Most of these “snap” responses are multiple sentences long. The fact of the matter is that we do not have any snap responses, because we go against conventional wisdom. Only those arguing for the conventional wisdom can ever have snap responses which the general public understand.
I didn’t say overall risk. I said risk-free income. So if you got paid a dollar a day you might not be able to afford warm clothes and die, which would be very risky. But the income stream is not.
I KNOW that this definition of employment is wrong. That’s the point. That people aren’t really looking for “jobs”, they’re looking to use someone else’s capital with a gauranteed stream of income. Obviously any sane person would concede that sustenance farmers are “employed”, as are people who play the stock market on their own (maybe poorly). It demonstrates that there aren’t a lack of jobs, there are a lack of jobs conforming to the whitebread American model. That’s fine, but if the mainstream is really concerned with that subset of jobs, you have to start asking specific questions about capital rent and risk preferences.
Yeah. There’s no “They took our jobs!” one-liner. I think they’re still fast enough to rattle off though.
“They took our jobs!”
“But made us richer anyway by lowering our prices!”
Your disdain for the poor will not win you many arguments.
Here’s a one liner that basically goes with what you’re saying;
“Job? You mean a lazy free loader exploiting ownership?”
Well maybe I have just not been a good messenger. I have gotten in numerous debates with my father’s friend, who used to be pretty much a full-fledged marxist, but since backed off a little bit and is now just very left-democrat. At least we agreed on privatizing education and foreign policy (non-intervention). However, for some reason every other topic becomes an argument and ultimately rooted in the same thing, he believes coercion is justified, necessary and not immoral, while I disagree. So it became clear that our disagreements in our debates about various policies and such stemmed from this single top-level idea. I know his arguments are contradictory, especially if he believes in privatizing education, and I’ve tried to point it out but it hasn’t work, I think another problem also is that he has known me since I was a baby and is 30+ years older than me and would never admit he is wrong to a “kid”
Its technically true.
He can do the work himself. I mean, then he could really, justifiably, call himself a “self-made man.”
Seriously, are you so far gone you really believe that?
Well most people can be sustenance farmers. It isn’t glamorous but if we’re just talking about “employment” its true.
Well most people can be sustenance farmers. It isn’t glamorous but if we’re just talking about “employment” its true.
They could be, it’s true. Unfortunately, only theoretically. You’re not farming at all in an apt. And you’re not farming subsistence on 1/2 an acre.
MSM: Whaaa? You’re an anarchist? That’s chaos.
Chaos like when you appoint people to run a country and they destroy the currency, or chaos like the internet, which is largely unregulated?
MSM: That’s going to cause unemployment / That’s going to create jobs
How? (This answer is probably the best for the first three statements.)
MSM: The government can do X
Can’t think of a single example that proves it.
MSM: What about the poor?
I don’t know. How are they doing now?
MSM: They want to cut taxes on the rich.
Define rich. Also, are you claiming that rich people never spend money on things that can benefit others? Because I’m pretty sure they give more to charities in a year than you even make in ten. (Great to say to middle-class workers!)
MSM: You are just a greedy shill for the rich, I am noble and selfless.
Can I have five thousand dollars for my operation? I can’t afford it. Yeah. That’s what I thought. Selfless indeed. Ass.
You don’t have to make a profit for it to be a job. Isn’t BP still “employed”?
MSM: You are just a greedy shill for the rich, I am noble and selfless.
Can I have five thousand dollars for my operation? I can’t afford it. Yeah. That’s what I thought. Selfless indeed. Ass.
Interestingly enough, everybody’s favorite lefty Michael Moore paid $10k to one of his biggest critics when the critic was going to have to shut his site down because his wife needed an operation.
Whether or not he did it so he could put it in a movie and pat himself on the back publicly is irrelevant (but probly true lol). He still did it.
^Yeah out of all the people who needed money for an operation, MM just happened to pick one of his strongest critics.
Sounds to me like his critics know how to make a good investment. But remember…Michael Moore is one of the greedy, capitalist fat-cats, who can throw money around like that. Those are the kind of people that the asking these questions are supposed to hate vehemently. Ergo, the person my response applies to will likely not have that kind of cash to throw around, and certainly wouldn’t do so selflessly Is it selfless to hand over five grand to win an argument? If it comes down to it, is it selfless to toss 10k at a one’s critics, or is it merely thinking of the future?
But the notion is pointless. The fact of the matter is that the “noble and selfless” are only such insofar as they are willing to take from others to pay for the medical expenses of those they feel sympathy for.
Even if Mr. Moore’s intentions were “clean,” his willingness to donate money to another person for whatever reason does not give him the slightest bit of authority to take mine, or anyone else’s.
To: Anarchy=Chaos.
“Yeah, because the only thing stopping me from shooting you in the face and taking your wallet is fear of punishment.”
To: Government Jobs
“How much will each job pay? How much will be appropriated, per job?”
To: Government Competence re: X
“So you’re saying that you can’t think of any way to do X other than pointing guns at the heads of innocents? Why should your incompetence be a rationalization for pointing guns at innocents?”
To: The Poor
“People kept slaves for thousands of years… and profited. Fact is, the productivity of an enslaved person is usually better than subsistence. Anybody who can’t make enough to survive in a free society… well… he’d better be a sympathetic figure.”
To: Cut taxes on rich
“Oh my God! They’re letting people keep what they earn! Unless you have some evidence it was earned by criminal activity, shut up.”
To: Ad Hominem
“Bah. Goddamn goon.”
The strongest group robbers protecting their “herd” from being overmilked by the little robbers. Not much of an argument against robbery, now is it.
And if the herd is not actually helpless, but can defend itself expertly from little robbers, then its a pretty good argument against (institutionalized) robbery.
MSM: Restaurants need to be more regulated and should have to display nutrition information (e.g. calories, fat, carbs, etc) about their meals.
Ancap: Should you then every time you have a dinner party or cook for your family? Otherwise, how are they going to know if what you’re serving them is healthy?
This may be followed with:
MSM: But, but… They can just go make their own dinner/No one’s forcing them to eat my food/
Ancap: …
To
[quote]
(Why Capitalism? - #108 by Lilburne) myself, "If all one cares about is winning arguments by any means necessary, and not about the truth of the position, or clarity regarding why you yourself want the social order to be a certain way, then I suppose it’s not a “versus scenario”. If one adopts such a sophistic approach, there aren’t any versus scenarios with regard to arguments. You could take this approach as far as you want to go. “Libertarianism, because of human utility! You don’t understand economics? Okay, libertarianism because the state violates natural rights! You’re religious? Okay, libertarianism, because the state violates God-given rights! You’re into logic? Okay, libertarianism because to advocate anything else would be a performative contradiction! You’re into evolution? Okay, libertarianism because it furthers the species! You’re into aliens? Okay, libertarianism because Xenu demands it!”
To me this approach is not only distasteful, but it is ultimately counterproductive, because it discredits us in the eyes of others. I think this eclectic approach to argumentation betrays a tendency to fetishize libertarianism, and the latter causes non-libertarians to dismiss us as a monomaniacal sect who has nothing to say to those who aren’t already “liberty lovers” at a gut level."