Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

Then we should reduce welfare first priority, in order to reduce the pull. A crackdown on immigration puts the cart before the horse.

[Great Minarchistan]

"Because of statistics, I don't believe in poverty actually existing"
Same to you :^)



Oh yes, so perfect at defining efficient policies, in fact, that poverty's completely gone and corporate exploitations and abuses of workers both nationally and internationally have completely disappeared.

What's that, you say? Corporate sanctioned sweatshops that exploit impoverished people in developing nations? Never heard of 'em!

B-b-but the chart says...

Statistics don't care about your feelings. If you simply don't want to believe that people as a whole are getting progressively wealthier, living better and longer then follow my flag's motto and leave me alone. No room for delusional mumblings about anecdotes when statistics are way more precise than that.

[Frievolk]

B-b-but the chart says...

Statistics don't care about your feelings. If you simply don't want to believe that people as a whole are getting progressively wealthier, living better and longer then follow my flag's motto and leave me alone. No room for delusional mumblings about anecdotes when statistics are way more precise than that.

Could I ask whether the statistics say that the Deciles (or the appropriate divisions, at any rate) are all progressively getting wealthier, or that the collective whole is?
Because that can mean the world where this topic is concerned.

[Great Minarchistan]

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.

Do you have a hundred thousand anecdotes to prove your point or statistics about worker abuses and life expectancy evolution during the period?

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!"

Call this argument a tu quoque as much as you want, but you too want to shit on the wealthy to pay for your delusionally expensive proposals. So we are at odds, I guess?

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 :^)

When did I justify their slavery? I said that their HDI is high because the overall life quality more than outbalances the slavery problem. Strawman people's arguments elsewhere.

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

They do take away the human scent of the matter when used raw, but I don't care about it anyways. I just want the precise data to get the job done precisely and efficiently. But of course, "muh anecdotes are better..."

[Great Minarchistan]

Could I ask whether the statistics say that the Deciles (or the appropriate divisions, at any rate) are all progressively getting wealthier, or that the collective whole is?
Because that can mean the world where this topic is concerned.

Max Roser did an excellent job with it. Later on he also released a study on... 2015? and the whole curve curve shifted further to the right.

[Great Minarchistan]

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

*laughs in everywhere colonized ever*

*laughs about your lack of self-awareness*

But don't worry, you too are a mere part of the people that weren't properly lectured on facts ;')

[Elwher]

Statistics don't care about your feelings. If you simply don't want to believe that people as a whole are getting progressively wealthier, living better and longer then follow my flag's motto and leave me alone. No room for delusional mumblings about anecdotes when statistics are way more precise than that.

Could I ask whether the statistics say that the Deciles (or the appropriate divisions, at any rate) are all progressively getting wealthier, or that the collective whole is?
Because that can mean the world where this topic is concerned.

As long as none of the divisions are getting poorer, then the relative progress of the different groups is relatively irrelevant. If I am making 10% more than I was, the fact that someone else is making 50% more does not lessen my progress. I am still 10% better off than I was.

[Great Minarchistan]

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.

Due to the similarity of the datasets, it's roughly the same thing (before anything, I myself used the figures for gross private domestic investment). Taylor may have applied public investments too, which I can do but I was a dummy that forgot to do it

No word on their savings applying to economic growth.

Savings are inversely related to consumption, mostly because a bulky part of consumption is realized at the expense of savings, and most savings are realized at the expense of consumption. To act as some sort of "double proof", savings are proportionally related with investment, probably thanks to the fact that a higher amount of savings gives more liquidity to the system and allows for more investment to be done without increasing interest rates delusionally, and because more consumption participation in the GDP crowds out the other elements, ceteris paribus.

It also doesn't explain what happens to the unemployment, simply that it reduces - are living conditions improved? What are their wages?

No strong relationship between unemployment rates and real wages, although by judging the occasional bumps that happen there and some theories one may say that truthfully less unemployment increases wages since this way you have less available labor force and the employees demand higher pay rises since their condition of employment isn't risky.

[Zurkerx]

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.

I do agree. Social and Public programs would have to be eliminated in their entirety in order to have true open borders. But I don't believe in the open borders, rather I support regulated borders, and that citizenship requirement would be needed in order to receive government support although, States pick up the majority of the cost through public education, police, and medical.

[Great Minarchistan]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

[The South Falls]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

The EITC is honestly a good idea. If you don't earn enough, then you get some extra to help you back on your feet.

[Great Minarchistan]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

The EITC is honestly a good idea. If you don't earn enough, then you get some extra to help you back on your feet.

More than that, they modeled it in a way where earning an extra $50 is always a good idea

[Zurkerx]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

The EITC is the closest thing to a Negative Income Tax so yes, I do support it.

[Elwher]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

Proof of the blind squirrel theory - even our Congress can get things right on occasion.

[Great Minarchistan]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

Proof of the blind squirrel theory - even our Congress can get things right on occasion.

Can relate, the amount of money spent on welfare just to make things worse is astounding

[Doosh]

Taking the reference to welfare above, what's your opinion on the EITC? Personally it's probably the welfare program in the US with the highest potential to be efficient, as it doesn't contain income traps and is technically cheap -- 56bn for 2016/17, out of which 40bn were given properly. Write off the waste and here you go, an extremely good program

Hate it. Government should be combatting theft, not participating in it.

[Torrocca]

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.

Do you have a hundred thousand anecdotes to prove your point or statistics about worker abuses and life expectancy evolution during the period?

I could get those anecdotes with a little bit of time. It's not hard to find written interviews or the like from the era.

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!"

Call this argument a tu quoque as much as you want, but you too want to shit on the wealthy to pay for your delusionally expensive proposals. So we are at odds, I guess?

Ideally that wouldn't happen. Better than literal slavery though, which you literally just justified; especially because, y'know, the rich, business-owning class wouldn't become slaves, they'd just lose their businesses to democracy. :^)

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 :^)

When did I justify their slavery? I said that their HDI is high because the overall life quality more than outbalances the slavery problem. Strawman people's arguments elsewhere.

The whole, "well overall life quality counterbalances the slavery issue!" statement. But I guess that's too hard to see, all things considered. Totally fine for the HDI in the rest of a country to be fine if it's built off the back of slavery.

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

They do take away the human scent of the matter when used raw, but I don't care about it anyways. I just want the precise data to get the job done precisely and efficiently. But of course, "muh anecdotes are better..."

If these damn sacred statistics of yours are so efficient, why's there still poverty? Why's there still a fuckton of other socioeconomic bullshit issues plaguing the world?

It just sounds to me like your statistics aren't that efficient at solving problems after all.

*laughs in everywhere colonized ever*

*laughs about your lack of self-awareness*

But don't worry, you too are a mere part of the people that weren't properly lectured on facts ;')

>Pretending Capitalism never impoverished people because things have recently gotten better over the past couple of decades in former colonial lands

I guess the thousands of books and personal accounts of colonial affairs don't matter whatsoever in regards to the absolute shit conditions forced on people in the name of profit whatsoever, especially the multitude of ones that don't reflect any hard data. But who cares about that when, "muh capitalism never impoverishes people!"

This isn't your average, everyday denial of Capitalism and its atrocities... this is... advanced denial.

[The South Falls]

Proof of the blind squirrel theory - even our Congress can get things right on occasion.

Can relate, the amount of money spent on welfare just to make things worse is astounding

A lot of welfare is wasted, yes. A lot else, however, is the difference between starvation and life for many a family.

[Torrocca]

Can relate, the amount of money spent on welfare just to make things worse is astounding

A lot of welfare is wasted, yes. A lot else, however, is the difference between starvation and life for many a family.

B-but we t-totally need to get rid of welfare right away without any alternatives besides having more rich people invest in businesses to make even more money!!1!

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Boy, if NS was reflected of right-wing and the left-wing as a whole, they have abandon all belief in a Republicanism, Democracy, Captialism and Individualism. Eh, I should not be surprised... With Donald Trump the face of the right-wing, and Bernie being the face of he left-wing.....at least in U.S it is...

[Torrocca]

Boy, if NS was reflected of right-wing and the left-wing as a whole, they have abandon all belief in a Republicanism, Democracy, Captialism and Individualism. Eh, I should not be surprised... With Donald Trump the face of the right-wing, and Bernie being the face of he left-wing.....at least in U.S it is...

>Implying individualism and democracy disappear under left-wing politics

*respirar*

c h i c o

[Torrocca]

So, you guys know how people frequently argue human nature as a basis for why Capitalism works and why Leftist ideologies, like Anarchism and Communism, can't work, right? Because of greed and stuff?

Well, even the founding father of Capitalism himself, Adam motherfuckin' Smith, argued that that idea is some malarkey:

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it."

[Puldania]

Boy, if NS was reflected of right-wing and the left-wing as a whole, they have abandon all belief in a Republicanism, Democracy, Captialism and Individualism. Eh, I should not be surprised... With Donald Trump the face of the right-wing, and Bernie being the face of he left-wing.....at least in U.S it is...

What a delightfully ignorant post.

[Great Minarchistan]

I could get those anecdotes with a little bit of time. It's not hard to find written interviews or the like from the era.

Alrighty, waiting for the 100 thousand anecdotes.

Ideally that wouldn't happen. Better than literal slavery though, which you literally just justified;

Where did I justify slavery?

especially because, y'know, the rich, business-owning class wouldn't become slaves, they'd just lose their businesses to democracy. :^)

When you spend decades of planning and hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions and billions -- in capital investment, seeing all of it getting down the waste is depressive enough. Heck, investors committed suicide en masse following the crash of 1929 and they weren't even taking care of businesses.

The whole, "well overall life quality counterbalances the slavery issue!" statement.

How could I justify slavery if I myself branded it as an issue?

But I guess that's too hard to see, all things considered. Totally fine for the HDI in the rest of a country to be fine if it's built off the back of slavery.

You're grossly overestimating the impact of slavery, as one percent of the workforce is under such conditions.

If these damn sacred statistics of yours are so efficient, why's there still poverty?

We ain't Star Trek. Also, nice try.

Why's there still a fuckton of other socioeconomic bullshit issues plaguing the world?

>"muh not real scotsman, if your method doesn't solve every fucking problem in the world it's 100% inefficient"

It just sounds to me like your statistics aren't that efficient at solving problems after all.

ef·fi·cien·cy
/əˈfiSHənsē/
noun
the state or quality of being efficient.

This uhhhh differs from the following:

per·fec·tion
/pərˈfekSH(ə)n/
noun
the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.

>Pretending Capitalism never impoverished people because things have recently gotten better over the past couple of decades in former colonial lands

It's funny that you mention that, because the only prosperous African countries are the ones that dereg'd their economy and opened the gates to business creation. Learn your way with Botswana -- the fastest growing country in the 20th century and the 1st/2nd economically freest African country.

I guess the thousands of books and personal accounts of colonial affairs don't matter whatsoever in regards to the absolute shit conditions forced on people in the name of profit whatsoever, especially the multitude of ones that don't reflect any hard data. But who cares about that when, "muh capitalism never impoverishes people!"

"Muh colonial heritage" is a bullshit argument. Even Brazil, arguably the most exploited colony, was able to achieve delusional prosperity under the monarchy and rank itself on the top 10 largest economies by 1880 due to an average growth rate of 8.8%. Industrially-wise, we rose from an agriculturally-ridden shithole in the 1820s to a quickly-developing industrial powerhouse in the 1880s (the number of existing factories increased at a rate of 6.7% yearly from 1850 to 1888, and the invested capital on industry had a growth rate of 11% yearly during the same time period). So yea, the colonies are at fault for being unable to bring up competent leadership that could develop their countries accordingly.

This isn't your average, everyday denial of Capitalism and its atrocities... this is... advanced denial.

Sure, if you outright ignore the benefits of rule of law, reduced red tape, low corporate tax, balanced budgets and moderately low government spending.

[Great Minarchistan]

A lot of welfare is wasted, yes. A lot else, however, is the difference between starvation and life for many a family.

This same amount of welfare is too responsible for ginormous welfare traps that don't encourage poor people to progress otherwise they will be poorer despite having a higher income, ironically.