|
And now I'm even sadder. Thanks a lot rear end in a top hat.
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:oh oh oh i wanna be the moderator "Jrodefeld the next question is yours. Why are you such a fucker? You fucker."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I was serious about the roundtable discussion by the way. I'd love to get some of the posters in this thread into a Skype call or something and talk about this stuff. We could record it and put it on youtube or something to laugh and/or be embarrassed about later. Definitely would be down for that at some point to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Romancing the watermelon.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:A point I wanted to make on the whole "taxation is slavery and or theft" analogy. You guys have covered the principal problem of slavery being the loss of individual freedom, but an alternative definition would include the theft of one's own labor, which is something that jrod emphasizes. The problem with this argument is the involuntary car wash. If I wash your car without permission I can't go and say you owe me two dollars, even if I put way more than $2 work into the car wash. Trade doesn't simply require consideration, it also requires intent. Of course the simple counter to that is that the choice to continue living in America into adulthood is an implied in fact agreement to pay your taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:AH gently caress IT Actually I'm going to update mine today because it occurred to me that I'll be available Sunday evenings through most of December.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 00:26
|
|
I will almost certainly be setting up a second one for people who want to participate but can't make it this time.
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:cross posting, very relevant and funny quote:It hurt really bad and I remember yelling "you're breaking the NAP" and things like that. "Stop initiating force against me." Then they kicked me around on the ground in the hallway, before they took my camera and threw me outside. I was crying and stuff, I just sat there. I was in shock because it was so sudden. Looking back there were warning signs though. Man, I didn't know I needed a good laugh until I read this, I don't even care that its probably bullshit. It's been a rough week so thank you Ron Paul. You're doing God's work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
So I've been on a bit of a kick doing research on Thomas Sowell lately. He's been getting referenced a lot by An-Caps as of late in part because he's a black man who is outspoken against Affirmative Action. Unlike Rothbard or HHH you can't simply type his name into google with the word 'racist' appended to it to get a greatest hits collection of the worst things they've ever said, but I've got a few for anyone who cares:quote:To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.  quote:Global warming' is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible. quote:Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation? I, an economist with absolutely no formal scientific training, believe that global warming is not real becau- *wet fart noises* quote:The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive. What is it with libertarian authors and decrying the ivory tower university system while themselves being tenured professors? As far as I can tell Sowell has not worked a day outside academia since the 1950's and was only able to attend university by virtue of the G.I. Bill for his draft service in Korea. quote:In the summer of 1959, as in the summer of 1957, I worked as a clerk-typist in the headquarters of the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington. The people I worked for were very nice and I grew to like them. One day, a man had a heart attack at around 5 PM, on the sidewalk outside the Public Health Service. He was taken inside to the nurse's room, where he was asked if he was a government employee. If he were, he would have been eligible to be taken to a medical facility there. Unfortunately, he was not, so a phone call was made to a local hospital to send an ambulance. By the time this ambulance made its way through miles of Washington rush-hour traffic, the man was dead. He died waiting for a doctor, in a building full of doctors. Nothing so dramatized for me the nature of a bureaucracy and its emphasis on procedures, rather than results. Is there some sort of french or german word for pulling the wrong lesson from a situation? Because that would apply here I think. quote:It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. Famous economist is too stupid to realize that every other country on earth somehow manages this. Also that the US already has a byzantine private insurance bureaucracy. quote:It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. No, I don't think he's talking about citigroup. quote:A shortage is a sign that somebody is keeping the price artificially lower than it would be if supply and demand were allowed to operate freely. iPhone 4's sell out? I guess apple is intentionally keeping the price down. Your country is undergoing a famine while still exporting food? STOP GIVING PEOPLE CHEAP RICE! quote:A shortage is a sign that somebody is keeping the price artificially lower than it would be if supply and demand were allowed to operate freely. This is only factually true because of churches. Utah for example has the highest rate of charitable donations because mormons give 10% of their income or more to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you start talking about charities like feeding the homeless, medical research etc the numbers swing wildly in democrats favor. So yeah, whenever a libertarian talks to you about Thomas Sowell, just remember that he is pretty much just a useful idiot for them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
And while I'm on a libertarian kick today I had a thought occur to me. What is the libertarian take on Involuntary Russian Roulette? Consider. I wake up one day and decide I'm bored and want to spice up my life. I go select one of my four hundred revolvers (you can never be too well defended after all) and load a single bullet. I then go across the hall, knock on my neighbor's door, spin the chamber and pull the trigger. The gun clicks, she lives another day but the question remains, have I violated the NAP? I haven't inflicted any direct harm on her. In our current society there would absolutely be an argument for psychological harm and/or probably attempted murder or reckless endangerment, but this liberland. Surely Libertarians aren't going to extend the NAP to merely hurting someone's feelings or scaring them, and really what is attempted murder? Do they give a nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Does it become worse if there are two bullets in the gun? Or five? This is absurd sure, but really it is just a variant on what would happen every day in liberland. If I'm driving down the road at 120 miles an hour is that aggression? Or does it only become aggressive when someone is turned into a fine paste by my kickin rad War Rig. This goes back to my point from the last time Jrod left (btw, seriously dude, poo poo or get off the pot with your posts) that anything past the most basic aspect of his ideology is completely arbitrary, which undercuts the universality argument. You could make a logical and convincing argument for both, and neither is the obviously 'correct' answer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Starting to suspect Block might be a not very good person. I'm also a big fan of "Then why the gently caress do you keep ascribing all these tremendous successes to something that doesn't exist." Gerund posted:If you adhere to NAP and suggest that you would "walk away" from the Knife Juggler, you're a provincialist that would either 1- adhere to any sufficiently acceptable philosophy that allows you to imbibe drugs in peace, or 2- a passive-aggressive crypto-fascist that only wants to live in comfort with you and a small pack of (well armed) homeostatic confidants. I can't help feel like what you meant to say was homoerotic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
How to deal with your libertarian family member for thanksgiving: Send him to his room. Edit: Changed them to him because lets be honest, there are no female libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:So, this is an old point but the question of employee ownership and workplace democracy still interests me. I'm still baffled that he came back and went on a rambling bullshit about a debate before vanishing into the goddamned ether for weeks on end. I work twelve hours a day to pay for my wife's schooling, her home out of town while she goes to school, our home in town for when she has her practicums and all associated living costs and I still have time to slap him down like a bitch whenever he shows up. His whining about 'having a life' is actually one of his more frustrating hobbies as of late.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Awesome, glad to hear it! Praying for me to be somewhere is sorta creepy tbh. But yeah, just pulling my laundry and getting some whiskey.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Qualnor is so legendarily bad that his Helldump thread is the only one I ever sought out. The second post after the OP is something like "this is the most inevitable thread ever." Just a reminder for anyone who wants to come and laugh at libertarians for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Chrungka posted:Is there any way to just watch, without joining the hangout itself? Yup, just come on and listen, just keep your mic off. =)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sorry I had to bounce early from the podcast, but life finds a way to interfere. Paragon pm me how you want me to send my audio. Life happens 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Sorry you missed it! If there's any consolation, we hope to do this again. Probably to talk about bitcoins and such. Can we amend a couple of minutes to Eripsa's fever dream Synereo? Because I have been waiting to laugh about that for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I want to do another one and for it to be about bitcoin and other libertarian related currency nonsense. How does evening of the 19th sound to people? I do like making fun of bitcoin so you can provisionally include me. Just gotta run it past the wife.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:We should care because we took an oath to support and defend the constitution, and that constitution includes the explicit right to property. Jesus christ go the gently caress back to US pol and get yourself probated/banned again so I don't have to read your stupid poo poo. I mean you even hosed up your trolling here because Jrod has been gone a month which makes your idea merely stupid. quote:Also the Constitution doesn't say jack poo poo about property rights other than that the state can't straight up take your property without some form of compensation. Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:aw poo poo you guys talked about dog dick coffee table guy? The bitcoin thread mentioned recently that it is actually a ring tail dick coffee table. If that makes it better somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist goat fucker. Molyneux is a misogynist. Murray Rothbard probably hosed children that he purchased. Jrodefeld should be along sometime soon. You can thank me later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is there even one single leading libertarian "thinker" who isn't a piece of bigoted poo poo? I'm sure there is one. I don't know who that would be but there has to be. Right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I've noticed that while there are libertarians who are decent enough, every libertarian "thinker," everyone who espouses theories and publishes articles and such in the name of libertarianism or its many minor variants, is just awful and out of touch with reality. Pretty much. I always like to point back to jrod's list of thinkers from the previous thread for this. He throws out about 20 names and the vast majority are the well known racist poo poo bags. Then there are a handful who I genuinely don't know much about, and that is because jrod has never referenced their ideas or articles in the thread. I fully believe h just googled a list of libertarians so that he could put up names that he knew I wouldn't object to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
I am pressed for time, but despite my better judgement I am going to address you instead of just using progressively font increased profanities. Assuming I have more time tomorrow I will give a more in depth breakdown.jrodefeld posted:Hi y’all. gently caress you. Just wanted to get this out of the way because you can't start with this and then vomit out the despicable poo poo that follows you ratfucker. quote:Hope everyone had a good holiday season. Personally, I was quite busy and family obligations kept me away from things I otherwise would have been doing. The reason I sometimes post sporadically on here is that I have an active social and professional life and, as much as I might want to, posting on internet forums merely to satisfy my desire for intellectually stimulating debate simply has to be sacrificed when more pressing matters are at hand. I work twelve hours a day six days a week and still make time to hang out with friends three days a week. Cut your stupid bullshit 'I have a real life so I can't come and talk all the time' bullshit. quote:With that said, let me reiterate my desire to have a written debate with one of you, one on one, where hopefully a more fully fleshed out discussion can take place. I have to find the time to dedicate to the exercise because I don’t want to short-change my positions. I can accept one poster at a time, with a clear topic and a defined time limit, which as I proposed, should be about three days. I think Caros had first dibs on a debate with me. I still don't really understand the point of a written debate over using a microphone since it'll be like arguing with the wind, but if you remain too much of a coward to manage to find a one to two hour block of free time at any point in your life then it cannot be helped. And don't plead poverty either because your pirate Blu-Ray failures aside I will still buy you a microphone. quote:In the meantime, however, I’d like to continue with a discussion I was having with Caros the last time I posted here. I was again pushing back against him for the narrative that he told whereby he abandoned libertarian ideas after the death of his friend due to her inability to pay for the healthcare that presumably would have cured the disease and allowed her to live a normal lifespan or at least many more years. This is a personal tragedy that I empathize with and I think that every well-meaning person wants a reasonable standard of medical care to be available to all people so premature deaths due to an inability to receive a medical intervention are either eliminated or reduced to the greatest possible degree. The narrative? Please go and stab yourself in the eyesocket with a rusty screwdriver. This isn't a narrative it is an objective fact. It is -32 degrees out where I live and I stopped being a libertarian because premature deaths due to inability to pay is loving abhorrent. quote:Where I sharply disagree is the baseless insinuation that the inability of the United States medical care system to adequately provide options for people like Caros’s friend implicates a rebuttal of libertarian ideology. This means one of two things. Either Caros never really understood libertarian ideology, or at least didn’t during the time when he identified as a libertarian, or the emotional trauma of losing a close friend was so great that a logical re-evaluation of his positions was not possible. Or, and just bear with me here, I am able to extrapolate. The US healthcare system is more free than the Canadian one by any metric. If what liberarianism suggests was true then the US system would by definition have to be more efficient and have better outcomes for people. But it doesn't. Despite being the strongest example of a market based healthcare system in the world, the US healthcare system has some of the words efficacy and usability of any modern healthcare system on the face of the planet. What you are arguing is essentially 'no true freemarket' at its finest. You claim that because the US system has some government intervention (and it does have substantial I will grant) that we can't use it as an example of a market based system. But its competitors are in most cases not at all market based systems, and yet those systems routinely beat the ever loving poo poo out of the US. We are about two years into this argument at this point and I have still yet to hear you explain why the US fails by almost every metric despite being objectively more market based than its competition. Does the market only work when it is absolutely 100% free? quote:I’m not saying that there are no good reasons for abandoning libertarianism. However, the reasons that Caros has thus far provided as to his initial abandonment of the ideology are absurd. Even a cursory examination of the literature would reveal that libertarian thinkers have been harshly critical of the United States healthcare system for decades. What do you think are good reasons for abandoning libertarianism? I'm genuinely curious. Also gently caress you. The fact that your thinkers don't like the US system does not discount the basic problem with it. I don't like the Canadian system, I think the british NHS is far superior and that we should be following their model far more significantly than we do, but that doesn't somehow mean that I am going to argue that the Canadian system is not an example of socialized healthcare when it clearly is. quote:The United States has not had anything resembling a free market in medical care (with a few notable exceptions) for at least fifty to sixty years. Health care is one of the most heavily regulated and distorted markets in the US economy, with massive amounts of State expropriated and redistributed tax dollars flooding into subsidies, welfare programs, research projects, and crony capitalist coffers (pharmaceutical and insurance companies). It doesn't matter if it is closer to the Canadian systems. It matters that it is more market based and thus a better example of your system unless you are arguing that the free market system cannot work unless it is 100% free. Which is absurd and also a useless metric because we do not have a 100% free market in anything on the face of the world. quote:I want to now state my understanding of the situation with Caros’s friend, why I believe she was unable to acquire the needed healthcare services at an affordable price, and why I am convinced that she would have been far better off with an actual libertarian free-market medical care system. She was in her early twenties. She had health insurance but the concept of health insurance pre-PPACA was a loving joke in the US and her insurance wouldn't begin to cover the cost of her treatment. The illness was brain cancer. Had she and her parents been able to pay every cent they had (and then some incidentally) they could have paid for her treatment which had a 95% five year survival rate. You know the kind of cancer you get better from? That was the kind she had. Treatment for her first round of illness would have run about $40,000 and to be fully in remission she expected it would be about $120,000 or more. You could have found all of this by searching my post history in the other thread you know. quote:Now, to my mind, your friend died due to the lack of a free market in medical care not because we don’t have total healthcare socialism. The problems with the American medical care system have to do with a century of State interventions, artificial price inflation, regulatory restrictions that reduce the number and variety of medical care services on the market, patent laws on pharmaceutical drugs coupled with prohibitions on the free importation of drugs manufactured in other countries, a systematic crackdown on mutual aid societies and charity hospitals and a near-elimination on price competition that is inevitable when you have a third party payer system such that patients and doctors don’t negotiate on price and most doctors don’t have to compete with other doctors on price to entice consumers. Your mind is wrong. As I have explained multiple times I know precisely how her treatment would have gone in Canada because I have personally been lobbying on this issue for years at this point. The maximum wait time for her exact type of cancer in Canada's socialized system, from diagnosis to first day is nine work days. Typical wait times have her into treatment in under a week. This is not wishful thinking or what we'd ideally like, this is objective fact based on cancer treatment rates in Canada. By contrast in the US she still would have been unable to recieve treatment because poor people don't receive medical treatment when medical treatment is rationed by price. You fucker. quote:For you, Caros, to believe that this extent of State intervention and distortion in the healthcare sector of the economy constitutes an approximation of libertarian policies can only mean that you don’t know much of anything about libertarianism. You’ve demonstrated that you know the names of major libertarian thinkers and have shown some familiarity with their work, yet perhaps you’ve been too busy trying to “out the racists” and find ways to classify libertarians as bigots, sexists, homophobes, or whatever than in comprehending the economic arguments on their own merits. For you Jrod, to still be making this argument despite the fact that I have debunked it probably at least a dozen times in the past is frankly insulting. I am fully aware that libertarians decry the US as not being an example of free-market healthcare, but as a logical person I am also capable of acknowledging history and established fact. The US is still the most market based example of healthcare in the developed world and it is also the most dysfunctional. These two things are connected on every single level and every single good thing in the US healthcare system can be traced to the aspects of it that are socialized. Medicare, the VA, medical research, all of this comes off the government teat, while the disgusting and failtastic parts are all the result of profit seeking off basic human misery. quote:Let me run down a few reasons why your friend would have been much better off in a libertarian society than in either a fascistic corporatist State-distorted healthcare system like in the United States or in a left-socialist healthcare system like in Canada. Your argument here is based on nothing but faith. You argue that medical prices will magically drop like a rock based on nothing more than 'hurrrr supply and demand hurrrrr'. That said I don't have time to address this further right now as I'm already running late in my social engagements. Look at one of the other seventy something posts for a better debunk. quote:This is actually not just an abstract and speculative discussion. We have actual examples of areas of medicine that are still relatively free market. Lasik eye surgery is one example. Prices continue to decline while the effectiveness of the procedure continues to advance and improve. You can now cure many kinds of vision problems for under $2000. Cosmetic surgery is another example. Technology has similarly advanced in cosmetic surgery yet prices have fallen which is in stark contrast to much of insurance-covered, State-regulated and subsidized healthcare. These are elective surgeries. Do you not understand the difference between the want and a need? If I 'want' fake tits I can go and shop around for them, get the best deals etc. If I 'need' heart surgery because I collapsed clutching my chest I am going to go to the nearest hospital. Do you really not understand after all this time how there is a difference between elective and necessary treatment. Get hosed. quote:There are even areas in medicine where maverick doctors have found ways to get out from the burden of insurance and State regulations to deal in a purely free market. I’ve mentioned it before, but the Oklahoma Surgery Center is a very good example of how many common surgical procedures could be made available to people as affordable, out-of-pocket expenditures in a free market. The cost savings in comparison to third party payer based hospitals are dramatic. I debunked your OSC bullshit in the last thread and you ignored me and talked about racism. When I get home I will look up the post and drop it for you here. The short version is that the OSC is a clinic that does elective outpatient surgery on a mostly cash only basis. They go around the idea of insurers which drops their overhead (and thus their prices) drastically. They do not have to take in emergency patients or anyone else who are unable to pay. Their services increase to the national average price the moment insurance gets involved and the only reason their business model is able to function is because they handle a very specific subset of things that are profitable. This is not a model that shows that all healthcare can be cheaper. It is in essence exactly like your Hong Kong arguments, something that looks good on paper, but ignores the fact that it is largely a one off that only works within very confined conditions. Let me ask you a simple question. If the OSC can provide services so cheaply and is an example of the libertarian model that you espouse being so great, why is it essentially a one off? Why aren't clinics like this popping up all over the country? The answer is because it is a model that only works under very specific and precarious circumstances. It is like when Rush Limbaugh had his heart attack. He got rushed in and saw a heart surgeon that day. Best medical care in the world, if you can pay out of pocket. quote:If your friend had access to a free-market surgical center that provided procedures for cancer (tumor excision for one example) and the cost was less than $10,000 I feel fairly confident that she would have been able to get the money needed for such treatment even without access to insurance. No, she probably wouldn't have been able to without undue financial burden because she was still a 20 something living paycheck to paycheck with an insurer who dropped her like a sack of poo poo when it came time to actually pay out what she was paying in for. Also gently caress you. quote:I already know what your response will be. Without actually reading this book or learning a bit about the history of such fraternal orders, you will nevertheless argue that such societies could never cover the needs of everyone in society and, thus, the welfare State is needed. Leaving aside the obvious fact that such a counter-factual history is hard to prove (what would have happened if social welfare programs had not crowded out private charity efforts during the progressive era and instead the mutual aid model had been allowed to expand and proliferate as the economy grew?), the indisputable fact is that fraternal orders were very successful for those that had access to them and such mutual aid societies are no longer with us. If this model were allowed to exist in contemporary America by eliminating licensing requirements, regulations, and other State restrictions, mutual aid societies could again be available and would, at the very least, alleviate SOME of the problem by providing needed social services to those who still could not afford the drastically lower free market prices that would certainly exist as the examples of the Oklahoma Surgery Center and Dr Umbehr’s family practice prove. Other posters have already brought this up, but just to reiterate, mutual aid societies and fraternal orders are essentially insurance with very low capital. These programs are great when things are good and collapse completely when they are actually needed the most. Social security didn't spring up fully formed out of nowhere, it came as a result of the failure of programs like these, when people realized that the systems they were using to manage risk were utter failures. Why do you think mutual aid societies went away Jrodefeld? Seriously, that is one thing I've never really seen you address. Do you think they are 'no longer with us' because of the big scary government? Or could it be because communities had these exact models only to watch them collapse when the groups that were running them fell on bad times? I specifically ask because there are modern analogs to these programs. Just like there were unlicensed insurance (which was also really bigotted by the way, because it omitted people of color, women etc) there are still places today that run unregulated banks. In spain they had what were called cajas that controlled up to half of spain's financial system. Do you know what happened? They were run by people who had basically no idea what they were doing, and when they did pop they imploded the spanish financial system. Unregulated doesn't mean good, particularly when it comes to finance and medicine. quote:So Caros, I’d ask you to now, in light of the overwhelming evidence that the healthcare system in the United States over the past fifty years has nothing to do with any proposed libertarian solution, to either admit to making a gross error in thinking that it did when you rejecting your previous libertarian beliefs. Or you are free to elaborate on your reasons for rejecting it but the experience with losing your friend, as emotionally distressing as that no doubt was, provides absolutely no argument against libertarianism whatsoever. Your concession to this fact would mean we are at least making progress. You and I have very different definitions of overwhelming. You have provided nothing but hot air as you state over and over again that this isn't 'real' libertarianism because it doesn't meet your perfect standards even though it is the closest modern example.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:阿! jrodefeld 豬頭! 您好. 你好嗎? Not actually my girlfriend, just a female friend I was very close to at the time despite the distance. Childhood friend. And to be fair it is perfectly alright for him to argue the points that I brought up in regards to health care. He asked why I wasn't a libertarian and I explained why, so it is perfectly alright for him to debate the merits of my argument, I only take umbrage with him thinking he can re-libertarian me or that it is really a good idea to try and argue with me about basic unassailable facts such as how she would be alive if she lived in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I'm going out again tonight so I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your poo poo. Try not to run off until Tuesday so I have a distraction during my free time.jrodefeld posted:So, please, tell me why the Oklahoma Surgery Center is not an example of libertarian success in reducing the out of control costs in medical care? I did. You might have forgotten because it was in November of 2014, which was a previous instance of you trying this frankly sort of offensive series of arguments against me. Because I don't give enough fucks, here is my reply: quote:The Oklahoma Surgery Center is capable of doing what it does because it is an elective Surgery Center that is capable of taking a small amount healthy patients who pay significant amounts of cash up front for procedures, something that isn't true of your typical hospital that performs the same procedures. They have no administrative staff, and their prices increase dramatically when insurance is involved. So how about you answer my question. If the Oklahoma Surgery Center is such a model for success why is it basically the only one of its kind nationwide? This really shouldn't be a hard question to answer. I mean I can answer it my way very simply, because it is a model that does not scale outside of a small subset of wealthy americans who are capable of paying thousands or tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket when they have a non-life threatening medical issue. Considering the majority of medical spending takes place towards the end of someone's life, a clinic that can provide out of pocket medical care to relatively healthy adults is in a lot of ways a luxury and not something that can in any way be scaled to deal with national healthcare needs. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Whatever argument there is about whether the Oklahoma Surgery Center is or is not successful (which also depends on what sorts of expectations you are asking it to meet), it still remains a product of a Statist regulatory system and, as such, does not work as an example of Libertarian thought. This is a bad argumentation tactic because it plays into his no true free market bullshit. For example I could rebut this by saying that you are right, it is tainted by statists and would be cheaper and even more effective absent their interference. Nothing he is talking about exists in the real world or has ever existed, so pointing out that his 'near thing' example isn't perfect doesn't really work. That aside: Jrodefeld! For all your talk of scarcity I think we should do a little project. Studies have shown that between 45-65,000 die annually in the US from lack of ability to pay. The population of Canada is roughly 1/10th the size of the US. If Canada is unable to solve scarcity, one would logically assume that we would have the same number of annual deaths due to inability to recieve timely treatment per capita, if not more since we are socialists and governments always fail at delivering poor health outcomes. I challenge you to find 45 cases (not 4,500, 45) in any year on record where Canadians died from lack of ability to receive medical care. It seems like it should be simple shouldn't it? Somehow I think you won't take me up on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Am I allowed to violently quote this each time he does take you up on it? By all means. My guess if he takes it up is that he will go the "We don't have statistics on people who die waiting for treatment" or something along that lines.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
I just realized that you probably didn't see this while you were being too handsome and cool jrodefeld. I know it is a bit belated but we made this for you. Merry Christmas! https://youtu.be/gZvUMmDF0I4
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Never heard that expression? The joke is that there is no beachfront property in North Dakota, but if you are gullible enough to believe the poo poo you believe, then you might be gullible enough to think that there is. Another variation is "if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you". Really jrodefeld? These are the posts you choose to reply to?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To again quote the great Frederick Bastiat: I was always a fan of the Proudhon rebuttal: quote:"Your intelligence is asleep, or rather it has never been awake...You are a man for whom logic does not exist...You do not hear anything, you do not understand anything...Your are without philosophy, without science, without humanity...Your ability to reason, like your ability to pay attention and make comparisons is zero...Scientifically, Mr. Bastiat, you are a dead man." To be honest I could just quote that verbatim but for the name and it would apply to his disciples as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yeah, I didn't think it would be in any way out of bounds for me to mention the death of your friend since you volunteered that information and you mentioned that it was the major catalyst that caused you to abandon libertarian thought, which makes it pretty relevant to the discussion we are having about the merits of libertarianism. Attacking me on this is just a cheap way for other posters to act indignant and oh-so offended. Actually it is substantial proof. People who travel to the us are the wealthy who want to skip any sort of treatment delay no matter how small, deal with unapproved and quack treatments and so forth. The US has 45,000 people die annually due to issues as small as dental abscess that can be solved with a two dollar bottle of pills. Comparing medical tourism to your countries blatant failure to provide medical care us dishonest. Furthermore I have to ask... Why the gently caress are you about socialized medicine if even you agree you have no idea of a concept as basic as "do cancer patients get treatment in canada"? The answer is yes by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Property rights are necessary because we live in a world of scarcity. Human needs are essentially infinite and the resources needed to satisfy those needs are scarce. Therefore, conflict is inevitable. Conflict arises when two or more people want to use a scarce resource for achieving different goals. Thus, rules dictating which person has the better claim to determine the use of which scarce resources become necessary. Property rights are what has emerged out of this observable reality of scarcity and the desire to reduce and resolve conflict so human civilization can be possible HI! I'm jrodefeld! I am here to debate with people! This is why I skip all substantive replies and questions and instead respond to posts that consist of "lol and property rights are dumb. I'm glad to see you admitting that property rights dont just naturally exist but are the result of people attempting to stave off might makes right. I am however sad that you still think the only 'rational' view that people can use to determine who owns what is based entirely on who called 'dibs' and that the same people who agreed in the first place that 'dibs' allowed one person to claim something can't later collectively decide that system is flawed in the modern age. Your thinking is literally childlike on this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We make fun of jrodefeld for mentioning the Oklahoma Surgery but his elective lobotomy has been a fantastic success and clearly hasn't bankrupted him. His pirated bluray business did fold, so maybe not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've read my share of Proudhon and, honestly, if you'd be willing to adopt a Proudhon-style of Anarchism then I'd consider us close enough ideologically to be considered allies on most issues. Jrodefeld I could be incredibly eloquent in calling you a goat loving piece of human excrement. I am a published author who has had a book on the goddamn nyt bestseller list. My decision to deride you with insults related to your failed blu-ray business, watermelon fornication and general annoyance should not be taken as a lack of eloquence but a lack of care. I simply do not care enough to put significant effort into articulately deriding you. Frankly I'm bored of you. I don't say that to be cruel or even rude at this point, it is just a fact. Every argument you have brought up in your most recent endeavour is one I have previously refuted on one or more occasions. And just as with those previous occasions you are making no effort to address or refute my points. I am arguing with the wind because you would rather respond to "lol free markets are dumb" than anything of substance. You are an intellectual lightweight attempting to cloak yourself in the ideas of better men. To date I have yet to see you present a libertarian idea or thought that I cannot trace back in relatively short order to one of the encephalitic fools you claim as intellectual giants. You are a fraud and a coward who refuses to engage with any argument that you can't easily google a response to. But you want an intellectual and polite conversation you know exactly how to get it. I am still on record as being willing to agree to a written debate with you if you can spend the bare minimum amount of effort deciding what format you would approve. And as always I remain willing to provide you with the means to engage in a verbal debate at a time of your choosing, but we both know that after two years you are far too craven for that. Or your voice is too rich or magical or whatever. Pro-tip: It is okay to say "I don't want to engage in a verbal debate because I am bad at public speaking". People would respect you a lot more if you did that or came up with some other legitimate excuse that wasn't "I'm too cool and hip". We both know you won't however, because you are pathologically unable to admit you are wrong or fallible about anything. So there it is. Give me your rules and I will set up a format for it so you can stop bitching about people dog piling you or making fun of you. Otherwise just get the gently caress out. Your act is wearing thin. You watermelon fucker.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:poo poo, I'm flattered you guys think that much about me when I'm not around. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. We aren't laughing with you, we are laughing at you. It is important to me that you know this. I have been immeasurably patient with you, but at this point you are an object of derision at best, one we occasionally get drink and point to like college frat boys laughing at a freshman who gets drunk and tries to gently caress a watermelon on the lawn. You can be better than this perhaps, you can actually engage in meaningful debate, but not while you continue this argument from false premise and the constant bitching about tone rather than engaging with those who engage with you. Caros fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And here is the page this excerpt was taken from: Of course it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:All right, a written debate is what I am willing to do with you at this point. What should the topic be about? Let's have a relatively narrowly defined topic (not that it will stay that way) so at least we having a decent starting place. It is late so I am just going to quote myself from the last time you brought this up before you vanished into the loving ether for a solid two months: jrodefeld posted:Let's start with a written debate and see how it goes from there. A topic? Well, let's first figure out the logistics of how the debate would proceed. There are a million relevant topics we could discuss related to libertarianism and I'm sure regardless of the formal topic we decide upon, numerous other issues will no doubt intrude. Would we debate on this forum? I'm thinking that we set up a specific thread where we agree that only you and I will post. Maybe we set up a second thread where others can comment on our ongoing debate. Perhaps a moderator would be willing to ban people who intrude onto our thread to keep the rules established. This is just a thought. Well to be honest letting a million other issues intrude tends to make for a lovely debate in my experience. I'm biased due to my love of Oxford style debates, but I personally prefer debates with a stark motion. "We should abolish the death penalty" is a strong motion for example because it puts a vast gulf between the two sides and doesn't have too much room for intrusion on unrelated subjects. Again, just personal preference. Using multiple threads is pretty much a no-go in D&D unless Exclamation Marx decides he wants to allow it. To be honest the simplest way to handle it would be to include it in this thread or in another with a link to each post edited into the OP. Absent that I think the best alternative was one suggested by Who What Now wherein we use something along the line of an editable google doc that is linked to the thread so that we aren't cluttering up the forum with a useless argument. quote:I'd have to carve out enough time to dedicate to a debate as well but that shouldn't be too hard since I'll certainly have some free time this holiday season. There should be a reasonable time limit on the debate also. Since I have to sleep and will have some obligations during the day, something like a three day time limit seems reasonable to me. That way we can both say what we have to say but there is a finite limit. I assume by this you'd mean a limit between posts? Three days in total won't really allow for much to be done unless our schedules match up more or less exactly since we'd just be posting once or twice a day at max. quote:You play online role playing games so you'll probably appreciate this analogy. The reason I've never been able to get into those kinds of games is that I know there is always someone out there with less of a life than me who is willing to spend more time at the game, getting more experienced, more skilled and thus able to take advantage through sheer force of repetition and time invested. That is sometimes how I feel posting on these message boards. There are members on these forums who will end up spending a whole lot more time here than I am able to. In an open-ended debate, the poster who merely posts the most will feel as though they have won because the other person can't dedicate the same investment of time and therefore is not able to reply to each and ever post, read every link and source and so forth. So a hard time limit is a necessity to alleviate this problem. Frankly the simpler answer to this is to just limit the format. Written debates aren't something I have much, if any experience with in a formal setting to be honest. They aren't something you see much of at all because written debates pretty much neuter one of the main aspects of a debate, but even still we can work around that by using standard debate rules. Frankly Effectronica gave up his usual shitposting to even suggest some basic rules along the lines of a traditional debate, and in keeping with that I'll suggest a basic format if you'd like. I don't much care so pick what works for you. Opening Statement (One from each) Rebuttal Statements (One from each) Question Period (Several rounds. If we have someone moderating we can have him decide. Alternately we can ask the peanut gallery and/or simply pose questions to one another) Closing Statement (One from each each) Word count limits make a decent enough stand in for time restraints in a typical debate. If we did three rounds of questioning that would make it a six round debate which isn't unreasonable, but it is entirely up to you because as I said, I don't much care. The above rules would give us a functional debate format that isn't too cluttered and is fair to both parties. Word count limit is up to you but I highly recommend it because just as in a real debate it will force us to be succinct in our arguments rather than rewarding the person who can babble on the longest. Let me know if you think this format works and I'll expand on it with more details once I'm not sleepy as gently caress. For a few suggested propositions we could go with: "Taxation is Theft" "Universal Healthcare is a moral good"/"A Free Market Healthcare System is Preferable"/"Whateverthefuckabouthealthcare" "Libertarians are retarded" Or whatever really. I'm sleepy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm sure you're aware, but Mises.org has an explicit mission to literally collect and distribute ALL the major historical libertarian, anarchist and classical liberal books, essays and articles that have ever been published. Criticizing me for using their site for libertarian sources is like criticizing someone for using the library. The "library" is not a person or even a small group of people. Similarly, the Mises Institute website has an online library of hundreds of different authors, both contemporary and modern, who hold often very different views and many issues while still being roughly in the liberty tradition. The last time I went through your posts in the Libertarian thread fully half of all links you provided were links to Mises.org. By way of comparison I went through my own links and the links of two other posters and found that apart from wikipedia links there was almost no duplication of sources on the part of myself or others. That is to say, when you link something, you do so in an orthodox fashion. You pull your information primarily from a handful of sources that are completely separate from what I'm going to call 'the real world'. Which was sort of my point here. You didn't need to tell us that it was mises.org because there was a better than 50/50 chance that anything you cite is going to be coming from Mises.org. I'm sorry you don't see a problem with the fact that you get almost all of your information from one biased repository of 'knowledge' but you might want to seriously consider why it is that is one of the few places you use as a source for your arguments. Also I'm including this for shits and giggles here since I don't think you'll actually answer it but lets see: If the Oklahoma Surgery Center is such a model for success why is it basically the only one of its kind nationwide?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Notice that Jrod has conciously avoided answering the question of what the valid reasons for leaving libertarianism are. Like most things he says he doesn't actually believe it. He did say at one point that while it is irrational that I reevaluated my beliefs as a result of a strong personal tragedy it wouldn't surprise him if I abandoned them because of a bad breakup with a libertarian girlfriend. So... There is that maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 15:33
|
|