There's no need to "trick" you. You said it on your own:
> I'm gonna punch them for it.
285 karma · joined December 17, 2019
> I'm gonna punch them for it.
Don't play coy. Punching someone is not the same thing as "showing them the door".
The comment is simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard that pervades this discussion.
If pointing this out makes you angry, that's not an issue with the comment, but an issue with your ability to handle information that undermines your constructed narrative.
Exactly.
Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg
Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg
> It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please join us in reality when you're ready.
I rest my case. I was suggesting that you take your own advice, instead of throwing stones in glass houses.
What mental gymnastics led you to this conclusion? It's obvious that the comment was pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy that pervades this discussion.
Why do you conflate any discussion of censorship and freedom of speech with the First Amendment of the US’s constitution?
Not at all. Far from it. This is a very naive view of voting and public choice systems. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure#Political_s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#%22Expressive_in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Pournelle's_ir...
You’re claiming that all these people you’ve met are anarcho-capitalists? Are you under the impression that cultural conservatism means anarcho-capitalism?
> but the opposite absolutist position is somewhat common
You’ve provided no evidence that it is more common. In my experience, the opposite is true.
https://bg.hbr.org/1997/05/can-business-really-do-business-w...
https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/Indianapolis-Mayor-Step...
The Implicit Association Test at Age 21: No Evidence for Construct Validity [0]
> The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is 21 years old. Greenwald et al. (1998) proposed that the IAT measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit personality characteristics and that a single-construct model fits multi-method data as well or better than a dual-construct models. Thus, the IAT appears to be a measure of the same personality characteristics that are measured with explicit measures. I also show that the validity of the IAT varies across personality characteristics. It has low validity as a measure of self-esteem, moderate validity as a measure of racial bias, and high validity as a measure of political orientation. The existing evidence also suggests that the IAT measures stable characteristics rather than states and has low predictive validity of single behaviors. Based on these findings, it is important that users of the IAT clearly distinguish between implicit measures and implicit constructs. The IAT is an implicit measure, but there is no evidence that it measures implicit constructs.
The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight [1]
> The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism.
Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job [2]
[0] https://replicationindex.com/2019/02/15/iat21
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem...
[2] https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-...
These also apply to individuals.
Don't butcher the English language.
That's not what coercion means. Persuasion is not a "coercion".
(((w ∨ c) → a) ↔ ((w → a) ∧ (c → a)))
That is, an implication whose antecedent is a disjunction is a conjunction of implications. On the other hand,
((a → (w ∨ c)) ↔ ((a → w) ∨ (a → c)))
That is, an implication whose consequent is a disjunction is a disjunction of implications.
Not sure what you mean by "western" property rights. I'll assume you meant private property rights.
> turn out not to prevent famine at all
They do prevent famine. They don't prevent all famine. To conflate the two, as you have done here, is dishonest.
Certainly private property rights cannot prevent every natural disaster—that's not "strange" at all—but lack of respect for them can certainly amplify the effect of natural disasters.
For example, regarding the Great Irish Famine [0]:
After the defeat of James II in 1690 a series of “penal laws” were passed by the Irish Parliament, dominated by the Protestant minority who had supported William III. The first, in 1695, took away the right of Catholics to bear arms. Another forbade Catholics to go overseas for education and prohibited them from teaching or running schools within Ireland. The most important however was the Act to Prevent the Further Growth of Popery (1704). This prevented Catholics from buying land or inheriting it from Protestants, or from leasing land for more than 31 years. At about this time the potato was introduced as a major crop. The combination of the legislation and the new crop was ultimately disastrous.
The penal laws, together with other legislation, created a set of powerful and perverse incentives. Because Catholic tenant farmers could not own land or hold it on anything but short-term leases, with little or no security of tenure, they had no incentive to improve their land or modernize agricultural practice. All the benefit would go to the hated alien class of Protestant landlords in higher rents or more expensive leases.
By 1841, 45 percent of all holdings were of less than five acres. The lack of capital and the restraints on the Catholic majority meant that Irish commerce and manufacturing did not develop, and by 1841, 5.5 million out of a population of over 8 million were totally dependent on agriculture. The final, extra twist was the impact of the Corn Laws, the system of protection for English agriculture set up in the early nineteenth century that prohibited the import of grain until prices reached a particular level. This had the effect of preserving the flawed Irish farming system.
I'm not sure if you read your second link, but it doesn't refer to any particular famine. You'll have to be more specific.
[0] https://fee.org/articles/lessons-of-history-the-great-irish-...
It is relevant insofar as it addresses the question of private property and its value as an institution, which is precisely what the chain of comments I replied to was discussing.
I'm not sure why you chose to take issue with my comment, but not those preceding comments.
> The Bengal Famine
Another illustrative example of a famine caused by State policies and lack of respect for people's private property: Japanese raids and destruction of merchant ships, government-ordered destruction of rice stocks, trade barriers, the "rice denial" and "boat denial" policies, refusal of imports, etc.
2. Here's the definition of zoning:
> Zoning is a method of urban planning in which a municipality or other tier of government divides land into areas called zones, each of which has a set of regulations for new development that differs from other zones.
Here's the definition of libertarianism:
> Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.
In what way is government dictating that you can't build more housing on your property "libertarian"? You're pulling some desperate mental gymnastics.
> As for zoning laws, they are absolutely libertarian, in the sense that the people who have made it are using them to pull the ladder up behind them.
Literal nonsense. That's not what "libertarian" means.
How does making everyone worse off make things better? For example, inequality skyrocketed in China after they liberalized their economy [0]. Why would it be better for everyone to be equally miserable and starving? I really don't understand this mentality.
How Effective is Government Welfare Compared to Private Charity? [0]
“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”
Later on Edwards adds: “In fact, the average cost of private charity generally is almost certainly lower than the one-quarter to one-third estimated by Charity Navigator and other private sector charity rating services…” and tells why.
The bottom line: Government spends about 70% of tax dollars to get 30% of tax dollars to the poor. The private sector does the opposite, spending about 30% or less to get 70% of aid to the poor.
[0] https://www.theadvocates.org/2013/06/effective-government-we...
Huh?
> rather than contemplate what was written
That’s exactly what I did?
Do you actually have anything substantive to say?