|
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 19, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Nolanar posted:JRodimus! I don't know why you bothered with a new thread. Your statist oppressors can find it easily enough, and you cannot escape your past. Mods I humbly ask that you wait until he scurries off like the coward he is before banning Jrod this time. EDIT Karia posted: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. I never said people were rational with their limited time 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I never said people were rational with their limited time I seem to recall there being some condition that, in Jrod's calculations, seemed to color exactly who expressed rational time preferences, versus those who did not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Stupid socialists, let me tell you what's wrong with "democracy"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Jrod, ignoring for a second that you don't understand what property rights means if you're talking about the property rights of a man who owns nothing but a loaf of bread, property rights are actually the thing that keeps that poor man starving in nations like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc. Thanks to their rich oil supply, there are many wealthy Nigerians, Saudis, Canadians, etc who can afford to do all the charity they want, and yet poverty and starvation still exist. Could it be that... trickle down doesn't work??? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Mods I humbly ask that you wait until he scurries off like the coward he is before banning Jrod this time. i think thats what always happens, he posts and gets chaos-dunked on and slinks out, then gets banned a week later for not replying, then when he comes back acts like he totally was about to post the convincing rebuttal a week later before his ban
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
You loving cowardevilweasel posted:i think thats what always happens, he posts and gets chaos-dunked on and slinks out, then gets banned a week later for not replying, then when he comes back acts like he totally was about to post the convincing rebuttal a week later before his ban he got ran out of the thread created specifically to contain him because he got dunked on so hard so many times and people were starting to talk poo poo about his writing style, and also we wouldn't stop asking if he hosed a watermelon so yeah let this play it, it'll last two weeks and he'll run away like a baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
murray rothbard loved david duke and said that there's nothing in david duke's 1991 platform that wouldn't be at home in paleoconservatism or libertarianism peace out folks
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Jrod, ignoring for a second that you don't understand what property rights means if you're talking about the property rights of a man who owns nothing but a loaf of bread, property rights are actually the thing that keeps that poor man starving in nations like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc. Thanks to their rich oil supply, there are many wealthy Nigerians, Saudis, Canadians, etc who can afford to do all the charity they want, and yet poverty and starvation still exist. Could it be that... trickle down doesn't work??? "That's only because they're crushed under the unprovoked aggression of state taxation, which if removed would result in such a flourishing of charitab-*noisily shits self inside out* Literally The Worst posted:he got ran out of the thread created specifically to contain him because he got dunked on so hard so many times and people were starting to talk poo poo about his writing style, and also we wouldn't stop asking if he hosed a watermelon Hey, at least that other libertarian was willing to go on the record with his position on the watermelon issue. I don't think it's too much to ask of Jrod, though I'll acquiesce in laying off that burning issue until the thread goes (even more) to hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You loving coward In fairness, "holy poo poo this guy is a terrible writer" is probably the first thing anyone who reads a Jrod post thinks of, if only because they're treated to a thousand goddamned words before he even tries to make a point. And then he made the mistake of saying he mostly posts to improve his writing, and we all pounced. Jerry Manderbilt posted:murray rothbard loved david duke and said that there's nothing in david duke's 1991 platform that wouldn't be at home in paleoconservatism or libertarianism I didn't come here to talk about race, but [fart noises]
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
As everyone else has mentioned your post is all over the place and doesn't clearly answer any questions. But to try to answer in good faith, I think the problem is that for a lot of this you seem to have these unrealistic ideological tenets that you hold to without having thought them through. Take your criticism of democracy and collective ownership, where in a single paragraph you try to do away with both concepts. You state that it can't work because "If all workers owned factories together, endless meetings and deliberations would be required to make any decisions about the use of capital and production." The problem is, we know this isn't true because there are plenty of collectively owned businesses and strange as it may seem, they decided to set up their businesses in a manner which wasn't really obviously stupid. Take the John Lewis Partnership in the UK where I'm from. They're an employee owned co-operative with tens of thousands of employees and they work just fine. I also think you're either mistaken on your economic history or getting confused between laissez-faire economic policies and a welfare state. The USA and other developing countries were notably protectionist during their period of industrialisation and growth. For over a century from 1816 to 1945 the USA had one of the highest tariff rates on manufacturing imports in the world, which combined with the natural protection due to high shipping costs from the rest of the world meant that the USA's developing industry's were perhaps the most protected of any country. Not just the USA either. For instance the UK during its period of development made plenty of use of export subsidies, import tariff rebates on inputs used for exporting, etc that we saw being used post WW2 in the East Asian countries. In fact you seem to miss the point communal and socialist policies. When you bring up a person in starving in Africa who has a loaf of break the only two choices you think are available are leaving him with the bread or taking some of his bread. You don't see that the kind of policies you are railing against do not see either choice as acceptable, with the option of "Tax some rich fucker a bit more money and pay for this poor starving guy to have two loaves of bread and some chicken, some clean water, healthcare and education for his children" being the preferred go to option. The only reason the poor starving man ends up worse in your example is because you misrepresent what people want and how they would go about it. Generally your entire approach reminds me of Adam Smith's land of barter, an ideological conceit based on no knowledge of the facts which falls apart as soon as you look at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:=I didn't come here to talk about race, but [fart noises] furthermore, triple h cannot be racist because he's libertarian, qed here's a million words repeating some idiot bullshit about time preferences, written like i'm an olde timey assholee and thus probably a racist
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How is private property enforced in Libertarian land? What is there to stop me from me and all my friends forming an army and killing you to take all your stuff? If there is a police force, how is it funded? How is it equipped? What's to stop the police from joining my merry band of marauders and helping us take over the town through force? Come on, you know the answers to all this poo poo. In a libertarian society (which jrodefeld seems to be arguing has never been implemented but at the same time, through property rights, is somehow the only form of true society that has ever existed) there will be no war. Because blah blah blah incentive arbitration all covetousness will end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:In fact you seem to miss the point communal and socialist policies. When you bring up a person in starving in Africa who has a loaf of break the only two choices you think are available are leaving him with the bread or taking some of his bread. You don't see that the kind of policies you are railing against do not see either choice as acceptable, with the option of "Tax some rich fucker a bit more money and pay for this poor starving guy to have two loaves of bread and some chicken, some clean water, healthcare and education for his children" being the preferred go to option. I think the preferred go-to option is actually to steal the bread, then sell it back to the guy while you bury his family in a mass grave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I think the preferred go-to option is actually to steal the bread, then sell it back to the guy while you bury his family in a mass grave. Certainly for the libertarian, it would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I can hear Caros typing from here
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
at least the thread tag is accurate, what a first post
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Come on, you know the answers to all this poo poo. In a libertarian society (which jrodefeld seems to be arguing has never been implemented but at the same time, through property rights, is somehow the only form of true society that has ever existed) there will be no war. Because blah blah blah incentive arbitration all covetousness will end. Yes, but I want him to say it because it's funny. Also I want to lead him towards admitting that, like all libertarians, he will gladly support either fascist police states or lynch mob justice so long as he is on the side doing the oppressing and not the side being oppressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Also, I just noticed that Jrod joined these forums the very day I was married. I... I don't feel good about that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also, I just noticed that Jrod joined these forums the very day I was married. I... I don't feel good about that. When you sleep your spouse rises, eyes restless beneath their lids, staggers to the computer, and types
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I can hear Caros typing from here You hear it off in the distance at first. Like a thousand chattering insects writhing over tiled ground, growing louder and more feral as it builds in intensity... Sadly tho I'm visiting my wife's awful parents. Mods please refrain from banning him until I get a few kicks in. Tia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Jrod this is why we should care about property rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
You know what? gently caress everyone in this thread gently caress jrod for being an idiot and gently caress everyone who isn't jrod for picking all of the low-hanging fruit before I could get here I ::QUARK:: OF THE FAMILY ~*~JETS~*~ DID NOT CONSENT TO CREATING JOINDER WITH ALL OF YOU NON-LIBERTARIANS, in any admiralty court of law you guys would each be sentenced to a solid hour of keel-hauling at the very least and you'd probably owe me like a gazillion gold dabloons for TRANSGRESSION AGAINST THIS BERTHED VESSEL e: Seriouspost, jrod, what's your opinion on sovereign citizens? zeal posted:When you sleep your spouse rises, eyes restless beneath their lids, staggers to the computer, and types Okay, everyone except for this guy. You're alright, zeal
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Note to mods: You know who I am. I'm a libertarian who is staring his own thread, which is acceptable according to the rules, I assume? There are two reasons I want to start a specific thread rather than retread over the "other" libertarian thread and just post comments there. In the first place, I want this discussion to be more narrow in scope. And I want to say something at the beginning that everyone will have a chance to read. On Caros's thread, he specifically poisoned the well from the very beginning by writing an OP describing libertarianism and its adherents in an unflattering and, from my perspective, misleading way. By the time I first posted on that thread, there had already been something like two hundred pages of people making GBS threads on libertarianism before I had a chance to defend it. And since the thread was almost entirely directed at me in particular (it would not exist without my having posted here in the past), you can understand how I'd like to have a bit more discretion about the framing of the debate when I am outnumbered 30 to 1. I really want to touch on your whole post, but I am stuck phone posting for the foreseeable future so I'll stick to what I can demolish from here. First off I'd like to clear the air. I did not make the libertarian thread to attack libertarians, but because of this exact thin you are doing right now. Despite calling it the jrodefeld appreciation station you were on one of your hiatus' when I made the thread. It was actually made after a similar libertarian poster came in to preach and drop a knowledge bomb only to get his sorry rear end banned as you are like to do here. Let me make it clear, the libertarian thread is for your own protection. You went a full year without a banning or a probation because of my thread. So why am I saying this? Well because you are doing it again. I want you to take two seconds to go and look at the section of the forums and tell me if you notice a theme. We don't have a 'debate me on this issue' or 'lets talk about this'. We have auspol, uspol, Canada's debt thread etc. we have threads about substantive issues that are not tied to a specific person. You open your post by whining about the rules but I have to say jrod it still amazes me that after years, literal years of posting on something awful you don't know a thing about the community here. I expect the mods will ban you. You will keep up the thread for a week or so and then get angry, or busy or whatever and your thread will drop off and a mod will get annoyed. Make a real libertarian thread if you hate mine that much, but at least learn that maybe, just maybe we have a way of doing things around here. I mean for crying out loud you still haven't learned to tag your posts to prevent them from being labeled as shitposts. And as an aside, you joined the other thread 28 pages in at this time last year. A little different from 200 no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
lmao "i'd like to have more discretion framing the topic" this translates to "talk about what i want, the way i want, and only on these specific bullet points. please do not confront me with reality" jrode you're a coward
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Why do countries with more government regulation have improved healthcare costs for comparable or superior results?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Jrod this is why we should care about property rights. I mean, after all, Jrod's love of bell curves is well known...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Why do countries with more government regulation have improved healthcare costs for comparable or superior results? The U.S. Is no true free market and if they would remove all regulations on health care then everyone could get it and it would be incredibly cheap. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
 "DO NOT, MY FRIENDS, BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER! IT WILL TAKE HOLD OF YOU, AND YOU WILL RESENT ITS ABSENCE"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Today, in "questions jrod will never answer": why should I spend tens of millions of dollars to develop a new cancer drug without any hope of making my money back in libertopia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
"Today, in "questions jrod will never answer": why didn't I spend tens of millions of dollars to develop a new cancer drug without any hope of making my money back in libertopia?" -Steve Jobs, rich corpse
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
today in questions jrode will never answer: have you ever hosed a watermelon, jrode?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Jrod this is why we should care about property rights. Subtle Laffer Curve spotted!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Lumpen posted:"Today, in "questions jrod will never answer": why didn't I spend tens of millions of dollars to develop a new cancer drug without any hope of making my money back in libertopia?" "Apple Computer does not require patents and copyrights* to exist in anything resembling its current form." - An idiot You didn't even quote me right. * e: and most of all trademarks! I'm sure Apple would be able to charge a massive premium for its brand if any bottom-dollar manufacturer was able to replicate it, right? Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I forgot one of the arguments we brought up last time Jrod brought up his dumb Homestead Theory. Let's assume that there's worthwhile land to homestead outside of Antarctica or whatever, and let's assume that some group of people go and Mix Their Labor with the Land and claim it. It's theirs now, they have all the property rights. They and their families move out there and make a little town. Great. Then some other group comes in and murders them all. No survivors. Who the hell gets the property rights then? It obviously can't go to the murderers, since they didn't homestead the land or acquire it fairly. Does it revert to being unclaimed? In which case, it will probably be claimed by whoever is nearby, which is the murderers again. Does it become somehow beyond claim? Do we trace the founders' lineage back to some rando who the founders didn't even know and who's never even heard of the place? And before you call this a stupid hypothetical (assuming you actually respond to anything and don't just eat another ban), genocidal mass migrations aren't exactly unheard of in human history. Just ask the Picts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
You know, there's a point at which the "intellectual property" concept gets taken too far (and the US sprinted across that line years ago), but it's a useful fiction that lets people who aren't rich dilettantes create things that are useful to society and get compensated for it. Like the concept of property rights in general, it's a thing that people agree on because it serves a purpose (when not done stupidly). And to hit on a few classics: * Employers generally do not set wages based on what people are worth, but what they can get away with paying to get competent people. In fact they're willing to let their business be less efficient in order to have lower wages. The free market fails people who it deems to have less "valuable" skills, even if they are in fact highly profitable for their employers. * We've tried having capitalism handle health care, and it has failed by numerous metrics. Single-payer systems such as in the UK and Canada provide care to more people for less money. These systems aren't perfect, but they tend to have very high approval ratings from the people who use them and better outcomes overall. * Regulations on businesses came about because people got tired of being murdered. That's a little hyperbolic, but not by nearly as much as it should be. People literally conducted business in ways that needlessly ended human lives in order to make more profit, and we had to bitterly fight back to stop that. This fight is still ongoing, and large businesses continue to do things that create death and misery around the globe. * For-profit businesses are very skilled at preventing consumers from making rational, informed choices, and in some cases from making any choices at all. If there's a problem within an industry, it often becomes virtually impossible to find a vendor who will let you get away from it, and if there are it is often at an exorbitant cost. And on top of that there are massive portions of the private sector that normal consumers simply have no power over because they do business first and foremost with other large companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:today in questions jrode will never answer: have you ever hosed a watermelon, jrode? Hush now, let's let the thread ripen before we go down this road. eNeMeE posted:Why do countries with more government regulation have improved healthcare costs for comparable or superior results? Guilty Spork posted:* We've tried having capitalism handle health care, and it has failed by numerous metrics. Single-payer systems such as in the UK and Canada provide care to more people for less money. These systems aren't perfect, but they tend to have very high approval ratings from the people who use them and better outcomes overall. Jrod's go-to answer when hit with examples of how regulated environments out-perform market ones is to claim consequences are irrelevant, and focus on his (tortured, incoherent) morality argument that none of that matters so long as ~*men with guns*~ can force him to pay taxes, any taxes, against his will. Caros posted:You open your post by whining about the rules but I have to say jrod it still amazes me that after years, literal years of posting on something awful you don't know a thing about the community here. Hey don't be too hard on the boy, Caros; it's not like he knows a thing about anything else, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:* Employers generally do not set wages based on what people are worth, but what they can get away with paying to get competent people. In fact they're willing to let their business be less efficient in order to have lower wages. The free market fails people who it deems to have less "valuable" skills, even if they are in fact highly profitable for their employers. That is, to a libertarian, what the people are worth. Worth is defined by the market, not productivity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
And, to be clear, this isn't just "worth" as "market value." It is also a moral judgment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Ugh why do these content creators demand to be paid more than once for their effort?! Surely because I can copy paste a video in less than a second the same amount of time and effort went into its creation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
