Libertarians

[SpineyNorman]

So you're actually defending me? Okay, you're a Cretan and not a cretin, but I don't really have time to play paradoxes.

What on earth are you on about? You defended that article - claiming it didn't advocate paying black workers half the wages of white workers as a step towards overcoming racism even though it did - while saying you disagreed with it. You both defended and disagreed with the article.

Fuck knows what a Cretan is and I don't see the paradox.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

What on earth are you on about? You defended that article - claiming it didn't advocate paying black workers half the wages of white workers as a step towards overcoming racism even though it did - while saying you disagreed with it. You both defended and disagreed with the article.

Fuck knows what a Cretan is and I don't see the paradox.

I didn't look at the article*, I looked at the quote. J Ed's selected quote didn't say what he said the article did. Which was my point.

Your response appeared to be that disagreeing with something was a sneaky way of defending it, which is where I reached for Epimenides.



*Because I was on a crap tablet at the time which doesn't open links very well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Link doesn't work for me either. Probably just as well, tbh.

 

[treelover]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest


Wallace is in the Guardian again

apparently, he is also now executive editor of Conservative home, a tory rising star?

 

[shagnasty]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest


Wallace is in the Guardian again

apparently, he is also now executive editor of Conservative home, a tory rising star?

The comments made it clear quite early in the comments

 

[J Ed]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/conservative-party-self-interest


Wallace is in the Guardian again

apparently, he is also now executive editor of Conservative home, a tory rising star?

That's such an awful article, I'm pretty sure I could write a much more convincing argument as to why the Tories aren't self-interested and it's really obvious to me that they are

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Some sort of online dating FaceSpace thing for libertards.

 

[rekil]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves

A GROUP of self-described anarchists, libertarians and Ron Paul supporters fleeing the crumbling world economic system have founded Galt's Gulch, a community in Chile inspired by Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged”—and with an economy based entirely on Bitcoin. Or that's the goal, anyway.

"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos,” Ken Johnson, the project’s founder and managing partner, explains. "But Bitcoin as the John Galt coin? Why shouldn't it be?”

"The farm came with 65 hectares of lemons,"

 

[Lo Siento.]

The only time I've ever approved of sticking "self-described" in front of the word anarchists.

"Our farm workers and suppliers still want to get paid in pesos"

I'm not entirely sure what they reckon is even specifically libertarian about their community. I mean if theyre still paying taxes and adhering to chilean law?

 

[DotCommunist]

by day three they will be crawling around puking up bits of lemon and the farmworkers will rob them.

 

[Combustible]

With any luck

 

[FNG]

This is what libertarians actually believe

The solution to racism is to pay black people half of what you pay white people for the same work

http://www.turningpointusa.net/greed-ultimate-enemy-racism/

wow just wow.

Somehow to make that argument work one would have to ignore the actual history of the united states, and how racially divisive such employment practices were.The results of using black labour to undermine Terms&Conditions of white labour were far to frequently race riots and mass lynchings,in the short term.And resulted in Segregated lunch counters and jim crow in the long.
One would have to also ignore primarily the role of Black labour organising itself and demanding equal pay and civil rights, and secondary the outlawing of such discriminatory practices under JFKs New frontier program, which also made an attempt to tackle gender pay inequality too.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

wow just wow.

Somehow to make that argument work one would have to ignore the actual history of the united states, and how racially divisive such employment practices were.The results of using black labour to undermine Terms&Conditions of white labour were far to frequently race riots and mass lynchings,in the short term.And resulted in Segregated lunch counters and jim crow in the long.
One would have to also ignore primarily the role of Black labour organising itself and demanding equal pay and civil rights, and secondary the outlawing of such discriminatory practices under JFKs New frontier program, which also made an attempt to tackle gender pay inequality too.

No-one was making that argument, though.

 

[FNG]

did you read the article yet? or would you rather continue to defend the article from a position of ignorance?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

did you read the article yet? or would you rather continue to defend the article from a position of ignorance?

Yep, finally. It's a silly article which suggests that the invisible hand of the market evens out all prejudice. But while that's a silly point, it's not the same silly point that J Ed made.

I don't believe that I've "defended" the article anywhere in this thread.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yep, finally. It's a silly article which suggests that the invisible hand of the market evens out all prejudice. But while that's a silly point, it's not the same silly point that J Ed made.

I don't believe that I've "defended" the article anywhere in this thread.

Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.

It doesn't.

It proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario of wage inequality and then suggests that in this scenario wages would eventually level out. It doesn't propose any specific steps towards ending inequality in the real world. It merely makes the (weak) point that if greed is unrestrained (which it isn't) and if all other things are equal (they aren't) then greed will triumph over prejudice.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It doesn't.

It proposes a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario of wage inequality and then suggests that in this scenario wages would eventually level out. It doesn't propose any specific steps towards ending inequality in the real world. It merely makes the (weak) point that if greed is unrestrained (which it isn't) and if all other things are equal (they aren't) then greed will triumph over prejudice.

...because people will want to employ black workers for less than white ones. Are you sure you've read it?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I could say exactly the same. Would that get us anywhere?

 

[FNG]

Yes it is - you're doing it again - the article really does argue that the first step towards overcoming racial inequality is for employers to take black workers on at lower wages.

And also that racist employers would have any reservation about enacting such discriminatory policies.Even by Paeleolibertarian standards thats pretty weak

 

[FNG]

Still it made me read up on the 1892 New Orleans strike where black and white unions collectively held together to demand and gain equal T&C despite the bosses and local press using every trick in the divide and rule book. Up to and including publishing fictitious accounts of rampaging black mobs,the standard lynch parties call to arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1892_New_Orleans_general_strike

 

[J Ed]

Yeah the idea that a right wing American website is arguing this as an abstract idea in a vacuum is ridiculous.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I could say exactly the same. Would that get us anywhere?

Yes. Because then you'd be admitting their argument that

greed would triumph over prejudice

takes as its starting point people employing black workers for less than white ones.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Oh God.

Last post on this.

Suppose I said: "imagine that two children live in a loft and need to share six sweets".

Would you then accuse me of wanting children to be kept in attics as a precursor to redistributive justice? The Yank used a foolish hypothesis to make a point.

 

[J Ed]

Weird how a group of people who are usually apologists for white supremacy ended up coming up with that hypothesis and conclusion

 

[FNG]

Oh God.
The Yank used a foolish hypothesis to make a point.

a hypothesis which doesn't stand up to even the most cursory of examinations,which even you have somewhat begrudgingly admitted to yet you still attack and dismiss other peoples criticisms of the article out of hand by trying to frame and limit the debate to an isolated excerpt that you have chosen to comment upon devoid of context of both the entirety of the article and its position in a wider social attack by Paelolibertarians on equal pay legislation.Bankrolled by the likes of Ron Paul et al

Why?

 

[FNG]

Suppose I said: "imagine that two children live in a loft and need to share six sweets".

Would you then accuse me of wanting children to be kept in attics as a precursor to redistributive justice?

No however if your hypothisis relied on the assumption that eating sweets alone provided all the calorific intake required for raising healthy children and your "research" was funded by josef fritzel and the british dentistry association,expect to get called on it

 

[J Ed]

Rand Paul responds to West Virginia chemical spill which has led to the contamination of the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people by calling for further deregulation http://aattp.org/yes-rand-paul-is-s...deregulation-after-west-virginia-water-spill/

I struggle to think of these people as being entirely human.

 

[nino_savatte]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/libertarian-enclaves

That'll go well.

 

[Quartz]

Libertarians would be taken much more seriously if they mentioned responsibility more. Just as you're free to do something so you have to accept the responsibility for doing it.