Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Torrocca]

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

Where did I justify slavery?

Like I said, the whole, "well, 99% of the population's doing fine, so it counterbalances the 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.

That's been verifiably debunked.

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

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

Except you didn't brand it as an issue, I did, apparently on your behalf as well.

Here's what you said, verbatim:

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. ;')

You didn't even acknowledge that the slavery's real, just "allegedly", which just makes this all the more ironically worse.

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.

You're grossly underestimating it, actually. And still justifying it, too, with the whole, "well everyone else is doing fine according to the raw data!"

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

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

Wow, statistics show some declines in poverty, so obviously the sacred statistics are the most efficient thing ever! I'm completely shocked!

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"

Maybe don't claim it's the most efficient model of problem-solving then :^)

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.

Never said they were perfect, just mocking your idea of them being the most efficient problem-solving model.

>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.

>Humans rights abuses galore
>very sparsely populated country
>literally has diamond mines that've been noted to be particularly horrifying across the South African region, including Botswana

... Eyup, about all I needed to know.

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.

*Brazilian Favelas and drug wars intensify*

Wait, I forgot, they don't matter because the fucking statistics showing an alright economic situation means everything's perfectly fine! All's good, fine, and dandy so long as the scatterplots show good economics!

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.

"Allowing more worker abuses and exploitation to take place allows the economy to grow because the rich get more money!"

Well no shit. Lower pay and more dangerous working conditions from reduced red tape, and lowered fucking taxes and reduced government spending (which BTW fucks over the poor even more because less money's being funneled into government agencies and programs like welfare or healthcare) happen to cause economic growth and more profit for corporations.

[Mattopilos II]

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.

Eh... I guess I will take you word for the above, since I can't say I am economically literate, especially for the American system.

Seems logical - expenditure requires use of money, that sometimes requires savings. Just out of curiosity, where does this data come from? The last 20 years in the first chart seems to be trailing in an abnormal manner (private savings jumping around, personal consumption expenditures stays level with slight increase).
Second chart seems to have a high R-squared from eying it.
For real though, this begs the question of where the savings is coming from (which people/class of people, mostly), and whether it is equal opportunity in all classes (I don't see lower classes being able to apply much, due to inability to save much). This would in turn be saying "rich people are able to contribute to the economy because they can save more money", which is a "no duh" sort of revelation. What is to be done, then? Do we leave things as-is, since clearly the rich do more (because they have more)? OR is this where you would lead in with "Less state intervention in order to increase the ability to save and therefore levels of investment"?

I can't read that graph because I ain't a giant econ nerd: is that graph normalized to the size of the population? Inflation? Basically, is there a reason wages are increasing? Is it increasing equally (this is a rhetorical one - they aren't).
Hmm, interesting idea on the theory - has that been seen as a trend in low-risk jobs, an increase in pay in comparison to high risk jobs (if you can effectively box those two effectively, that is)?

Sorry for all the Q's, btw - you clearly have some knowledge on the issue I don't. Think of it as practice for discourse with those that aren't right-liberts

[The Archregimancy]

You forgot the bicycle horn, clown.

You're not even fooling yourself now, tankie.

Doosh, I would be grateful if you would knock off the borderline flamebaiting, please.

Your own behaviour is far more problematic than the behaviour you've attempted to report in Moderation.

[Doosh]

You forgot the bicycle horn, clown.

You're not even fooling yourself now, tankie.

Doosh, I would be grateful if you would knock off the borderline flamebaiting, please.

Your own behaviour is far more problematic than the behaviour you've attempted to report in Moderation.

Thank you. I will endeavor to be as obnoxious as Torrocca.

[Taihei Tengoku]

brainstem level discussion

[Schreiner]

Doosh, I would be grateful if you would knock off the borderline flamebaiting, please.

Your own behaviour is far more problematic than the behaviour you've attempted to report in Moderation.

Thank you. I will endeavor to be as obnoxious as Torrocca.

Fight! Fight! Fi- oh. Ban inevitable. RIP Doosh

[USS Monitor]

Doosh, I would be grateful if you would knock off the borderline flamebaiting, please.

Your own behaviour is far more problematic than the behaviour you've attempted to report in Moderation.

Thank you. I will endeavor to be as obnoxious as Torrocca.

Enough. *** 1 day ban for flamebait ***

I would advise you to stop feuding with Torrocca. Stop looking for flimsy excuses to report him to Moderation. Stop sniping at him in NSG. Torrocca may have strong opinions that you don't like, but that doesn't excuse the way you've been going after him.

[Schreiner]

Thank you. I will endeavor to be as obnoxious as Torrocca.

Enough. *** 1 day ban for flamebait ***

I would advise you to stop feuding with Torrocca. Stop looking for flimsy excuses to report him to Moderation. Stop sniping at him in NSG. Torrocca may have strong opinions that you don't like, but that doesn't excuse the way you've been going after him.

I can see the future!

[Great Minarchistan]

Like I said, the whole, "well, 99% of the population's doing fine, so it counterbalances the slavery!"

...Justifying the high HDI. That was my primary point since you (are supposed) know that HDI doesn't cherrypick a small populational sample and then proceed to call the country a shithole.

That's been verifiably debunked.

...How? Are entrepreneurs not people now? Eat the rich!

Except you didn't brand it as an issue, I did, apparently on your behalf as well.

Therefore you admit that you interpreted my argument just as it was supposed to. Unless if you are strawmanning or baiting, take your choice.

You didn't even acknowledge that the slavery's real, just "allegedly", which just makes this all the more ironically worse.

I don't know the conditions qualified for slavery in the UAE, which may be higher than usual given their privileged economic position. Do you know it, though?

You're grossly underestimating it, actually. And still justifying it, too, with the whole, "well everyone else is doing fine according to the raw data!"

Do your faulty anecdotes provide a larger coverage? (protip: They don't)
Do your faulty anecdotes provide quantification of the situation? (protip: They don't)
Are your faulty anecdotes exempt from different interpretations of its raw content? (protip: They aren't)

So yea, I'll call BS on your argument that raw data is less precise than the anecdotes you keep mumbling about.

Wow, statistics show some declines in poverty, so obviously the sacred statistics are the most efficient thing ever! I'm completely shocked!

Firstly you complain about poverty rates, which were accordingly addressed and proven you to be wrong. Instead of being humble and moving on, you insist on being a hard head and start to bait. I usually don't complain about debating ethics, but you're doing a dishonest job here.

Maybe don't claim it's the most efficient model of problem-solving then :^)

Highest efficiency =/= 100%.

Never said they were perfect, just mocking your idea of them being the most efficient problem-solving model.

Any more efficient method to identify problems and giving good suggestions to attack it?

>Humans rights abuses galore

Broof

>very sparsely populated country

Same with most of the African countries. 'point?

>literally has diamond mines that've been noted to be particularly horrifying across the South African region, including Botswana

Most African countries have a large-ass basket of resources. Zimbabwe for instance was known as the breadbasket of Africa before Mugabe seized land from muh whity privileged farmers, DRC has a multitude of resources (wood probably being the most available), Morocco has gigantic phosphate deposits, South Africa has a lot of gold, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Egypt have bulky oil reserves and so on. Having diamond reserves isn't a special characteristic on a continent filled with mineral, natural and fossil resources.

*Brazilian Favelas and drug wars intensify*

>What was the Republic and how did it ruin competent leadership

Wait, I forgot, they don't matter because the fucking statistics showing an alright economic situation means everything's perfectly fine! All's good, fine, and dandy so long as the scatterplots show good economics!

Back then the development of the Brazilian Empire was comparable to Western Europe, the best continent you could live in the 19th century.

"Allowing more worker abuses and exploitation to take place allows the economy to grow because the rich get more money!"

Yeah, because this was what happened during 130 years of American classical liberalism...

Well no shit. Lower pay and more dangerous working conditions from reduced red tape

Yeah, excessive bureaucracy (unless if red tape means essential regulations to you) increases pay and enables less dangerous working conditions -- for bureaucrats, ofc.

and lowered fucking taxes and reduced government spending (which BTW fucks over the poor even more because less money's being funneled into government agencies and programs like welfare or healthcare)

It's interesting that you bring up this topic, since more than 14 trillion dollars have been spent on Great Society programs ever since LBJ enacted them in the 60s. Interestingly, poverty stagnated right around that period. Perhaps because the clusterfuck of welfare enacted ended up giving leeway to insane income traps that keep poor at shitty wages because they'll have a lot of benefits taken away if they progress?

happen to cause economic growth and more profit for corporations.

Employment figures (tightly) and wage figures (not so tightly) follow economic growth. But yeah, it's up to your delusional mind to accept facts or bring up ineffective, imprecise and scarce anecdotes. I'm almost done with your denial of reality.

[Great Minarchistan]

Seems logical - expenditure requires use of money, that sometimes requires savings. Just out of curiosity, where does this data come from?

FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) from St. Louis Fed. Pretty top tier data source, I recommend it.

The last 20 years in the first chart seems to be trailing in an abnormal manner (private savings jumping around, personal consumption expenditures stays level with slight increase).

The jitteriness comes from the fact that the American economy wasn't that smooth until ~1960s. I've ran a growth volatility model for the US economy from 1792 to 2016 and volatility was extremely high in the early and mid 1900s.

Second chart seems to have a high R-squared from eying it.

It does. Today I've compared unemployment figures with net capital investment (public+private investment minus consumption of capital, such as depreciation). Slightly different data, but the r^2 and correlation are extremely strong except for recessionary periods where both weaken but the positive effect of investment on employment figures still stands.

For real though, this begs the question of where the savings is coming from (which people/class of people, mostly), and whether it is equal opportunity in all classes (I don't see lower classes being able to apply much, due to inability to save much). This would in turn be saying "rich people are able to contribute to the economy because they can save more money", which is a "no duh" sort of revelation. What is to be done, then? Do we leave things as-is, since clearly the rich do more (because they have more)? OR is this where you would lead in with "Less state intervention in order to increase the ability to save and therefore levels of investment"?

tbf I'd like to cutdown on red tape, corptax, general govt spending, pay off the debt and then balance the budgets to turn US a more business-friendly environment. On regards to the distribution of savings across the income levels, the poorest usually save less not only due to their worse income, but a huge part of it can be also blamed on Social Security -- that steals 14.2% of people's paycheck to feed a low-return Ponzi scheme. According to my calc, S.S. has a real rate of return pricing around 1.5% p.a., while a 401k offers a real rate of return (in the long term) of 4% p.a. Using these numbers you reach to the conclusion that an American worker earning 30-45k yearly is losing more than 700 thousand dollars due to the disparity of the rate of return offered by both methods. While on it, there are several proposals to reform Social Security, but I personally endorse either Reisman's proposal or my own proposal. Feel free to check both

I can't read that graph because I ain't a giant econ nerd: is that graph normalized to the size of the population? Inflation?

I took the total wage compensation in the US (something around 8.5 trillion currently) and divided by the total amount of employees. Since this is the average nominal salary, I corrected it with the CPI (or was it GDP deflator? Can't recall rn) and here ya go, average real salary.

Basically, is there a reason wages are increasing? Is it increasing equally (this is a rhetorical one - they aren't).

I mean, real wages tend to follow the overall state of the economy, though not a very tight relationship since it can be affected by external elements. It's interesting to note though that a huge part of the wage increases is being eaten by an increase on benefits that are partially burdened on the employer. Such benefits are not included in the raw wage data.

Hmm, interesting idea on the theory - has that been seen as a trend in low-risk jobs, an increase in pay in comparison to high risk jobs (if you can effectively box those two effectively, that is)?

Not sure if I got what you meant, rephrase it pls?

Sorry for all the Q's, btw - you clearly have some knowledge on the issue I don't. Think of it as practice for discourse with those that aren't right-liberts

It takes a bit of time but I'm pretty much a bum that has nothing and everything to do at the same time. Gotta fix that

[Great Minarchistan]

Enough. *** 1 day ban for flamebait ***

I would advise you to stop feuding with Torrocca. Stop looking for flimsy excuses to report him to Moderation. Stop sniping at him in NSG. Torrocca may have strong opinions that you don't like, but that doesn't excuse the way you've been going after him.

I can see the future!

can you see bitcoin's price within a day tho

[Torrocca]

Like I said, the whole, "well, 99% of the population's doing fine, so it counterbalances the slavery!"

...Justifying the high HDI. That was my primary point since you (are supposed) know that HDI doesn't cherrypick a small populational sample and then proceed to call the country a shithole.

But it's also, at the same time, justifying the slavery by proxy. You shouldn't be happy about a high HDI built off the back of slavery and human rights abuses.

That's been verifiably debunked.

...How? Are entrepreneurs not people now? Eat the rich!

The Wall-Street suicides are a myth.

Except you didn't brand it as an issue, I did, apparently on your behalf as well.

Therefore you admit that you interpreted my argument just as it was supposed to. Unless if you are strawmanning or baiting, take your choice.

No, I falsely interpreted in a way you didn't suggest it was, with the actual writing given just a moment after that statement.

You didn't even acknowledge that the slavery's real, just "allegedly", which just makes this all the more ironically worse.

I don't know the conditions qualified for slavery in the UAE, which may be higher than usual given their privileged economic position. Do you know it, though?

Yes, actually. Slavery and slave-like conditions exist across the whole of the UAE.

You're grossly underestimating it, actually. And still justifying it, too, with the whole, "well everyone else is doing fine according to the raw data!"

Do your faulty anecdotes provide a larger coverage? (protip: They don't)
Do your faulty anecdotes provide quantification of the situation? (protip: They don't)
Are your faulty anecdotes exempt from different interpretations of its raw content? (protip: They aren't)

So yea, I'll call BS on your argument that raw data is less precise than the anecdotes you keep mumbling about.

See above.

Wow, statistics show some declines in poverty, so obviously the sacred statistics are the most efficient thing ever! I'm completely shocked!

Firstly you complain about poverty rates, which were accordingly addressed and proven you to be wrong. Instead of being humble and moving on, you insist on being a hard head and start to bait. I usually don't complain about debating ethics, but you're doing a dishonest job here.

Because I don't trust statistics when compared to what people living in different conditions across the world actually have to say about those living conditions.

Maybe don't claim it's the most efficient model of problem-solving then :^)

Highest efficiency =/= 100%.

Never said they were perfect, just mocking your idea of them being the most efficient problem-solving model.

Any more efficient method to identify problems and giving good suggestions to attack it?

Stop reading statistics and start actually looking at the problems.

>Humans rights abuses galore

Broof

>very sparsely populated country

Same with most of the African countries. 'point?

>literally has diamond mines that've been noted to be particularly horrifying across the South African region, including Botswana

Most African countries have a large-ass basket of resources. Zimbabwe for instance was known as the breadbasket of Africa before Mugabe seized land from muh whity privileged farmers, DRC has a multitude of resources (wood probably being the most available), Morocco has gigantic phosphate deposits, South Africa has a lot of gold, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Egypt have bulky oil reserves and so on. Having diamond reserves isn't a special characteristic on a continent filled with mineral, natural and fossil resources.

I guess you missed the part where work on those diamond mines is particularly horrifying. There was even a video recently from (I believe Botswana IIRC, maybe SA) where a fuckton of striking diamond miners were gunned down for protesting the crazy fucking abuses.

But, again, that's not an issue I suppose, because the charts say otherwise.

*Brazilian Favelas and drug wars intensify*

>What was the Republic and how did it ruin competent leadership

Okay, how about I do you one better: Centuries-long slave plantations for sugar and the like that were 10x more horrific than anything the USA had going on, and wasn't even officially abolished until 1888, and still practically goes on anyway?

But muh economic growth and HDI, amirite?

Wait, I forgot, they don't matter because the fucking statistics showing an alright economic situation means everything's perfectly fine! All's good, fine, and dandy so long as the scatterplots show good economics!

Back then the development of the Brazilian Empire was comparable to Western Europe, the best continent you could live in the 19th century.

Back then Brazil had (and still does have) arguably the most atrocious system of slavery ever seen.

"Allowing more worker abuses and exploitation to take place allows the economy to grow because the rich get more money!"

Yeah, because this was what happened during 130 years of American classical liberalism...

Someone forgot what happened to the little guy during the Gilded Age, it seems.

Well no shit. Lower pay and more dangerous working conditions from reduced red tape

Yeah, excessive bureaucracy (unless if red tape means essential regulations to you) increases pay and enables less dangerous working conditions -- for bureaucrats, ofc.

Excessive bureaucracy also increases pay and decreases dangerous working conditions for the common laborer, but those people don't matter so long as the rich get richer.

and lowered fucking taxes and reduced government spending (which BTW fucks over the poor even more because less money's being funneled into government agencies and programs like welfare or healthcare)

It's interesting that you bring up this topic, since more than 14 trillion dollars have been spent on Great Society programs ever since LBJ enacted them in the 60s. Interestingly, poverty stagnated right around that period. Perhaps because the clusterfuck of welfare enacted ended up giving leeway to insane income traps that keep poor at shitty wages because they'll have a lot of benefits taken away if they progress?

Another argument against the Capitalist system that particularly fucks the poor and lower middle class, then.

happen to cause economic growth and more profit for corporations.

Employment figures (tightly) and wage figures (not so tightly) follow economic growth. But yeah, it's up to your delusional mind to accept facts or bring up ineffective, imprecise and scarce anecdotes. I'm almost done with your denial of reality.

My historical analysis of the last time fewer regulations, lower government spending, and light corporate taxes existed in America in particular would say otherwise to your assessment there.

[Puldania]

Once again, where is the option for "politicians" in the poll?

[Great Minarchistan]

But it's also, at the same time, justifying the slavery by proxy by pulling stuff out of my ass. You shouldn't be happy about a high HDI built off the back of slavery and human rights abuses.

ftfy, your projection here is so incredible that I think you may very well display Infinity War on my TV screen

The Wall-Street suicides are a myth.

>Article kept focusing on 2008 rather than 1929
>Stock crash of 2008 was not even that severe and rebounded quickly
>Stock crash of 1929 wiped 75% of the dow within a year and it took decades to even return to the previous level
Anyways, your article contains an interesting thing:

The bulk of these requests were coming not from Wall Street but from places ranging from Wisconsin to Utah as Main Street America dealt with the ramifications of falling 401ks, increased distance to retirement, and underwater mortgages.

Common people losing away their lifetime savings quickly did increase interest on suicide. Guess that's exactly what I said two or three posts ago.

Yes, actually. Slavery and slave-like conditions exist across the whole of the UAE.

Do you know the specific qualification for slavery condition though? For instance, one country may qualify slavery as living under blackmail threat and receiving no pay plus torture, while another country may qualify slavery as people getting paid less than half of the minimum wage.

Because I don't trust statistics when compared to what people living in different conditions across the world actually have to say about those living conditions.

So instead you rely on anecdotes, which cover a smaller sample size and cannot quantify the subject being studied? This is the peak of anti-intellectualism.

Stop reading statistics and start actually looking at the problems.

Let's talk about the homelessness problem then. Personally I'd check the data on the amount of homeless people, look at the reasons behind why they're homeless, evaluate the distribution of homeless people across the country and relate it with the most relevant reasons (probably low income/unemployment and drugs), review the evolution of such variables and then formulate policies about what could be done to help those people. You can't do that if you leave big data and start to mumble about anecdotes, can you?

I guess you missed the part where work on those diamond mines is particularly horrifying. There was even a video recently from (I believe Botswana IIRC, maybe SA) where a fuckton of striking diamond miners were gunned down for protesting the crazy fucking abuses.

As if the condition of African workers in Morocco, DRC, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia among other countries wasn't the same...

But, again, that's not an issue I suppose, because the charts say otherwise.

Interesting that you mention that since Botswana has the sixth highest HDI in Africa out of 48 countries. But of course that doesn't matter because muh diamond mines make Botswana an obvious hellhole, the worst country of Africa...

Okay, how about I do you one better: Centuries-long slave plantations for sugar and the like that were 10x more horrific than anything the USA had going on, and wasn't even officially abolished until 1888, and still practically goes on anyway?

Fun fact: slaves in Brazil could buy their own freedom and many owned slaves themselves. There was a structure of social mobility among their group. Chico Rei is a famous example of that. Slavery was of course horrific but not as bad as in the US -- maybe it was even better.

But muh economic growth and HDI, amirite?

>Implying HDI doesn't factor slavery
Nice try.

Back then Brazil had (and still does have) arguably the most atrocious system of slavery ever seen.

Sauce for both claims.

Someone forgot what happened to the little guy during the Gilded Age, it seems.

>What were exceptional real wage increases during the period

Excessive bureaucracy also increases pay and decreases dangerous working conditions for the common laborer

Sauce?

Another argument against the Welfare* Capitalist system that particularly fucks the poor and lower middle class, then.

ftfy

My historical analysis of the last time fewer regulations, lower government spending, and light corporate taxes existed in America in particular would say otherwise to your assessment there.

Do you mind clarifying your claims?

[Great Minarchistan]

Once again, where is the option for "politicians" in the poll?

may as well place them among the retiree group due to their incredibly privileged social security pensions

[Torrocca]

But it's also, at the same time, justifying the slavery by proxy by pulling stuff out of my ass. You shouldn't be happy about a high HDI built off the back of slavery and human rights abuses.

ftfy, your projection here is so incredible that I think you may very well display Infinity War on my TV screen

Mmhmm. Sure.

Yes, actually. Slavery and slave-like conditions exist across the whole of the UAE.

Do you know the specific qualification for slavery condition though? For instance, one country may qualify slavery as living under blackmail threat and receiving no pay plus torture, while another country may qualify slavery as people getting paid less than half of the minimum wage.

I'd wager it's going off the UN's definition of slavery.

Because I don't trust statistics when compared to what people living in different conditions across the world actually have to say about those living conditions.

So instead you rely on anecdotes, which cover a smaller sample size and cannot quantify the subject being studied? This is the peak of anti-intellectualism.

Anecdotes AND actual evidence showing that shit's fucked, like imagery of living areas and the like.

Stop reading statistics and start actually looking at the problems.

Let's talk about the homelessness problem then. Personally I'd check the data on the amount of homeless people, look at the reasons behind why they're homeless, evaluate the distribution of homeless people across the country and relate it with the most relevant reasons (probably low income/unemployment and drugs), review the evolution of such variables and then formulate policies about what could be done to help those people. You can't do that if you leave big data and start to mumble about anecdotes, can you?

Sure you can. You don't need statistics to identify core problems behind homelessness.

I guess you missed the part where work on those diamond mines is particularly horrifying. There was even a video recently from (I believe Botswana IIRC, maybe SA) where a fuckton of striking diamond miners were gunned down for protesting the crazy fucking abuses.

As if the condition of African workers in Morocco, DRC, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia among other countries wasn't the same...

I guess because other countries experience the same kinds of horrific human rights abuses, but don't experience the economic growth that Botswana does, that justifies human rights abuses in the name of economic growth in Botswana.

But, again, that's not an issue I suppose, because the charts say otherwise.

Interesting that you mention that since Botswana has the sixth highest HDI in Africa out of 48 countries. But of course that doesn't matter because muh diamond mines make Botswana an obvious hellhole, the worst country of Africa...

Oh hey, a parallel to that UAE issue just above. Nice.

Okay, how about I do you one better: Centuries-long slave plantations for sugar and the like that were 10x more horrific than anything the USA had going on, and wasn't even officially abolished until 1888, and still practically goes on anyway?

Fun fact: slaves in Brazil could buy their own freedom and many owned slaves themselves. There was a structure of social mobility among their group. Chico Rei is a famous example of that. Slavery was of course horrific but not as bad as in the US -- maybe it was even better.

Sure, if they didn't die first. They were dying at such a horrendously quick rate that the Atlantic Slave Trade didn't stop officially until 1866 because of Brazil.

Also, believe it or not, US slaves could buy their freedom too. Slavery in the USA was degrees better than in Brazil. But that economic growth, amirite?

But muh economic growth and HDI, amirite?

>Implying HDI doesn't factor slavery
Nice try.

It apparently doesn't, seeing as the UAE is somehow factored at #14 globally for high HDI.

Back then Brazil had (and still does have) arguably the most atrocious system of slavery ever seen.

Sauce for both claims.

First one. Second one. Third one.

Someone forgot what happened to the little guy during the Gilded Age, it seems.

>What were exceptional real wage increases during the period

>What were absurd human rights abuses to the point of murder

C'mon, you're not even trying here.

Excessive bureaucracy also increases pay and decreases dangerous working conditions for the common laborer

Sauce?

How's about the era that came immediately after the Gilded Age, following things like Roosevelt's Anti-Trust Acts? That's a pretty good sauce for showing that shit vastly improved for workers.

Another argument against the Welfare* Capitalist system that particularly fucks the poor and lower middle class, then.

ftfy

Nope, just regular Capitalism.

My historical analysis of the last time fewer regulations, lower government spending, and light corporate taxes existed in America in particular would say otherwise to your assessment there.

Do you mind clarifying your claims?

Sure.

Y'know, you should stop taking out the context in the posts you're replying to (AKA your previous posts which are being replied to).

[Puldania]

Does this thread include Left-wing Anarchy, or is it exclusive to the American conservative-libertarian party?

[Torrocca]

Does this thread include Left-wing Anarchy, or is it exclusive to the American conservative-libertarian party?

It's supposed to include both wings of Libertarianism. The first thread, as I know, did.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The only reason it did is because none of us can ban you.

[Puldania]

Does this thread include Left-wing Anarchy, or is it exclusive to the American conservative-libertarian party?

It's supposed to include both wings of Libertarianism. The first thread, as I know, did.

I take it this one, not so much?

[Proctopeo]

It's supposed to include both wings of Libertarianism. The first thread, as I know, did.

I take it this one, not so much?

half tube theory is real

[Mushet]

Does this thread include Left-wing Anarchy, or is it exclusive to the American conservative-libertarian party?

There is left libertarianism, most of the regulars are fairly right wing though. The left-right bickering on here is pretty bad, but that has more to do with the attitudes of the posters involved.

[Puldania]

Does this thread include Left-wing Anarchy, or is it exclusive to the American conservative-libertarian party?

There is left libertarianism, most of the regulars are fairly right wing though. The left-right bickering on here is pretty bad, but that has more to do with the attitudes of the posters involved.

I think, although i'm not entirely sure, I'm a bit milder than Torocca.

Could be wrong, though.

[Mushet]

There is left libertarianism, most of the regulars are fairly right wing though. The left-right bickering on here is pretty bad, but that has more to do with the attitudes of the posters involved.

I think, although i'm not entirely sure, I'm a bit milder than Torocca.

Could be wrong, though.

Let's hope so, preferably more than a bit

[Puldania]

I think, although i'm not entirely sure, I'm a bit milder than Torocca.

Could be wrong, though.

Let's hope so, preferably more than a bit

So, your opinions on the abolition of currency and the mechanized automation of all labor, thus reducing man to a life of luxurious leisure?