cloudfifty

15 ms·

91.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> so long as it's the choice of the property owner. and there you have it. why libertarianism in it's propertarianism form has nothing to do with freedom and all to do with giving power to the property owners. > And yes, peo
92.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
I'll give you examples: Weren't the 19th century coal miners coerced by economic necessity to accept life threateningly bad working conditions? Weren't the parents of the child laborers coerced by economic necessity? How is t
93.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated. It would be
94.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all? Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea t
95.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
yup, exactly. Unfortunately the original meaning is almost never what's meant by libertarianism.
96.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and
97.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> What's euphemistic about my phrasing? Why would you otherwise feel the need to rephrase it and are still unable to explain the practical difference? > A deal isn't a coercive act. Having a metaphorical gun to one's he
98.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
What exactly in essentially removing the state but keeping private property precludes this scenario?
99.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
What's the difference in practice apart from the more euphemistic wording?
100.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private pr
101.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
How does "this land is mine now, you can work on it to feed yourself" translate somehow into the opposite of slavery?
102.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> What you are talking about is more Austrian economics. No, it's just the what libertarianism means 99 times out of a 100 when talking on HN or well, just Americans in general.
103.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
There nothing "freedom" about some sole family owning the only water supply generation after generation or whatever dystopian scenario that libertarianism likely would bring about. In practice it's just a dismantling of democ
104.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> libertarianism, which is literally to let everyone be themselves No, it isn't. Its core is to enforce private property rights? That will very likely not translate into "letting everyone be themselves".
105.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
To add some IMO relevant context: concordDance is a self-described racist.
106.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> I really hope that the rent-controls are abolished in my lifetime Well, of course you want that if you have a large salary and can pay the rents other people can't. Why not support government lead building of housing according to
107.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
This is a laughably biased article from my Swedish point-of-view. Really embarrassing from something like the BBC. They established that this is caused by rent control by fails throughout the article to even mention that rent control was _o
108.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> Gig work works at some level since both workers and customers want it. That's rather superficial. Workers want it compared to what? A full time job with benefits? Most likely not. It's mainly driven by sweatshop market logic
109.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
What an absurd amount of benefit of the doubt.
110.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
The [city] government can build housing according to need just as any other infrastructure. This would however go against a lot of interests, both institutional and citizens with a large mortgage, that depends on high housing prices. So it&
111.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
It's blatant.
112.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> Or are you a denier? You really are 100% trolling on this site. Here's refurb's previous "contributions" to the topic for anyone curious as to why I called him out: > Do you have data showing that every hurricane
113.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
I've answered both your original questions multiple times: > What is a "living salary"? > If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home? Your d
114.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> You sound very upset. Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?
115.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
For the last time. The concept of a living wage is not adapted on an individual basis. The problem of the US wrt a living wage is certainly not that single mothers of 3 children are the standard model, and you know that, hence bad faith. Yo
116.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
I'm not repeating myself again. But given your comment history I'm sure that you're just here in bad faith in general.
117.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?
118.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
That seems much more targeted and specific than the usual right wing talk about taxes causing high income people to work less (which implicitly values that above redistribution). It's also not a result (as in, X% of doctors have cut th
119.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
> people will find ways to work less to keep their earnings down Even if that is true and significant, I don't really find high income people skipping overtime to be major problem? But I'm curious to read more about the claim t
120.
by cloudfifty 5y ago
Pretty low quality question. Of course the salary will not adapt according to individuals expenses and neither will it here in Scandinavia. However, the father will of course be obliged to pay child support. The mother will also receive a m

More ›