MAGIC SOOUULLLSSSS Libertarian

[Mistborn]

you lost the argument by implying the problem in Somalia was too much government,

Yeah that is still true.

No, no it isn't dunkass. Somalia is a failed state, it essentially doesn't have a government at least not one that can maintain a monopoly on violence. Which is the reason what it sucks to live in Somalia.

[Morat]

And that dumbass doesn't realize that if the state isn't involved in any business transactions, all contracts go fucking poof. You can't hire someone to build a house, because either of you can freely stiff the other.

Not only aren't there any cops, there aren't even any lawsuits. Why would you comply with a judgment against you or even show up to the trial if there wasn't any government backing? Maybe if you live in some dinky commune and all your neighbors will shun you (or vigilantes will kill you), but in a society of tens or hundreds of millions, what can they do? Say mean things about you on Facebook?

[momothefiddler]

But if all these haters and online bloggers say mean things about you on Facebook, they could ruin your business!!!

Note that this is actually the argument (at least the one I've encountered) - that since everyone is always working under the same name and everyone always wants to keep doing the same thing they're doing now, everyone always cares about their reputation and thus will follow through on all their agreements.

[erik]

you lost the argument by implying the problem in Somalia was too much government,

Yeah that is still true.

No, no it isn't dunkass. Somalia is a failed state, it essentially doesn't have a government at least not one that can maintain a monopoly on violence. Which is the reason what it sucks to live in Somalia.

Maybe dunkass meant it is still true that they lost the argument because of that regrettable idiocy. I thought it was quite a humble admission.

[Whipstitch]

At least when dealing with your local dealer, everyone is pointing a gun at each other to make sure nobody pulls any tricks*.

Habitual drug use is a total pain in the ass, but not just because of Mexican standoffs. There's really two ways of going about things:

1. You can get your stuff from someone with a regular, established supply. This can be bad because they're scarier people who are more involved in the business and it's more likely that various authority figures are looking into their activities at any given time.

2. You and your druggie friends have an ad hoc system going where nobody has a truly steady supply and instead product gets shuffled about via the time honored method of buying more than you need when you can and selling it to your bros at or just above cost. This method is super annoying, because again, no steady supply and because small stakes inspire flaky behavior. People end up taking advantage of each other in small ways precisely because retaliation isn't worth it. You probably won't get shot, but sooner or later you'll front your dipshit cousin some dank and he'll try to repay you with ditch weed.


fucking christ i hate this goddam cell phone

[infected slut princess]

Drugs are awesome.

[Koumei]

Drugs are awesome.

This actually explains an awful lot.

[name_here]

But if all these haters and online bloggers say mean things about you on Facebook, they could ruin your business!!!

Note that this is actually the argument (at least the one I've encountered) - that since everyone is always working under the same name and everyone always wants to keep doing the same thing they're doing now, everyone always cares about their reputation and thus will follow through on all their agreements.

Which is extra hilarious when you remember that Silk Road is allegedly* anonymous so you can't reliably do that.

*Apparently it's possible to break anonymity on Tor if you control enough of the nodes. Also, the U.S. government controls a lot of Tor nodes because they set it up in the first place. You may recall that the creator of Silk Road got arrested, which may not be entirely unrelated.

[Kaelik]

And that dumbass doesn't realize that if the state isn't involved in any business transactions, all contracts go fucking poof. You can't hire someone to build a house, because either of you can freely stiff the other.

Not only aren't there any cops, there aren't even any lawsuits. Why would you comply with a judgment against you or even show up to the trial if there wasn't any government backing? Maybe if you live in some dinky commune and all your neighbors will shun you (or vigilantes will kill you), but in a society of tens or hundreds of millions, what can they do? Say mean things about you on Facebook?

The level of cognitive dissonance amongst libertarian/anarchist lawyers blows my fucking mind every fucking day.

[momothefiddler]

But if all these haters and online bloggers say mean things about you on Facebook, they could ruin your business!!!

Note that this is actually the argument (at least the one I've encountered) - that since everyone is always working under the same name and everyone always wants to keep doing the same thing they're doing now, everyone always cares about their reputation and thus will follow through on all their agreements.

Which is extra hilarious when you remember that Silk Road is allegedly* anonymous so you can't reliably do that.

*Apparently it's possible to break anonymity on Tor if you control enough of the nodes. Also, the U.S. government controls a lot of Tor nodes because they set it up in the first place. You may recall that the creator of Silk Road got arrested, which may not be entirely unrelated.

I haven't read up much on it but isn't it pseudonymous? Sure, you can* ditch your bad rep by jumping to a new name, but the only way you're gonna get someone to buy something from you in the first place is if they have reason to believe you're more reliable than some random startup, and you can't* just ride someone else's coattails by using theirs.

This either doesn't play out that way or leads to some interesting monopoly behavior (wow weird that an unregulated economy wouldn't have perfectly easy entry), but it's not technically quite as bad as if it was anonymous and everything was just chaos all the time and you just threw dollar bills into the shark tank to see if drugs various, differing, completely legal items that you merely wish to buy without government intervention came up.

I think.

*this is just a pointer to your own footnote above

[Morat]

The level of cognitive dissonance amongst libertarian/anarchist lawyers blows my fucking mind every fucking day.

Yeah, I also love the argument that companies won't dump poison into the water/food/children's toys because they'll be sued.

Even granting that there's magically still a court system backed by a government powerful enough to enforce its judgments (but simultaneously weak enough to be resisted by a couple dudes with guns...), who the fuck is going to pay for the investigation to determine which of the eleventy billion companies' products or waste you were exposed to is responsible for your illness? And what if, heaven forfend, there's multiple exposure routes?

Maybe your kid is fucked because there's lead in the drinking water (and is it the home or school water that's to blame?), or in the house paint, or on his toys, or in the dirt, or coming out the exhaust pipes of cars. How would you prove that Company A is the one responsible, instead of a dozen or a hundred others?

momothefiddler: I guess the theory is that con men are impossible. Like, people do that now when it's a crime as well as making you shunned if you're found out. Making it not a crime doesn't seem all that likely to get rid of fraud except in the technical sense ("Murder is unlawful killing, so if we make all killing legal, our murder rate will drop to zero!").

[Kaelik]

Yeah, I also love the argument that companies won't dump poison into the water/food/children's toys because they'll be sued.

Even granting that there's magically still a court system backed by a government powerful enough to enforce its judgments (but simultaneously weak enough to be resisted by a couple dudes with guns...), who the fuck is going to pay for the investigation to determine which of the eleventy billion companies' products or waste you were exposed to is responsible for your illness? And what if, heaven forfend, there's multiple exposure routes?

It is especially depressing because as Lawyers we learn about the history of law, and the history of law is filled with thousands of X doctrine was invented. X doctrine produced horrendously bad outcomes in these types of cases, so the the legislature fixed the problem so that people can't sue, and they can get their problem fixed some other way.

Like, for example, worker's comp, which exists literally at all 100% because workers could not fucking win a case ever. Like one out of every thousand workers who were injured could win even a single cent. And they only won if they got fucked super hard and obviously maliciously. So the company went bankrupt on that judgment every time.

Anyone who thinks worker's comp laws are bad should not be allowed to practice law unless they are willing to state under oath that they just other people to die so they can make more money. Because literally, aside from murdering people with unsafe work conditions and not having to pay a cent, the only other reason you could oppose worker's comp laws is if you failed to comprehend tort law.

[ishy]

I haven't read up much on it but isn't it pseudonymous? Sure, you can* ditch your bad rep by jumping to a new name, but the only way you're gonna get someone to buy something from you in the first place is if they have reason to believe you're more reliable than some random startup, and you can't* just ride someone else's coattails by using theirs.

This either doesn't play out that way or leads to some interesting monopoly behavior (wow weird that an unregulated economy wouldn't have perfectly easy entry), but it's not technically quite as bad as if it was anonymous and everything was just chaos all the time and you just threw dollar bills into the shark tank to see if drugs various, differing, completely legal items that you merely wish to buy without government intervention came up.

I think.

*this is just a pointer to your own footnote above

Alt Text:You can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback.

[momothefiddler]

Morat: Well, if con men are impossible, then laws against con schemes are an unnecessary burden on the average citizen, so that would make it consistent, if completely divorced from reality.

ishy: Perfect.

[hyzmarca]

The level of cognitive dissonance amongst libertarian/anarchist lawyers blows my fucking mind every fucking day.

Yeah, I also love the argument that companies won't dump poison into the water/food/children's toys because they'll be sued.

Even granting that there's magically still a court system backed by a government powerful enough to enforce its judgments (but simultaneously weak enough to be resisted by a couple dudes with guns...), who the fuck is going to pay for the investigation to determine which of the eleventy billion companies' products or waste you were exposed to is responsible for your illness? And what if, heaven forfend, there's multiple exposure routes?

Maybe your kid is fucked because there's lead in the drinking water (and is it the home or school water that's to blame?), or in the house paint, or on his toys, or in the dirt, or coming out the exhaust pipes of cars. How would you prove that Company A is the one responsible, instead of a dozen or a hundred others?

momothefiddler: I guess the theory is that con men are impossible. Like, people do that now when it's a crime as well as making you shunned if you're found out. Making it not a crime doesn't seem all that likely to get rid of fraud except in the technical sense ("Murder is unlawful killing, so if we make all killing legal, our murder rate will drop to zero!").

Well, post-State political philosophies such as Anarchism and Communism generally assume a degree of power leveling such that the worker and the employer have essentially equal capabilities.

Which is to say that your first step in establishing a stateless utopia is to kill all the rich people and redistribute their stuff evenly such that everyone has equal wealth.

Once you do that, it becomes much easier to punish those who attempt to hoard resources or gather power, either personally or through organization. Since everyone has equal power, essentially anyone can punish anyone else, creating a massive iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

At this point you must establish killing all rich people as a national ethos, to ensure that those who gather disproportionate resources or political power will be punished.

Once you do that it's fairly self-sustaining. The important thing is the idea that everyone watches everyone else, and that everyone punishes disloyal activities.

[infected slut princess]

So I talked to the craziest right-wing nut today. First of all he said, "You know Obama is bad and all, but he's done really well with those drone attacks!"

I told him the drone attacks mostly kill innocent people. He thought this was incredible, he said I was making it up. He trusted the US government when it said it only killed bad guys, despite the work of many journalists showing otherwise. I mean, Obama's drones have killed hundreds of children before you even start dealing with the definition of "taliban fighter" which is basically "any muslim-looking dude age 14-65."

Then the conversation turned to Iraq. So according to him, the Iraq War had a few bad effects but overall was a good idea. Then he said all these crazy recent problems had nothing to do with prior US intervention, but only with lack of further intervention -- it was because Obama "withdrew" US military from the country. I told him Obama didn't really withdraw, they just couldn't get the Iraqis to accept a Status of Forces Agreement in which drunk American soldiers would be immune to prosecution for rape and murder. He claimed I was making that up, and called me an Obama-lover.

Some people are idiots. I thought you guys might like that story. But for all I know, you think the Iraq War is awesome and you fap to it.

[Mord]

I don't always masturbate to war crimes, but when I do, I pick ones that took place in Afghanistan.

[Koumei]

We're willing to agree with you on this one*. Indeed, remember that the Den is happy to criticise Obama for his many failings (ramping up surveillance, prosecution of whistleblowers, not prosecuting criminals who happened to work in the previous administration, not actually being a perfect divine being). We just accept that he's not as bad as the other options.

*Based on the information given. If it turns out you actually said "and Obama is actually a 9' tall lizard man wearing a skin suit" then agreement is likely to be withdrawn, you can't sneakily get us to agree he's a space lizard.

[Winnah]

By other options do you mean another flavour of shit sandwitch?

I get that you prefer the taste of the Blue Imperial Shit Sub to the Red Imperial Shit Sub, but some people don't like eating shit.

What else is on the menu? Can I stay at home and make my own damn sandwitch? Is that too much to ask?

[erik]

To continue the metaphor I would rather you made shit sandwiches than out of innocent live people.

Filthy cannibals.

[DSMatticus]

the sandwich shop didn't have my favorite flavor
so i burned it down

i'm not good with tough choices
or even particularly easy choices
or choices at all, really

let's just keep everything simple
and by simple i mean on fire

[tussock]

So I talked to someone who watches "Fox News".

We have "Fox News" in NZ as well. It really is superbly crafted propaganda, not only giving authoritative-appearing anti-facts to everyone, but also putting up some fake opponents to talk broken versions of the real world and present handy shields against them.

You can't actually argue against people who watch it. They've heard your argument (or rather, a broken version of it) and also heard the authoritative-sounding response. Anyone who disagrees with the final pat responses is simply dismissed as an irrational [EDITED]-lover.

It's got the repetitive base, the fake authorities, the fake opponents, and in-depth pre-planned responses that are beyond disagreement. May as well be a religion.

[infected slut princess]

"Hi, I'm [a filthy whore]," I said, extending my hand.

“Hi, I’m Charles,” said the young guy, adjusting his shirt around his partially retreated beer gut and accepting the handshake. “I just graduated with my Econ degree, specializing in energy markets. I work at [Firm X].”

Never heard of it. But I've known many guys like this. Obviously he wasn't cut out for high finance so he picked somethign easier and found work at a no-name firm. Even then, he probably only managed a 3.3 GPA tops. Clearly this guy deserved a little mockery.

“An economics degree!" I said. "Well it's too bad you put in all that time on classes and come out knowing nothing about economics. Oh well, at least you didn’t go straight for a PhD, so there is hope.”

“What do you mean? That program holds a lot of weight in the industry!” Charles protested, turning bright red.

“Yes, of course, I'm just joking,” I said. “So did you find out how to make the economy better in school?"

“Well, I think we really need to go back to basics. The answers are clear, the problem is just getting people to worry less about politics and more about doing the right thing."

“I see,” I said, considering how his statement had zero, um, actual content. “So what specifically needs to happen? What is the ‘right thing?’”

He seemed excited that an industry professional was asking for his opinion about something. “Are you familiar with Keynesian economics?”

“Oh sure. Keynes is one of the greatest crackpots in the history of economics.”

“Crackpot?” Charles sputtered in disbelief. “What are you talking about?”

“Well, I think his comments in Chapter 24 of the General Theory says it all, don’t you?”

“Oh I haven’t read the General Theory,” he said meekly. There was a vague sign in his expression that he began to realize the idiocy of his earlier statement. He quickly added “...yet.”

I should’ve guessed. As with most idiots who fap to Keynes all night long, whether it’s young graduates or old dumb-fucks, this guy has never gone to the primary sources. But of course they always claim they will someday maybe at some point read the General Theory.

“Well that’s the chapter were Keynes denies the scarcity of capital, the classic affirmation of crackpottery.”

Charles was getting nervous now. “I don’t think he ever said that.”

“Oh sorry, but didn;t you just say you’ve never read his General Theory?”

Charles said nothing. The chip on his shoulder caused him to visibly sag.

“Seriously though, take a look at this,” I continued, quickly pulling up the relevant passage on my iPhone. “Here we read, ‘But whilst there may be intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of land, there are no intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of capital.’ This paragraph ends with proof of his crankery: ‘But even so, it will still be possible for communal saving through the agency of the State to be maintained at a level which will allow the growth of capital up to the point where it ceases to be scarce.’”

I let the gravity of this passage sink in for Charles. He could offer no intelligible reply, just a few barely audible mumbles of incoherence. Reality had smacked him in the face. He had fapped to Keynes. Therefore, he had fapped to a crackpot. He had failed at life.

“Here,” I said, flipping him one of my business cards. “Go read some real economics, then give me a call. Maybe I can help you get a job at a real firm so long once you can prove you aren’t some drone who is unable to think critically about anything.”

That was the last I saw of Charles. But I later heard a rumor that someone saw him later that night crying in the bathroom.

[Kaelik]

I don't understand, why is ISP constructing a parody of himself?

[DSMatticus]

I'm pretty sure this is going to be hilarious.

ISP, why is capital intrinsically scarce?