...post duplicated for some reason
...post duplicated for some reason
Whatever the cause, there's clearly a self-deprecating rage boiling inside of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm privileged because I'm straight and cis? What does that make you? Afflicted?Quote:
I'm sure from your privileged ivory tower than it's something you'll need to "play along" with.
Dude everything in that paragraph was meant to be a ridiculous hypothetical that would demonstrate the circumstances where gov't intervention might be necessary. Obviously you missed the follow up sentence that says "None of this seems to be happening", because, as I said, it's all a ridiculous hypothetical.Quote:
Oh okay, so the treatment of transexual PEOPLE, not "behavior" as you've so ridiculously asserted, is something that can be ignored by common sense. Got it.
But you don't see people. You see "behavior." It's no wonder you have no fucking clue.
I don't, but I also don't think the answer is that black and white. Sexual preference may not be a choice, but lifestyle certainly is. I actually have a little bit of a problem with the "loud and proud" types.Quote:
Yeah I'm sure that people just choose to be transexual. You probably think people choose to be gay.
If cyberbullying causes suicide, and most people prefer not to die, then that means that the cyber-bullying is compromising individual freedom, and should compel government action. Again, google "bullying laws", and bathe yourself in reassurance that the government is on your side.Quote:
What you're displaying right here, right now is the reason why LGBT folks like myself are at a much higher risk of suicide.
None of this seems to be in response to ANYTHING I said. I never suggested the government should try and force your preferences. I said the government should take action against outside forces that exploit your preferences in order to undermine your individual freedom. We kind of agree, so why so pissy?Quote:
I don't need the government coming in and trying to force my preferences to what they think is "better for me." What myself and millions of Americans need is for people like you to stop thinking that you know better of what other people need than they know for their fucking selves.
I never suggested the government should do any of that.Quote:
If you believe that, then maybe you should STOP BULLYING PEOPLE. But instead, you think the government should step in and tell gay or transexual or bisexual people to start "acting normal" since that's what's best for them, and you think the government has the right to force people to do what you think they should do because you think you know what's best. That matches up perfectly with your bullying rhetoric and weak attempts at gay-bashing jokes about being in the closet and suicide.
Honestly, I think it's at least partially due to modesty. I mean, when you introduce yourself as a gay person, what you're doing is making a first impression by stating what kind of sex you like.Quote:
Do you know why so many LGBT people stay closeted?
I once checked out a group on meetup for a hike in the mountains. The name of the group was "Gay Adventures" or something like that. And while I'm sure all are welcome and the group is very inclusive...it's a little off putting to put that in the title. I mean, all I want to do is find some folks to hike with, and the very first thing they tell me about the group is "Hey, just so you know, we're all into butt-fucking".
Why is that even relevant? Why introduce yourself by revealing intimate personal details about your sex life? I don't think it's homophobic to be a little put-off by that kind of behavior.
Honestly dude, or whatever you are, none of this aligns with what I said. If you're offended, it's because you're an oversensitive drama queen. Go run and tell the government sissyQuote:
Because of assholes who think that it's great to bully them with jokes like yours that make them feel like they have no worth as a human being. People like you with your bigoted jokes are EXACTLY why there is fear about gay concentration camps in this country in 2017 (soon to be 2018) based EXACTLY on the type of communist rhetoric you're spewing left, right and center about why the government should step in and force you to act the way they think you should act. That's EXACTLY what gay concentration camps look like, and that's EXACTLY the attitude that leads to them
:popcorn:
I thought spoon was in a polygamous relationship.
... none of my business, but interesting to know spoon identifies as LGBT, and not LGBTQA... or am I simply showing my SJW associations by differentiating these terms?
Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.
But none of that happened until some kids died. Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?
Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?Quote:
The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.
Centralization.Quote:
This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?
Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.Quote:
Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.
You shouldn't interrupt him while he's arguing with his alt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I would say it's a bit silly to be 'proud' of an orientation you didn't choose, but it's also silly to be ashamed of it. The loud and proud types I think are asserting their right to sexual freedom to others who feel they should be ashamed. It's a "fu" to those people imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Do a lot of people do that in your world? I've never had someone come to me and say 'Hello, I'm gay'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm sure those were their exact words....Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But really, what they're trying to do is help you understand what they're about so you don't come over a ridge and see two men kissing or holding hands or whatever and then feel like you've been duped into thinking it was just a group of happy guys who like to hike. They're in effect saying "If you're not comfortable with gay people, maybe this isn't the place for you."
If your google is telling you about "gay adventures hiking" when you're just trying to find a group to go hiking with I think you're in denial about some things & need to be more discrete with your browsing history.
Consumers make up the private sector. When we speak in aggregates (which we are), the private sector adjusts to all available information.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is because new information emerged that changed valuation.Quote:
Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.
But none of that happened until some kids died.
Sure, it would be better if it wasn't wishful thinking. How can a government adjust for something it doesn't know to adjust for in the first place?Quote:
Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?
My previous explanation of variation in values and budgets means that I do not think every firm does this, because producers and consumers derive marginal benefits differently. Some more highly value less stringent quality and others more highly value more stringent quality.Quote:
Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?
Regarding "proper procedure", what is that? How do you know if something is proper unless by what people freely choose?
How does that provide for more efficiency of allocating resources to food safety? We shouldn't ignore the opportunity costs and how people often value other things more than food safety with the same funds/effort, but let's do it anyways and just focus on food safety alone.Quote:
Centralization.
Like I said, the skin in the game is very weak. There isn't a total absence of skin in the game in government, though it is quite weak.Quote:
Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.
I am, and I do, and I have no idea, but none of that is particularly important.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I added an edit to post #100 since I thought I was clear there about it just being me carrying on fucking with people, but apparently it wasn't lol. I hold many of (but not all of) the same opinions that Banana expressed in his[?] replies.
I think Banana may have outed himself as being homophobic and transphobic as fuck, but I don't really care either way since he's just a random on the Internet afaik.
To clarify my position, I'm very much against virtually any expansion of government, especially when it includes trying to regulate individual choices about what's good or bad for the self.
alt confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Psh, I've been posting tranny porn on FTR since before the UIGEA.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
all i remember is ipoq or whatever his name was had an avatar or something of linetrap (bailey jay) and we all was like hot damn.
it's pretty sad when a dude is more femininely hot than most women.
Testosterone levels are down, on average, in men more than any point in history. Add that to women, on average, being a bunch of lard asses more than any point in history, and it's the perfect time for that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's also the fact that it's more acceptable to go down that route at any point in history and how society glorifies it while simultaneously shaming masculinity, so there are a lot of forces at work here.
I don't really mind. It's less competition for men who are about their shit to smash ass left, right and center.
When I said "loud and proud" types, I meant the types who express themselves in ways that set gay people back. Like if you wanna have a parade to say we're here, we're queer, get used to it, then fine. But if I look at that parade and I see a half naked freak with a dildo strapped to his head, then I'm going to have much less of an open mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That sounds like you're just enabling discrimination.Quote:
But really, what they're trying to do is help you understand what they're about so you don't come over a ridge and see two men kissing or holding hands or whatever and then feel like you've been duped into thinking it was just a group of happy guys who like to hike. They're in effect saying "If you're not comfortable with gay people, maybe this isn't the place for you."
It was a public invitation posted on Meetup.com. That's why it's kind of eyebrow raising. Like, if it's just a group of people hiking, why does it matter if anyone is gay? If that's NOT what it is, then say so, and don't invite the whole fucking world!Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Accepting the lack of importance,Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
the QA tacked on the end of LGBTQA is "Queer Advocate," and is meant to be inclusive to non-LGBT people who aren't jerks to LGBT people (as far as I understand... it could be a local thing).
I've been told they aren't opinions, but fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Definitely not.Quote:
I think Banana may have outed himself as being homophobic and transphobic as fuck,
I mostly agree, the only caveat is when the self is making choices against its own stated agenda. Like if your agenda is to live, and not die. Then taking a potentially deadly drug is something you would choose not to do. If you choose to do it anyway, then something has compromised your personal freedom. And that deserves attention.Quote:
To clarify my position, I'm very much against virtually any expansion of government, especially when it includes trying to regulate individual choices about what's good or bad for the self.
I agree that kind of 'openness' lacks a certain dignity but if you don't like it, then don't look at it. It's not like the guy is doing it on your front lawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm just saying if they didn't tell you they were gay you might be in for a shock. So telling you they're gay is a courtesy to you. I for one would prefer they say that because I'd rather not be the guy coming over a ridge and seeing two guys going at it, because I find that disgusting. If that makes me homophobic, fine, but at least they're being up front about it so I can't complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So if you joined up with an outdoor group on Meetup.com, went out for a hike, came over a ridge, and saw two straight people going at it......that's ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is kind of my point. The only gay thing about gay people is the gay stuff they do in private with other gays. Other than that, they're just regular people. This is why I have a problem with the phrase "identify as gay". Unless you're some kind of workaholic porn star, your life is probably a lot more than what kind of sex you have. So why is your sexual preference the defining feature of your "identity"
If they wanna hold hands, or sneak off into the woods for a smooch session, why should that bother anyone? Why does one need to be warned?
Did you even read what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Who says it is the defining feature of their identity? But is still a part of your identity, and if someone wants to reveal that they're gay or they're straight or they're something else, why do you care? If you don't want to know, maybe ask them in advance not to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It shouldn't bother anyone but it does bother some people. So like i said three times now, maybe they're saying in effect 'if this bothers you, you've been warned'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Really, what is your objection to that? You think the information is irrelevant, so it's wasting three seconds of your life to process it?
Yeah. Maybe I misunderstood "going at it". If we're talking gratuitous, overt, sexual displays....that really isn't appropriate for gay people or straight people. If we're talking casual hand-holding and familiar affection, like the stuff that happens in parks, restaurants, and other public spaces every single day then who the fuck cares. Why does anyone need to be warned about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If we're gonna do that, why not just put up a sign in every public space that says "WARNING: Gay people are allowed here" just so the homophobes don't have to be surprised when they see Ethan and Josh holding hands while shopping for throw pillows.
They do. If I have no plans to buttfuck with a guy.....why would I ever need to know that he's gay? I'm not saying he has to hide it. I work with a gay guy. The first year and a half we worked together, I had no idea he was gay. I only found out because one day we were talking and he mentioned something about his "husband". So then the light bulb went off and I though "oh, I guess he's gay". And it affected our interaction 0%.Quote:
Who says it is the defining feature of their identity?
That's HUGELY different than if he had just introduced himself as "the gay quality control guy"
See what i mean?
And like I've said to you, this enables discrimination. You're basically offering someone a mechanism to exercise prejudice.Quote:
It shouldn't bother anyone but it does bother some people. So like i said three times now, maybe they're saying in effect 'if this bothers you, you've been warned'.
I see what you're saying, but this is a poor choice of words because it implies the gay person revealing their sexual identity is somehow 'asking for it'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Perhaps what you mean is 'opens them up to discrimination, and so is not in their best interests.' I guess you'd have to ask them what the cost-benefit of that is.
No, that's not what 'enabled' means at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Look, all I'm asking is why does a group of hikers who happen to be gay have to identify themselves as 'Gay Hikers'. You don't see other groups labeling themselves that way. You don't see "Leather Fetishist Hikers". You don't see "Marine Biologist Hikers". You don't see "Poker Forum Shitpost Hikers". I just don't see why that label is relevant if it's not a necessary aspect of participation.
Frankly I find it hard to stomach any kind of group, gay or straight, that socializes around their sexual preferences. I think that just lacks modesty, and I don't think it's homophobic to be put-off by that.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Ok, maybe I am. "Enable" has a negative connotation because one of its meanings is to 'give another authority to do x' whereas another is its use in the context of people carrying out bad behaviour, implying that the 'enabler' is partly responsible for said behaviour - e.g., "enabling an alcoholic to drink".Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you didn't mean any of those things by using the word 'enable', then ok. But in that case, you would be better off choosing a word or phrase that lacks any such connotations.
If that's all you're saying then fine I probably agree. It just isn't high up on the list of things that annoy me, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Y'all niggas just fagged this thread right up, huh?
Correction: Y'all Persons of Color just LGBTQWOP'd this thread right up, huh?
Wasn't there a psychological study that shows that basic happiness in a person stabalizes over time? Split twins by losing a leg and winning a lottery, and they're basically just as happy 7 years on? Seems to me like the fundamental aspect of economics is to understand how the ruthless and unending desire to expand, devour, and control works in sophisticates like us people. Same as cancer and same as embryo growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wasn't there a psychological study that showed that peoples basic happiness is stable over time?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I was just acting retarded, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What do you want, wuf?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
These are most likely two different ways of defining happiness. Economics uses the term "utility", which is defined best as something like happiness or preferences. An assumption is that when somebody wants Thing A more than Thing B, it's because Thing A -- at least in their own subjective mind -- makes them happier. This is a different concept than the grand "are you happy" type of happiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Well, yeah, you got it. In a dysphemistic way.Quote:
Seems to me like the fundamental aspect of economics is to understand how the ruthless and unending desire to expand, devour, and control works in sophisticates like us people.
The first premise of economics is that people have unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Economics attempts to describe how resources are allocated in that world of unlimited wants and constrained resources.
For all your dreams to come true.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Most of them already have. Why desire more than I have?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because Lao Tzu demands it?
That was p masterclass, if i do say so myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well as many games aside, what do you want for Christmas?
A gobby from Portia Doubleday.
Maybe next Christmas
I find your use of this acronym offensive. Bisexual implies only two genders.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, "persons of ethnicity" is safer ground, to avoid discriminating against albino coloureds.
All right, I guess we'll just settle for Krysten Ritter this Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
It's a common thing. There's a good speech Don gives in Mad Men about it when he sets up a meeting with Dow, I think it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous, but it is what it is at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
To me it sounds like you are just completely against a conservative (republican?) government. Not sure why you throw "baby killing liberal fucks" in there, as the things you are describing as being against pretty much all stem from conservative fucks instead, particularly the religious right
That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler would say. - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/40193Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
See post #109 to see what you missed. It'll make a lot more sense.
LOL spoon, really? Reductio ad hitlerum so quickly?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Hahahahaha
Check my edit, I hit submit too quickly. It was in reference to a leaked John Podesta email.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
For a more serious response to this, in a few short bullet points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
1. There are so many different types of conservatives, even just within the United States, many of which disagree with each other on major issues, that it's very difficult to actually be completely against a "conservative" government in the policy sense. You'd have to specify which type of conservative (Wikipedia has a fun list if you're into that sort of thing) to have a concrete place to start with something like that. For reference, I disagree with the religious right on a great many things, even though I am myself considered a conservative by any reasonable measure. I also disagree with neoconservatives to a strong degree.
2. The point I was making with my SJW impression in those 2-3 posts somewhere above is that increased government power over personal choice is the exact kind of thing that would lead to something like a gay concentration camp. If you don't think that's the kind of thing our government is capable of, don't forget that we were putting people in concentration camps on US soil only 75 years ago.
3. I identify as a Trump Conservative for the time being. Generally speaking, that means a fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, nationalist capitalist with strong subjective (as opposed to orthodox) Objectivist leanings.
Maybe find out what actually happened 75 years ago before you get worked up about this as a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
You're going to have to do better than that to troll me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
For anyone interested in actual reading, the references and notes are excellent here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nese_Americans
That wiki page seems to be missing some salient facts. There was great concern at the time that Japanese immigrants had come to America with the intention of living under cover until the Emperor commanded them to rise up against their hosts. People were worried that tomato farmers in San Diego were actually Japanese soldiers in disguise.
You might call that crazy.....if it hadn't JUST HAPPENED in the Phillipines. And it was fucking brutal. One day a guy is a mild mannered immigrant shopkeeper. The next day he's stabbing the elderly and burning baby cribs. The Phillipines' president's personal masseuse was actually a major in the Japanese army.
I can't say what I would have done, or what would have been right. But it's clear to me that some human beings were charged with an absolutely impossible choice. They KNEW the Japanese employed this tactic, and they KNEW how terrible the consequences.
I'm not about to defend the practice of internment camps. But I'm not about to denounce the policymakers as illogical racists.
What I see there is an impossible choice in the face of a fearsome menace.
I don't think there's the same ominous threat coming from gays. If you find any correlation...you're retarded. Merry Christmas
And it was still American citizens being put into concentration camps on US soil, no matter how you want to try to spin it.
George Takei did a TED talk about growing up in one of those camps*, and it's amazing how his dad tells him to stay a patriot because this imprisonment was against the American ideal, and it would end.
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeBKBFAPwNc
No one here is trying to spin anything. I thought I made it clear that I'm not defending the practice of internment camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But spoon, if you're gonna be such a judgmental know-it-all......what would have been a better solution? Imagine you're president.....
The Phillippenes just got sneak attacked. There is an excellent reason to believe that Japanese immigrants could not be trusted. There was plausible and justifiable fear that immigrants on the west coast would attack civilian populations.
Meanwhile.....you have NO NAVY with which to defend your coast. Most of your ships are at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.
What would you do? If you cling to your American ideals, and you're wrong, there may not be an America to be idealistic about.
Furthermore....can you please explain how the same thing could possibly ever happen to gays?
George Takei is a piece of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's easy: The government would round them up and put them in camps. The shit isn't rocket science. The more power you give to the government, the more power they have to abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
how did nobody go to prison for that? are there loopholes in the law?
What law lolQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The government isn't subject to laws on any meaningful level. It just doesn't work that way. If they decide you're fucked, then they're going to do their best to fuck you.
Just think about it for a moment: When is the last time a major government official on any level got actual prison time for some bullshit they pulled?
That's one example of why people who shit on the Second Amendment are completely fucking retarded, not that there's any shortage of examples of that.
Edit: I believe they were given reparations and a formal apology by the government at some point, early 2000s I think?
George Takei recently tried to blame Russian bots for why he confessed to sexually assaulting multiple men on the Howard Stern show.
That sounds like some shit I would make up as a clickbait headline, but it's actually 100 percent true. He's such a fucking idiot.
Edit: Wrong thread, but fuck it. It was inspired by this one.
People only get charged for war crimes when they're on the losing side.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Check out US-Japan relations post-WWII w.r.t. waterboarding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It's pretty much the same loophole that says soldiers who shoot enemies don't go to prison for murderQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...nder-fire.html
Synopsis: Republican bill makes it illegal to run the EPA based on government sponsored lies, the way Obama did.
Democrats like to protect people by insulating them from things that democrats don't like. Republicans protect people by giving them more data to make informed choices.
This is an old story, but a common one in my area. Always sparks a lively debate about the government, how it spends its money, what it's responsibilities are, and how it compensates itself.
Basically, the rule is....if you go into the wilderness and call for help, the gov't gets to evaluate you, your gear, your abilities, and then decide whether or not you made a bad decision. If they decide that you did......then you get a bill for the costs associated with rescuing you.
Fox News confirms that gay death camps are on hold until at least second-term. So chill spoonQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://video.foxnews.com/v/570171246...#sp=show-clips
Re: Thread Title
It shouldn't.
/thread
Observations can only inform us of what happens, not why it happens.
In order to make statements about what "should" be, we must call upon faith, and not observation.
If you want to convince anyone that anything should be or do something, then appeal to their subjective sensibilities.
This manifests in moral / ethical / spiritual-based arguments, and is why politics is primarily mired in trying to unravel issues with no clearly measurable answer. If it was at all obvious that one side was right or wrong, then the discussion is over. It's only when it is not at all obvious which side is right that there is extended political discourse.
As such, anyone who asserts their side is unequivocally right is almost certainly not holding a well-informed position which considers all of the facts, without confirmation bias.
Wrong. If someone kicks me in the balls, and I see them do it, I immediately observe why my balls hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Just because you're constantly unsure of yourself (which you should be) doesn't mean that the rest of the world (only most of it) is full of soulless self-loathing liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Humility is not the same as self-loathing.
Claiming to be smarter than a wildly successful politician and living-icon of business success is what you consider 'humility'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There is no cure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah man, intellect = ignorance.....aliens.....look at all the stars.....do my hands look weird????Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What if you were well informed, and considered all the facts, and then objectively determined the outcome with the greatest net gain towards the stated goals??
It's called problem solving. Do they not teach that in school anymore?
One thing I will say is a lot of the stuff that characterizes the "left-liberal" zeitgeist doesn't characterize those who post here sympathetic to other things considered left or liberal.
I tend to think not seeing that is a real problem everybody (everybody) has. Example: many (most?) teachers do not support social justice barbarian tactics in the schools, but if those people don't identify has conservative, they are typically lumped in as agreeing with the social justice barbarians.
If we're talking about how to allocate resources, then this: "The way to show government should intervene into personal lives" is a super loaded prompt. You're assuming that society's resources are personally claimed, which is even more radical than assuming they're privately claimed.
It's difficult to think of a system where the state doesn't intervene in how resources are allocated. In our current system, the state facilitates and protects private ownership. Property is 90% of the law. If you're looking for a place to stay and you come across a foreclosed home, if you squat there, the state will come and kick you out on behalf of the bank that owns the house. When a group of Indonesians make a flat screen television, it doesn't go to the workers or the factory itself or even stay in the country; the product and its bottom-line profits are allocated to a foreign entity. This is a great deal of what the state oversees.
In anarcho-capitalism, the state goes away in only the most pedantic sense. The military and police are replaced by mercenaries and mall cops, but I guess at least the facade goes away that they're not acting on the direct behalf of private interests?
In vanguard socialism, the state itself owns the resources and allocates them directly.
In social democracy, the resources are primarily allocated via private ownership claims, but the state taxes enough that the government itself has enough resources that they can come to democratic decisions on how to allocate that segment of the economy.
Even in most forms of fairytale anarcho-communist societies, resource allocation is ultimately determined by some institution. In anarcho-syndicalism, for example, it's basically the unions: syndicated groups of laborers jointly determine how they're going to use the means of production and to what use they'll put their labor.
So it's just a matter of how you define the terms in your OP. If you think it's self-evident that someone having a picnic in a Baron's garden is an infringement on the Baron's personal liberties, and so having the police show up to kick them off isn't a government intervention, then you're going to demand an explanation if the Baron's estate ends up being used as a public space. If you see the police dragging a man away for having a picnic on an unused plot of land as a government intervention, then you'll see it exactly the other way. So having the conversation on those terms isn't terribly useful.
Not sure if we're on the same page here or not wuf, but my take is that many of those we identify on the "left" aren't nearly as passionate as they claim to be with regards to socialist economics, redistribution, and their complaints about income inequality. In fact, deep down in places they don't talk about at parties, they believe in meritocracy. Otherwise, they'd all give their money to the government, right?
What I think has come to define the left is an entitlement that expects government to correct anything in society that doesn't meet their preferences. They demand laws that enforce their preferred narrative, and punishes those who think otherwise.
Waaah! I don't like Trump, he should be impeached!
Waaah! I blew all my money on drugs now I have no food for my family...give me food stamps!
Waaah! Too many of my friends are in jail....tell the police to be nicer.
And unfortunately for those on the right, identifying as a conservative means having some conviction in the principle of CONSERVATION, meaning the limiting of government powers. Hence we tend not to look to the nanny state for every little thing.
The state is funded by use of force. Anarcho-capitalism has the same institutions (essentially) yet they are funded by choice. This is the base distinction between the two. We will always have societies with rules and that is good. The question is who makes the rules and why do they make them.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
To encapsulate, the statist position is to have a monopoly that uses force to construct institutions. The anti-state position is to have institutions constructed by agents' choice. The difference is like if the government taxes to pay for school versus if people were to pay for school out of their own pockets.
This is a great observation. The distinction the OP makes is about who is doing the kicking off of Baron's garden and why. If it is a tax-funded rule-setting and enforcement body (typically we call this government), then for that to be better than it being by a freely-chosen rule-setting and enforcement body (there isn't a word for this yet) requires that it be more efficient. And vice versa.Quote:
So it's just a matter of how you define the terms in your OP. If you think it's self-evident that someone having a picnic in a Baron's garden is an infringement on the Baron's personal liberties, and so having the police show up to kick them off isn't a government intervention, then you're going to demand an explanation if the Baron's estate ends up being used as a public space. If you see the police dragging a man away for having a picnic on an unused plot of land as a government intervention, then you'll see it exactly the other way. So having the conversation on those terms isn't terribly useful.
It's all Peter Pan syndrome. They don't want to grow up. They want mommy and daddy to take care of them and protect them in their little bubble full of their participation trophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Man I remember those participation trophies. Even as a fucking child I was like WTF is this bullshit.
Or maybe that's just my athletic privilege since I got real trophies by winning real competitions.
I play a real sport. Ain't nobody trying to be best at exercising.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In this case, the choice of how to allocate resources is held exclusively by people who have access to those resources. Mutually agreed-upon exchanges are made between people who have capital to exchange. It's literally a direct plutocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In the case of the Indonesian factory worker, I'm not sure what choice you think they have in the matter other than to either build the television or starve. They only have their labor to sell, only find work only so long as their labor increases the capital of those who already have capital, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market they have no say in.
In the case of first worlders (even "poor" first worlders) the distinction is less stark. They have access to enough specialized educational opportunities to be able to have a specialized labor that they can sell on a robust marketplace that at least has a few potential frontiers left (be that in entertainment, apps, what-have-you) that even with nothing but your labor to sell, that labor can be valuable enough to become a capitalist. There's just enough opportunity in the market through specialized labor to sustain the illusion that this choice is available to everyone in the first world. It's worth noting that even if this were the case, the "votership" (if you will) of who becomes next generations capitalists is exclusively held among established capitalists, be that through your parents, a bank, shareholders, etc.
So again, the distinctions just a pedantic one. A monarchical society is based on choice; the choice of the monarch! Anarcho-capitalism is based on choice; the choice of the plutocrats!
The Indonesian factory worker has the choice to not work in the factory. He has other choices too, and the reason he chooses the factory work is because it makes him better off.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
Three things on this: (1) Economic theory says Indonesians are better off when they choose to work in the factories than in the farms. (2) The data back this up big time. (3) If we step outside of the West's echo chamber and actually see what East and Southeast Asians think about this, it's totally different. There is heavy competition to get factory work. When they can, they typically return. Their living standards are skyrocketing far beyond any that those of us born in the West can understand. If you're interested in a Chinese documentary that illustrates this even though it does so inadvertently, watch Last Train Home (2009). Millions of Chinese kids are many times over wealthier than their parents because their parents choose to leave the farms and work in factories. You can even see it in the main family the documentary follows, where the father's daughter is bigger than he is. He grew up malnourished and is small because of it, and now his daughter is fully nourished and works in a restaurant. Freedom of choice of production and consumption is to credit.
Like the second most renowned economist has said, Milton Friedman, every instance of a society rising out of poverty comes when that society adopts free market principles.
When we talk freedom of choice, that doesn't mean any choice. Everybody has significant constraints. The distinction we make is that things work out better when people themselves can make their choices instead of their choices being made by a handful of bureaucrats who never met them.Quote:
In the case of first worlders (even "poor" first worlders) the distinction is less stark. They have access to enough specialized educational opportunities to be able to have a specialized labor that they can sell on a robust marketplace that at least has a few potential frontiers left (be that in entertainment, apps, what-have-you) that even with nothing but your labor to sell, that labor can be valuable enough to become a capitalist. There's just enough opportunity in the market through specialized labor to sustain the illusion that this choice is available to everyone in the first world. It's worth noting that even if this were the case, the "votership" (if you will) of who becomes next generations capitalists is exclusively held among established capitalists, be that through your parents, a bank, shareholders, etc.
The difference between you buying/selling what you want versus the government taxing you to buy/sell for you what it thinks/says you want is very big.Quote:
So again, the distinctions just a pedantic one. A monarchical society is based on choice; the choice of the monarch! Anarcho-capitalism is based on choice; the choice of the plutocrats!
One problem that crybaby libtards have with any discussion of capitalism is that they don't understand the concept of personal choice because it's too closely related to personal responsibility and not being a massive piece of shit leech on humanity.
Edit: Changed 'probably' to 'problem.' Autocorrect got me.
There are two views I like that I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
(1) One of the ways people organize their worldviews is through one of these two lenses: (A) people are naturally good, (B) people are not naturally good. The former tend towards ideas held on the political left, like welfare is needed because poverty is a product of something other than the values of the people that make up the society. The latter tend towards ideas held on the political right, like the natural state is an impoverished one, and the way to overcome that is to BE good and DO good from the ground up.
(2) The other way of organization of worldview: (A) distaste of markets, (B) distaste of the ideas emergent of the distaste of markets. The former tend toward ideas on the political left, like a one-size-fits-all, centralized, strong authority, judgmental policy. The latter tend towards ideas on the political right, like opposition to a one-size-fits-all, centralized, strong authority, judgmental policy.
Note that this isn't anti-market vs. pro-market bias. We have a long way to go before people are biased away from telling others what they should do. Indeed we should expect humans will never get there. Humans are incredibly judgmental and incredibly confident that they each know what is best for people they don't know.
Here's my thing. I can't see how anyone could not see this. Do they think cavemen were running around swiping their EBT cards or some shit?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
We've been over this. It's too easy to sell "racisim" as the source of income inequality. Similarly, "corporate greed" is an easy villain, so is "privelege" in any form. If it weren't for this brainwashing, the democratic party wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
We've been over this. It's too easy to sell "racisim" as the source of income inequality. Similarly, "corporate greed" is an easy villain, so is "privelege" in any form. If it weren't for this brainwashing, the democratic party wouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maybe they just don't think.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Which brings me back to my zombie analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Note that this narrative is the manifestation that Marxism took on after communism collapsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, perhaps, to understand it, we have to understand its intellectual movement. My read is that it goes back pretty far, as far as Hellenism perhaps, but that its strength of manifestation depends on the lack of skin-in-the-game brought upon by prosperity. Essentially, Marxism and postmodernism are a product of intellectualism. Intellectualism is made up of a bunch of smart people in the abstract who are actually very stupid because they know nothing of the real world. Contrast this to the Renaissance Man, to philosophers of old, who were all very big into real world, every day experience. They rightly knew that it was folly to exist merely inside ideas, but I doubt they realized how catastrophic the results would be when a large enough group of people would exist merely inside ideas.
This entire section makes my point for me. My point was that the Indonesian factory worker has no choice other than to work in the factory or to starve. You pointed out that they had other choices but they're even worse. And you added to what I'd already implied: that even the factory work isn't something always available to them, so their options are often even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This doesn't help the original point I was refuting, which is that they choose how the institutions are constructed and are not forced into them.
Again, I don't think you're following the thread of conversation from the beginning. Freedom of choice is another term that could mean a million things. When we talk about freedom of choice in this context, we're talking about the freedom to choose how these institutions (which in the parent post was mercenaries and mall cops) are constructed. People's institutional power in a society where the institutions are entirely privately funded and controlled would be in direct proportion to how much capital and private ownership they have. Except it'd be well beyond that because only people with disposable capital are going to be able to invest in those institutions. And far worse than even that because private capital is largely made up of corporate spending power, so talking about people at all is optimistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So corporatocracy or plutocracy, take your pick. In any case, it's not going to be the common man's choice and self-determination that shapes the institutional landscape. The logic seems to be crony capitalism doesn't work because it's so corrupt, so we better just cut out the middle man and hand all the power directly over to the corrupting force.
Again, we're not talking about the power you have versus the power the government has; we're talking about plutocratic power versus semi-democratic-republic-elected power (assuming we're comparing this to our government).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is when we ask ourselves one of economist Thomas Sowell's three fundamental questions: Opposed to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
It is by the increase of freedom of choice that many East and Southeast Asians have the option to not go hungry.
The amount of capital held by those who do not hold the most capital is staggeringly vast. You are describing systems in which laws stop people from using their capital to better their lives. I am describing a system in which laws do not stop people from using their capital to better their lives.Quote:
Again, I don't think you're following the thread of conversation from the beginning. Freedom of choice is another term that could mean a million things. When we talk about freedom of choice in this context, we're talking about the freedom to choose how these institutions (which in the parent post was mercenaries and mall cops) are constructed. People's institutional power in a society where the institutions are entirely privately funded and controlled would be in direct proportion to how much capital and private ownership they have. Except it'd be well beyond that because only people with disposable capital are going to be able to invest in those institutions. And far worse than even that because private capital is largely made up of corporate spending power, so talking about people at all is optimistic.
So corporatocracy or plutocracy, take your pick. In any case, it's not going to be the common man's choice and self-determination that shapes the institutional landscape. The logic seems to be crony capitalism doesn't work because it's so corrupt, so we better just cut out the middle man and hand all the power directly over to the corrupting force.
This is how every conversation I get in on FTR turns into 50 paragraph monstrosities that's a blackhole for my whole work week and something I regretted getting into.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You wanted people to show you that the government should intervene in personal lives, I said in a capitalist society, the state facilitates a television being built in Indonesia being allocated to some overseas entity. Then you said well sure there's going to be some institution that ultimately determines what belongs to who, but at least in an ancap society, that's based on choice, and I pressed you on what choice the Indonesians have in the matter, and now you're just entirely changing the terms of the conversation.
So are you conceding all the earlier points, including the one on institutional intervention and the one on everyone having a choice in the matter? If we were to move on, would it be in agreement that those are meaningless terms on which to base the conversation?
Do you have any numbers to back that up? The bottom 40% of the US owns 0.2% of personal wealth. That already doesn't seem staggeringly vast. And the only meaningful metric would be how much disposable capital they have, because only people with a certain amount of wealth are going to be able to put any percent of their capital toward a stake in the institutions. And that number only relates to personal wealth, which isn't even barking up the right tree to begin with because institutional investments would largely come out of (the now untaxed) corporate budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And again, that's talking about one of the biggest economic winners on the world stage, which we both agree is a privileged place to center our conversation.
Well, I'm not describing any system, except for the post where I just dispassionately listed every economic system I could think of off the top of my head. In any case, the two-liner for any economic system sounds equally great. ... I started to list off what all the advocates of all the various economic systems would say as a critique of your system followed by a facile statement about what's so fundamentally great about their system, but I think you can just imagine that without me wasting my time typing it out and exposing myself to some misunderstanding that I'd actually like those to each be refuted one-by-one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I missed you, viva.
IDK if anything can return us to the days where we could argue about taxation for 100 posts and remain mostly on topic.
^ off topicQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I have laser-like focus on the original subject. East and Southeast Asia have undergone the most drastic increase in economic freedom at the individual level in perhaps all of history, and the results have been phenomenal. They have been rapidly gaining choice. The current circumstances that for many of them are below the West's standards represent them utilizing choice they did not have several years and decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
Financial capital and investment capital are not the only kind of capital. Human capital is a more productive measure in the context of philosophy of economics. Human capital is a human's ability to make himself better off by expending any form of energy and/or skill he has. The success of free market capitalism largely depends on the freeing up of human capital. The proposal to use a competitive system of institution building rather than the tax-based monopoly system is largely about freeing up human capital. That isn't the only thing it's about, but it's a key component for why systems that free up individual choice yield greater prosperity.Quote:
Do you have any numbers to back that up? The bottom 40% of the US owns 0.2% of personal wealth. That already doesn't seem staggeringly vast. And the only meaningful metric would be how much disposable capital they have, because only people with a certain amount of wealth are going to be able to put any percent of their capital toward a stake in the institutions. And that number only relates to personal wealth, which isn't even barking up the right tree to begin with because institutional investments would largely come out of (the now untaxed) corporate budgets.
Also, I discussed this recently but I suspect you weren't around to see the posts, so I'll briefly provide it for you. Monetary wealth is a useful approximation of real wealth, but that isn't quite how economists view the underlying values that make up wealth. Wealth is better thought in terms of production (and even ability to produce in a less strict sense), and it is best understood through the lens of how production impacts the subjective preferences of the consumer. Economists believe that every time there is a voluntary exchange of goods or services, all participants are better off regardless of if one gained more monetary representation of that "better offness" than another.
FWIW I have conversations quite differently now than I used to. My understanding of economics has become significantly more sophisticated over the years (mainly because that's what I studied in university), and the university experience as well as some hobby experiences have markedly improved my ability to productively navigate discussion. So don't worry about getting the dreaded stuff of old from me.
Yeah you're not quite as boring as watching fucking paint dry now.