Official Lolbertarian thread. Discuss the benefits of No goverment
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Is Rob Roy on restriction at whatever institution he is in?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This is a good talk on Libertarianism
Specifically the section around 16:35. Earlier, Sandel gives the two main requirements based on Robert Nozick's justification of what makes income distribution just; 1. Justice in Acquisition (initial holdings) & 2. Justice in Transfer (free market)
The problem I have with the discrepancy in income is the justice of acquisition for corporations like Walmart or McDonalds. They're very clearly exploiting their employees labor, the fact that they utilize government welfare programs to survive is the evidence. So @ginwilly or @Rob Roy , according to Nozick's interpretation of libertarianism, why do you believe corporations like the ones in my example are justly acquiring their wealth even though they're exploiting their labor force?
Specifically the section around 16:35. Earlier, Sandel gives the two main requirements based on Robert Nozick's justification of what makes income distribution just; 1. Justice in Acquisition (initial holdings) & 2. Justice in Transfer (free market)
The problem I have with the discrepancy in income is the justice of acquisition for corporations like Walmart or McDonalds. They're very clearly exploiting their employees labor, the fact that they utilize government welfare programs to survive is the evidence. So @ginwilly or @Rob Roy , according to Nozick's interpretation of libertarianism, why do you believe corporations like the ones in my example are justly acquiring their wealth even though they're exploiting their labor force?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't believe Walmart is justly acquiring their wealth. They enjoy a protected status being a government construct / corporation. Some of their potential competition has not been allowed to exist since the costs of entry to a retail market have been artificially restricted.
They also benefit heavily from the implementation of a distribution system using roads which are forcibly subsidized by people that in many cases aren't allowed to compete with them.
What they pay the people that work there isn't my business or yours though, it should be a mutual agreement made between the two interested parties and not by forcible imposition of an arbitrary authority.
Last edited:
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Years ago before Wal-Mart was as big as it is now 60 minutes did a story on then.
In it Wal-Mart was portrayed as good to it's employees.
That was a lie. They have been fucking over employees since the 70s
Btw the rest of your post. Shows just how insane you are
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Why don't you refute what I said then?
You can even use your "little boy" words when the concepts become to complex for you to comprehend.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What difference would that make? You have no examples in all of history of your model working. And you are quite insane
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
What difference would that make? You have no examples in all of history of your model working. And you are quite insane
If you could refute what I say, you would. There are at least two things preventing your refutation. One is you personally cannot mount a coherent and consistent argument. Two, the facts reside in my corner, not yours.
Also, I have better teeth than that picture you posted.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
This is the best you can do. Your model has been addressed many times. Your questions have been answered many times.
Addressing your idiocy would be redundant.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Don't forget to brush, that selfie you took tells me you need a better dental hygiene plan.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
In your world
Who should build the roads?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The people that own them should, or they should make an agreed to contract with other people to build them.
In your world you've insisted that absent government force roads would not exist, where is your evidence of this?
Isn't it possible to fund things based on the idea that people who use them, actually pay for them? That occurs in a free market all the time, so why would roads be exempt from that?
Also, other modes of transportation have been forcibly denied by government bureaucracy and red tape.
It's entirely within technological possibility to have an effective means of travel that doesn't require roads as they presently exist as the main mode of personal transport.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
So In other words. Wal-mart should build the roads to the customers? Or vice versa? Should the suppliers build the roads to Wal-mart or vice versa. If these roads are private then only authorized people can use them? They can charge to use these roads and deny people their use for any reason?
Should everyone own a helicopter? You really are this bat shit insane.
BTW it's worth noting that WE own the roads
We are the Goverment
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, i'm sure that would excite you, sicko.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we already do that.
there is a contract that every time you buy gas, you pay a tax on a percentage of that gas which goes towards building and maintaing the roads.
pedophile.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, WE, do not own the roads. Somebody lied to you and you lapped it up like a good little Prohibitionist. WE are forced to subsidize them and must have the correct "travel papers" to use them or possibly be killed for disobedience and failure to comply. I do not own the roads, you do not own the roads and no aggregate of common folk "owns" the roads. You are spouting platitudes, like a duck billed Platitudipuss. Your job is to pay for the roads and obey, slave.
What should happen is ..People that own the roads should pay to build them. People that use the roads should pay to use them. In the existing paradigm that isn't always what happens. Walmart enjoys protected status as a corporation and gains economies of scale via the public subsidy of roads. I'll stop this part of the conversation though as you will drown in your lack of comprehension if I go too deep into it.
Helicopters ? Maybe. Which other means of efficient travel haven't been developed since so many hamsters on the treadmills have their resources diverted into the warfare / welfare state is something you don't seem to give any thought to...The existence of government protectionism diverts resources away from innovation and punishes people that innovate without "permission".
Government regulations hinder the development of alternative sources of energy and travel thru protectionism, licensure and intervention in the free flow of trade. In the absence of government, it is entirely possible (very likely) that alternative modes of travel would be available, cheaper and more efficient. A nanny state industrial monopoly stifles and restricts innovation, a free market does not.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your ability to extract an insult from the context is supreme. Score one for Poopy Pants!!!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You use the term "contract" incorrectly. A uni-lateral contract is not in any real sense a contract between people engaging in fair exchange. Your affection for government boot leather has addled your perception of the true meanings of words, slave.
Also, you seem fixated on calling me something I'm not. At least when I call you Poopy Pants it has some sort of shitty link to your past behavior. Work on your insults, I think you can do better.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I dont think you have any comprehension what poverty means in America. It is an arbitrary number determined by the government.
What are poverty thresholds?
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure, which was developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration in the 1960s. [2] Updated each year by the Census Bureau, the thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes–for example, preparing the estimates of the number of Americans in poverty for each year's poverty report. The measure was devised to define and quantify poverty in America, and thereby provide a yardstick for progress or regress in antipoverty efforts, and in that sense has served the nation well.
Values of the poverty thresholds for the years since 1980 for families of different sizes are available on the Census Bureau's website. The most recent values of the poverty thresholds are provided in the table below. For example, a four-person family with two adults and two children is poor with annual cash income below $23,283; the threshold for a four-person family with a single parent and three children is $23,364.
U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds, 2012
Size of Family UnitPoverty Threshold
One person (unrelated individual)$11,720
Under age 6511,945
Age 65 or older11,011
Two people14,937
Householder under age 6515,450
Householder age 65 or older13,892
Three people18,284
Four people23,492
Five people27,827
Six people31,471
Seven people35,743
Eight people39,688
Nine people or more47,297
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds, 2012, released in September 2013.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart pays at least 9.34 an hour.
If you were working full time at walmart you would have to claim more than two dependents to meet the poverty level.
Is walmart supposed to pay their employees by the number of dependents they have? Is that going to be one of your new requirements? According to this a person making over 23 bucks an hour is below the poverty level if they are claiming 8 dependents. Walmarts problem or yours?
