3 ms·
>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town someho
by aminok 10y ago
>unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone".
It's doing it on a larger scale. You're implying the people of the town somehow gain a right to the capital on account of the owners of the capital having been invested in that town for an extended period of time.
Again, you're resorting to appeals to emotion to distract from the fact that what you're really implying is that people get rights to the capital of others without others contractually agreeing to transfer any capital to them, which is a nonvoluntary transfer of capital that violates the capital owner's rights.
>It violates the right to privacy, as bona fide advocates for the right to privacy understand very well.
It in no way violates a right to privacy. If I offer you $1,000 for you to let me film in your home for a year, and you agree, your privacy rights have not been violated. If I sneak into your home and record you, then your rights have been violated.
The fact that you think someone providing private information as part of an exchange where they receive compensation, like submitting to drug tests as part of an employment contract where they receive compensation, shows that you have no integrity when it comes to politics, and don't bother to fact-check your own beliefs before aggressively promoting them. You simply don't care if what you're promoting is the truth or not.
- harrumph 10y agoYes, I am aware that libertarians are forced to deny that the freedoms they totally fail to protect -- as I have said and you continue to prove -- are freedoms at all. That comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that rests upon category errors that don't survive their first trip into the existing world.
- aminok 10y agoYou do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.
- harrumph 10y agoHere's a hint: this darling little bubble you live in where consent and volunteerism allegedly rule the day actually happens to utterly exclude your holiest of holies: property rights -- which rest on nothing but violent coercion, specifically not on consent. When you understand that, you'll graduate. Not before.
- aminok 10y agoYou do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Exercising our rights to our own body is a case of us doing this. You want a society where everyone in the world has to unanimously agree with every decision you make for it to be consensual, which makes for a totally unworkable world model, which describes socialism in a nutshell.
- harrumph 10y ago>You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Yes, I am aware that the seizure from natives of the trillions worth of real estate the US is built on is not considered any infringement by libertarians. Their liberty is not worth considering nor defending -- and that comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that loudly pretends it isn't built utterly upon coercion.