Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Doosh]

"Statistics are shit and dehumanizing" another galaxy brain moment for leftism lads

I wonder if they can identify crayon colors in a blind taste test.

[Rostavykhan]

Actual evidence is a good starting point. Saying shit ain't all that bad because muh scatter plots when there's people around who can say, "shit's actually pretty bad and we can show you from our first-hand experience," is pretty stupid, all things considered.

what level of woke are you on man to think that saying "actual evidence is good, but anecdotes are EVEN BETTER!" is anything more than hilarious

Pretty sure Torroca's point is that it's easy to dismiss actual problems by pointing to favorable charts and saying "See, that says everything is good, so you're wrong for implying it isn't!"

I mean, some folks are eager to say that Islamic terrorism and mass immigration aren't a big issue because the charts say that they're just a minority compared to other issues, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still problems.

[Torrocca]

Hmm yeah lemme just

*Gilded Age job growth happens*

oof

Gilded Age had its unemployment falling from 10% in 1870 to 4% in 1890. Unsurprisingly, real wages also grew at a spectacular rate. Even more unsurprisingly, the Gilded Age was one of the longest and most pronounced economic expansions in the United States' history.

I like how the part of outrageous worker abuses during the Gilded Age, to the point of literal murder, went ignored by you there. Goes to show what you're really arguing for.

>TFW humans rights abuses and literal slavery don't get factored into HDI

Hmmmmmm

One percent are under alleged conditions of slavery. In the meanwhile, the large amount of people with good conditions -- as espoused through data -- counterbalances those few disadvantaged. ;')

I like how you completely ignored the part about human rights abuses separate from the literal slavery. Also, good job justifying literal slavery with, "b-but everyone else is happy!"

I refer you to, "statistics are stupid," :^)

"muh statistics r stupid bc they disagree with that I think"

You literally posted statistics showing that the UAE - a place with slavery - is number 14 in HDI, and went on to justify the slavery because of said statistic. GG no re, statistics are still dumb :^)

what level of woke are you on man to think that saying "actual evidence is good, but anecdotes are EVEN BETTER!" is anything more than hilarious

Pretty sure Torroca's point is that it's easy to dismiss actual problems by pointing to favorable charts and saying "See, that says everything is good, so you're wrong for implying it isn't!"

I mean, some folks are eager to say that Islamic terrorism and mass immigration aren't a big issue because the charts say that they're just a minority compared to other issues, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still problems.

^

"Statistics are shit and dehumanizing" another galaxy brain moment for leftism lads

FYI, I didn't originally state they were dehumanizing. Your rightist pal GM did :^)

[Darussalam]

Pretty sure Torroca's point is that it's easy to dismiss actual problems by pointing to favorable charts and saying "See, that says everything is good, so you're wrong for implying it isn't!"

Incorrect, Torroca probably thinks statistics are wrong because they are literally capitalist fabrications. Otherwise you cannot say "Capitalism impoverishes people" when the opposite is what has happened.

[Torrocca]

Pretty sure Torroca's point is that it's easy to dismiss actual problems by pointing to favorable charts and saying "See, that says everything is good, so you're wrong for implying it isn't!"

Incorrect, Torroca probably thinks statistics are wrong because they are literally capitalist fabrications.

Oh shit we gots ourselves a mind reader here, boys! What else am I thinking? :^)

Otherwise you cannot say "Capitalism impoverishes people" when the opposite is what has happened.

*laughs in everywhere colonized ever*

[Proctopeo]

Pretty sure Torroca's point is that it's easy to dismiss actual problems by pointing to favorable charts and saying "See, that says everything is good, so you're wrong for implying it isn't!"

Incorrect, Torroca probably thinks statistics are wrong because they are literally capitalist fabrications. Otherwise you cannot say "Capitalism impoverishes people" when the opposite is what has happened.

well komrade, yuo are of see this: in capitalism system, people can into be poor
in communism system, word "poor" made illegal because everyone equally poor, therefore no poverty, no?

[Doosh]

Incorrect, Torroca probably thinks statistics are wrong because they are literally capitalist fabrications.

Oh shit we gots ourselves a mind reader here, boys! What else am I thinking? :^)

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know, and something about continuing to threadjack.

What did I win?

[Torrocca]

Oh shit we gots ourselves a mind reader here, boys! What else am I thinking? :^)

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know,

I'm clever when needed, and I only speak on behalf of myself. :^)

and something about continuing to threadjack.

Discussing Capitalism (and its evident failings) is part of Libertarian discussion, so no. No threadjacking here.

What did I win?

Nothing except probably some unearned smugness.

[Doosh]

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know,

I'm clever when needed, and I only speak on behalf of myself. :^)

and something about continuing to threadjack.

Discussing Capitalism (and its evident failings) is part of Libertarian discussion, so no. No threadjacking here.

What did I win?

Nothing except probably some unearned smugness.

It was fuzzy at first, but now I see you're still thinking about how butthurt the past few pages have made you.

[Rostavykhan]

I know I should be holding off until the fish is caught and fried, but this bait is just too delicious by itself.

[Salus Maior]

Oh shit we gots ourselves a mind reader here, boys! What else am I thinking? :^)

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know, and something about continuing to threadjack.

What did I win?

He does that.

[Torrocca]

I'm clever when needed, and I only speak on behalf of myself. :^)



Discussing Capitalism (and its evident failings) is part of Libertarian discussion, so no. No threadjacking here.



Nothing except probably some unearned smugness.

It was fuzzy at first, but now I see you're still thinking about how butthurt the past few pages have made you.

I'm butthurt? :^)

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know, and something about continuing to threadjack.

What did I win?

He does that.

Nah.

[Doosh]

You think you're clever, that you speak for millions of people you don't even know, and something about continuing to threadjack.

What did I win?

He does that.

Egoists.

:;shrug::

[Mattopilos II]

Okay... where do you get the 3/4 statistic, and where is the correlation of this to job creation/economic growth?

Sauce for the former (due to economic fluctuations on a yearly and sometimes even quarterly basis the share of capital gains and business income varies, but the 2/3rds provided ain't far from my 3/4ths claim)
Sauce #1 for the latter
Sauce #2 for the latter

B. Taylor too reinforced the importance of investment to promote job growth.

1. Okay, fair enough, that is backed up well.
2. and 3. Are any other factors taken into account? Correlation and causation are not the best of friends, unfortunately. Really doesn't say *where* the investment comes from in that data either, and that is *just* investment. No word on their savings applying to economic growth. It also doesn't explain what happens to the unemployment, simply that it reduces - are living conditions improved? What are their wages? It just seems like a very simplistic look at the situation to think GDP leads to less unemployment, then to automatically jump to "and everyone is happier and the world is a better place".

But maybe that is just me.

[Mattopilos II]

He does that.

Egoists.

:;shrug::

Don't associate egoism with egotism pls

[Doosh]

Egoists.

:;shrug::

Don't associate egoism with egotism pls

I don't and you don't, so it's our running joke now.

[Taihei Tengoku]

https://www.econlib.org/the-illusory-ar ... deploring/

Bryan Caplan never fails to make an interesting case.

[Zurkerx]

So is the majority here pro-immigration (in general)?

For a libertarian, I would argue it makes sense to be

Yes, and it does.

[Zurkerx]

So, I recently had this discussion with a Trump supporter regarding Hayek and him leading to what we call neoliberalism today. In that regard, I do believe that Hayek didn't attend for such a thing to happen but, others misconstrued his policies to benefit them.

What do you think, my fellow Libertarians? Are they right, or as always, dead wrong?

[Elwher]

So is the majority here pro-immigration (in general)?

For a libertarian, I would argue it makes sense to be

Yes, and it does.

If there were a true Libertarian state, where one gets and keeps what one earns and one does not get, from the state at least, any unearned income, then I would agree that it would make sense to allow free immigration and emigration. As long as welfare, transfer payments, or anything like those exist, then there is a valid argument against it.

Even if the immigrant population does have a lower rate of welfare recipients than the native population, a claim that is often made and often disputed, in absolute numbers there are more welfare checks going out if any of the immigrant population is in the system. The only way free immigration makes sense in a mixed economy is if citizenship is a precondition for any and all government transfer payments.

[Mushet]

Am I in a cornfield? Cuz I see a lot of arguing with strawmen.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Am I in a cornfield? Cuz I see a lot of arguing with strawmen.

That's NSG in a nutshell really.

[Mushet]

Am I in a cornfield? Cuz I see a lot of arguing with strawmen.

That's NSG in a nutshell really.

Yeah but this seems more ubiquitous.

[Doosh]

Yes, and it does.

If there were a true Libertarian state, where one gets and keeps what one earns and one does not get, from the state at least, any unearned income, then I would agree that it would make sense to allow free immigration and emigration. As long as welfare, transfer payments, or anything like those exist, then there is a valid argument against it.

Even if the immigrant population does have a lower rate of welfare recipients than the native population, a claim that is often made and often disputed, in absolute numbers there are more welfare checks going out if any of the immigrant population is in the system. The only way free immigration makes sense in a mixed economy is if citizenship is a precondition for any and all government transfer payments.

My belief is that welfare / transfer payment regimes are ultimately unsustainable, as is, and increasing the pool of dependency upon them via unrestricted immigration exacerbates that unsustainability (as more and more people discover they can get paid just to be here, immigrant and natural citizen alike) eventually it all comes crashing down to where the state can't even afford to pay tax collectors

[Taihei Tengoku]

Immigration is completely orthogonal to the benefits of the welfare state: thy are seeking prosperous countries and the only ones that can afford welfare states are the same.