control that tens of millions of Americans could never pay these medical costs even if their lives depended on it. Because of inelastic prices. Because unlike the government, the market doesn't actually give a poo poo whether people live or die, and there is no room for an opportunistic entrepreneur. If the cost of open heart surgery is $40,000 and your family has $10,000, there is no room for some entrepreneur to swoop in and rescue you... you simply don't have enough money, full stop, just like there wouldn't be a market for me to buy a HDTV with $10. Universal healthcare systems understand that people dying from treatable illness is retarded and abhorrent, and more importantly that it will happen in a private system because not everyone will have insurance to cover them, or the savings to pay for their treatment. It is an inevitability unless you somehow believe that the market will bring costs so low that a heart transplant is going to cost perhaps tens of dollars rather than tens of thousands. quote:The reason is that most people, especially the working class, rely exclusively on third party payers for medical care. Most would never consider paying out of pocket for any medical service, even one they could afford. People won't even see a chiropractor if their insurance won't pay for it. Those people are saving money because chiropractic 'treatment' is pointless homeopathy with no more medical benefit than a back massage at a ridiculously inflated price. Why am I not surprised you believe in that too. That said, medical care is not something that should be paid out of pocket. It is such a silly idea that you should have a system where people have to a cost:benefit analysis on whether to seek loving medical treatment. Preventative medicine is another way that Canada and others save money overtop of the US, because when someone goes into the doctor with a headache they get treatment for their stage 1 cancer rather than putting it off to when they are in stage 2 and vomiting uncontrollably because they wanted to save that $100 for rent. quote:This is the inevitable result of that sort of system. This is such basic, economics 101 level stuff that I am shocked I even have to go over this. When price competition is removed from a market and people rely more heavily on third party payers and the State to provide funding for services, prices rise. No, I'd probably charge less because I would have had to do so to win the bidding process. Your typical individual isn't going to barter with me for my services, the government is. The fact that you don't understand this is staggering and shows your total lack of understanding about how government procurement actually works. Here is a tip, those stories about the $1000 toilet seats on the space station? Those are the exception, not the rule. The only instance in which your argument would work is if the person they are buying from is the sole provider of a product, in which case their monopoly means they can charge whatever they want. But the same would be true of private purchasers as well in that case. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I actually agree with you on hate speech, but I feel like it's a tangential discussion that deserves its own thread Please don't let him confuse the issue yet again. He was syllogizing allowing bigots to express their views with allowing discrimination in businesses or indeed anything deemed private property. Once again he shifts the rhetoric to hide his own putrid opinions and try to sound more reasonable to people. Hell, the whole issue of hate speech was brought up last time because the tried to defend one of his ideal hosting a conference for bigots. As if saying people have a right to their opinions is equal to giving a pedestal to white supremacists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Hey guys I need I help I think I am being shaken down by the Mafia. I went into this building which had long counters full of food and lots of tables, so I loaded up a plate and started eating. Then this woman came by and offered to bring me a drink, so I asked her for a beer and she gave me one. Very hospitable, or so I thought... But now they're saying I owe them $15 even though I never signed any contract? They're giving me some line about how I shouldn't have eaten anything if I didn't want to pay for it which sounds like absurd Mafia reasoning to me. This is worse than the time after my mom's death when I kept going to her country club and then they gave me a bill even though she was the one who agreed to the contract and I never did, plz help!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey guys I need I help I think I am being shaken down by the Mafia. All libertarian fiction should be, and I suppose is, in the form of a picaresque.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey guys I need I help I think I am being shaken down by the Mafia. Listen, if I just want to use the restaurant's kitchen I should be able to, and I shouldn't have to pay for any of the expensive equipment or ingredients that I use! I'm mixing my labour with those lobster tails, they're mine!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Caros et al your attempts to debate jrode on healthcare are admirable but we've all been in this circular argument before; if he hasn't completely hosed off again and actually responds to you, he's going to 'forget' that he was arguing how much lower prices would be in a free market and say that it doesn't matter that healthcare is much cheaper and more readily available in countries with UHC because the point he was actually trying to make is that it's immoral either way because it was paid for by theft. Aside from this possible acknowledgment, he will also continue believing and arguing that less government involvement means cheaper and higher quality healthcare despite all evidence, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
It's worth noting in the face of jrodefeld's complaints of the IRS' barbarous tactics of "sending you letters" and "fining you" or "eventually sending you to jail if you defraud them of hundreds and thousands of dollars", in the last thread he posted a Molyneux article advocating DROs operating a universal database of subscribers and requiring everyone else in society to agree to consensually and nonviolently starve to death anyone who can't or won't pay protection money.Stefan Molyneux posted:DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system. Dispassionately moving the poor along and not allowing them even a gutter in which to peacefully starve to death: not just a moral duty, but a contractual obligation! How civilized!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
This thread is about showing just how bad Libertarian thought and philosophy is, Jrod is just setting an example for us.VitalSigns posted:Dispassionately moving the poor along and not allowing them even a gutter in which to peacefully starve to death: not just a moral duty, but a contractual obligation! How civilized! Don't forget HHH and his 'justified discrimination' against: The Poor, Blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Volume of fuel dispensed at the pump: regulated Clean drinking water: regulated Right of way on public roads: regulated so you can see further than 5 feet past the loving small business a board signs. Sanitation: regulated Violent crime: regulated Immigration: regulated Non violent crime: sometimes regulated?? Libertarian thought: unregulated. Peer pressure doesn't seem to be affecting personal liberty enough guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Caros, you beautiful motherfucker. I don't understand how you are so able to utterly destroy his ideas without succumbing to abuse like I do. And I don't destroy his arguments like you do. You go to town. You're like a Patrick Bateman of Libertarian arguments. Me, I'm just some punk who breaks into a home and shoots the argument in the head, but you, you leave no identifiable traces left for the person to scrounge up. What I'm saying is that I salute you sir.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
I actually learn a ton from Caros' posts. It's like a primer on health care policy, his arguments and references should be collected somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think you honestly make some good points. I always self reflect and I will continue to do so. Tone is important and I agree that it is important to convey what your values truly are. If I start going on and on about "States rights" some southern neo-confederate and pro segregation racist might get the impression that I am on his side. And I most certainly am not. I think it is important to convey the anti-racist values that I hold. I went to college in a small town in western Pennsylvania. In that town, there are several bars, and in one of those bars it's understood that black people aren't welcome. They will receive anything from intentionally poor service to threats from patrons. I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of places in the USA that are similar, and therefore no doubt that if it were legal to just straight-up ban minorities from your business it would occur. And not just bars: schools and neighborhoods are already highly segregated, and bussing minorities to rich white schools was hugely hated by white people. The idea that removing regulations would somehow decrease this seems awfully questionable. Hell, remember that we are only 15 years away from Bob Jones University banning inter-racial dating. Or look at how many schools had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the government to give any sort of support to women's athletics, let alone not to completely ignore the epidemic of campus rape. Or change focus entirely and consider Hollywood, where minorities are routinely discriminated against because (white male) executives are absolutely convinced that movies about/starring white men are the most profitable. In fact, there are any number of situations in which discrimination is either not sufficient to make a business fail, or is actively profitable (or perceived to be profitable). Because all those people who you think are "only" racist because of some stupid stereotype: they're the same people who know that eating at Chik-Fil-A gives money to hate groups, but their sandwiches are just so good, and really it's not their place to say what a business owner does with his money right? And you and I, who truly want to consume ethically, we have a HUGE burden of research, to the point where I believe that the most profitable option for a company is to simply invest money in obfuscating or outright lying about the bad stuff they do. Boycotts are great morally, but I don't have the slightest bit of confidence in their ability to effect real change in a late-stage capitalist economy. The impacts of your decisions are just too abstract. So it's much better, as far as I'm concerned, to collectively decide on some limits to the behavior you're willing to countenance, and empower someone to enforce those limits. quote:I find it surprising that you don't think anyone should be able to print or publish hate speech. Shouldn't we counter offensive speech with better speech rather than ban and censor that which we are repulsed by? This is a classic example of a dangerous slippery slope where the category "hate speech" can grow larger and larger until all manner of speech is banned and people are afraid to openly express themselves for fear of legal repercussions. Here we sort of get into one of the core things I'm trying to get you to think about. For all that your philosophy is concerned with individuals, it ironically operates on an extremely abstract scale where the individual pretty much disappears. What I mean by this is that your overarching concern (in this context) is with the abstract concept Free Speech, and with the general rule that it should apply to every person in every circumstance. And since it's the abstract, general concept that you care about, me saying that I'm not concerned about a general right to hate speech reads to you as "I want to ban hate speech". But that's not what it means; I am simply not a deontologist. My concern is not with what "rights" are theoretically assigned to people, but rather what their actual lives are like. I believe that racist speech makes the lives of others worse (I'll expand on this later). So my primary concern w/r/t hate speech is: stopping it. If the best way to stop it was to ban it, then an abstract concept is not that important. This is not to say that banning hate speech is the best way to stop it--you're absolutely correct that policy must be concerned with potential misuses--but rather that I am perfectly happy to champion Al Sharpton's right to speak while simultaneously shouting down David Duke. Individual cases need to be handled individually, trying to fit everything into one global concept might seem really pleasant to you but you need to recognize that it's going to be actually harmful to individuals. quote:And banning hate speech obviously doesn't eliminate the hate that the people feel in their hearts and minds. If the grand wizard of the KKK wants to write a book titled "I Hate Niggers" let him do it. Just the fact that it reminds decent people that there are still people who think this way is a service of sorts, waking us up and making us more aware of the continued problem of racism and hate. As I said above, I don't specifically support a legal ban because it's a complex matter that impacts more than just hate speech. But there are absolutely concrete benefits to a society without bigoted speech--even if prejudice still exists!--and I think it's important to point them out. Because there is a real human cost to allowing this, and if you're going to advocate paying that cost then you should have to honestly justify that it's worth it. 1) Bigoted speech perpetuates bigotry: Since race (and gender, sexuality, etc.) is a social construct rather than a biological fact, racism cannot be an inherent trait. Therefore, to become a bigot, a person must learn it from someone else. Even if every person was racist "in their hearts and minds", if they don't communicate it then it will be gone after a generation. And the spread of memes is not linear, so even a small reduction in hateful communication can have a big effect on how many people receive the messages. 2) Extreme speech leads to extreme action: Of course, surreptitious racism is terrible and harms a great many people. But allowing any hate speech necessarily leads to some people who will justify any sort of atrocity. And that speech always carries the chance of some people taking it seriously and actually putting it into action. 3) Fake it 'til you make it: Psychologically, we know that the act of pretending to believe something long and hard enough actually leads to holding the belief. Have you ever repeated a lie so much you started to feel like it was true? Or had the act of putting a happy face forward during something you disliked led to actual enjoyment? Similarly, pretending to not be racist will actually make people less racist over time. 4) Isolation: You're well aware of how difficult it can be to be alone in a belief. Now, imagine if none of your friends ever spoke positively about libertarianism, if Mises.org and similar platforms for libertarian politics didn't exist. Maybe you'd still hold the very same beliefs, but it would probably be pretty hard to get many of your policies enacted. Individuals with bigoted attitudes is a lot better than groups of people coordinating. And, as a bonus, you are psychologically disposed to conform to the beliefs you see. So even if everyone is racist in their heart of hearts, if they're all presenting themselves as non-racist then they'll convince each other to be less so! 5) Experiencing hate speech harms its targets: Being the target of bigoted speech increases stress, lowers self-esteem, and in general is hard on a person's mental health and development. Being aware of negative stereotypes has been shown to decrease academic performance, and being reminded specifically has a short-term harm. So, yeah, I'm not that compelled by the argument that we should be thankful to be reminded that racism still exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah my cousin goes to school in Athens, Georgia and he was out with a black friend of his. He took her to a place called "Generals" that has ridiculously cheap drinks, and since they were already tipsy, they didn't notice the Conferederate flags on the walls until they looked around wondering why they were getting angry glares and whispers from the other patrons. They got the gently caress out. Basically all of his stories about college were "I thought from growing up in my nice neighborhood in an Atlanta suburb that racism was over and then I came to Athens and holy poo poo the racism and homophobia and bigotry here is insane". Oh also, my best friend went to high school in Buda, TX in the 2000s. Their team name is the Rebels, their mascot is a confederate soldier, their school flag is Lee's Battle Flag, and when the only black teacher spoke up and suggested they maybe change those things because they made her feel threatened, her office was broken into, scrawled with swastikas and racial slurs, and when she went to the principal, she got "well you did make a lot of people angry, what did you expect", so she quit. Oh, they didn't get around to banning the Confederate flag from the school until 2012 quote:The board’s decision to ban the flag comes in the wake of a May incident in which a racial epithet, “KKK” and the words “catch em, kill em” were inscribed on an African-American teacher’s door at Hays High. Two male students, then 14 years old, were charged in connection with the vandalism and the teacher, who had announced her resignation prior to the incident, left the district. The school's fight song is still Dixie. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah my cousin goes to school in Athens, Georgia and he was out with a black friend of his. He took her to a place called "Generals" that has ridiculously cheap drinks, and since they were already tipsy, they didn't notice the Conferederate flags on the walls until they looked around wondering why they were getting angry glares and whispers from the other patrons. See, but now all of us know not to ever visit a place called "Generals!" The system works! Until Generals changes its name, gets bought out by new management, or earns more money from its racist clientele than we could ever hope to deny it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:All libertarian fiction should be, and I suppose is, in the form of a picaresque. *Googles what a picaresque is*  Hmm, yes, quite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:A nonviolent black man can be murdered on video in America and nothing comes of it. Yes but look at the public outcry and anger. Of course the people who killed Eric Garner were agents of the State who have systematically isolated themselves from culpability for their actions through their influence and lobbying. The problem of police brutality and misconduct is a serious one. But I don't believe that this was an example of police targeting black people specifically. This was an example of police using force against an individual for engaging in the peaceful act of selling individual cigarettes. There are in fact numerous examples of the police using violence against white people and getting away with it. The problem is that police are treated differently under our justice system. A police officer can use lethal force against a private citizen and the chances of him getting away with it are unbelievably high. The reason the Eric Garner and Michael Brown shootings became such large news stories has a lot to do with the fact that people all over the ideological spectrum can exploit these tragedies because of their racial implications. Political grandstanding and posturing to divide us are what politicians do best. The police use unjust violence against white people too and it doesn't get reported nearly enough in the news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes but look at the public outcry and anger. Of course the people who killed Eric Garner were agents of the State who have systematically isolated themselves from culpability for their actions through their influence and lobbying. The problem of police brutality and misconduct is a serious one. gently caress you, you racist shithead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
I'm sure that when we abolish the state and those former police are hired by private security agencies they'll stop being racist and there won't be a whole bunch of white people (like the grand juries) willing to excuse the murder of blacks by private security, oh no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The police use unjust violence against white people too and it doesn't get reported nearly enough in the news. Name them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Name them.  "Taxes"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The police use unjust violence against white people too and it doesn't get reported nearly enough in the news. Every post you make on this subject further proves that you are an idiot and a coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Name them. I'm sure he can, he's said he never believes anything without proof. Oh while we're on the subject of unproven assertions: jrodefeld posted:women get divorced or have more children, just to stay on or increase their welfare payments. VitalSigns posted:Post evidence of a widespread phenomenon of women having more children just to get more welfare benefits, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:*Googles what a picaresque is* And this explains why the ultimate 20th century picaresque had as its hero the ultimate libertarian, to the point of his being a medievalist: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Mocking the idea of a social contract and saying "I didn't sign anything" is bullshit anyway. Getting gas or buying groceries is different because it is private property and the gasoline and groceries are the property of the store. Since they, the store owner, manager, workers, etc homesteaded and produced this product, if I just take it without their permission I am a thief. By what right do the politicians claim property ownership over everything they feel the right to lay claim to? They assume they own my property when they tell me how I can use it, they claim ownership over my entire salary yet they permit me to keep a percentage of their choosing. There is no limit to this. There is no point where a democratic State says "we have no right to confiscate this property or bother these people. They own that property and not us." They recognize no firm limit on their ability to lay claim to all property. What I am saying is that there is no coherent reason why those who work in government today have a better claim to my property or my salary that myself. I'm not a moocher. I pay my taxes because I know what will happen to me if I don't. I understand the system as it exists. I always choose alternatives to State monopolized services if and when I can. But I am going to live in the society as it exists while I advocate for making the changes that I'd like to see. But I don't claim that the system is voluntary. It certainly is coercive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Go homestead in Antarctica
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Good thing they government employees don't make claims of ownership and are holding those properties in common for all citizens, you loving retard. Again, did you get permission or sign a contract when you entered those properties? No you did loving not. Just like there was no verbal or written consent given when you joined our society and continue to participate in it. The consent is implicit. So stop your bitching about the lack of voluntarism. The rest of your post is ill informed drivel and incoherent rambling that does not merit a response of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is no limit to this. There is no point where a democratic State says "we have no right to confiscate this property or bother these people. They own that property and not us." They recognize no firm limit on their ability to lay claim to all property. Seek psychological help for your paranoid delusions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Protip jrod. We have these things called laws. The people who make them are chosen in public elections in which I certainly hope you participate. Some of these laws dictate what portion of your income the government has the right to collect, anything outside of that and you must receive fair value compensation. There's even this whole clause in our biggest and most important law about how the government can't just take your poo poo because they feel like it. I hope this information eases some of your insane delusions about reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:05
|
|