harrumph

19 ms·

121.
by harrumph 10y ago
>This is not to justify wage slavery or underpaid workforces [...] I grant this is not your intent, but it is nonetheless exactly the effect of the line of thought. For me, the core of the burnout problem is non-cooperative ownership of
122.
by harrumph 10y ago
>That's capitalism, sometimes (a lot of times) businesses fail. Agreed, and add: it's actually the overwhelming majority.
123.
by 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
124.
by harrumph 10y ago
Here'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, spec
125.
by harrumph 10y ago
Yes, 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
126.
by harrumph 10y ago
>That's a lie. We can all read what you typed. In the real, existing world, unrestricted capital flight is in no way equivalent to merely "firing someone". >Employers drug testing employees violates no one's rights
127.
by harrumph 10y ago
>A boardroom firing someone is not violating anyone's rights. Which is why "firing someone" doesn't appear on my very lengthly list of everyday tyranny that libertarians endorse. >Shame on you and your inhuman dema
128.
by harrumph 10y ago
>It's so adorable that I don't want people's human rights to be violated ...except when the boardroom does it, and boardrooms do it all day every day, in far, far greater measure than the governments in our business-run so
129.
by harrumph 10y ago
> [Consumer and worker protections] restrict their rights and forces them to follow government preferences over their own. The problem is this adorable libertarian dedication to freedom and voluntary interactions naturally ends the secon
130.
by harrumph 10y ago
>I think you could have made your point without the ad hominem. Fair enough. I hope that everybody involved will survive the encounter.
131.
by harrumph 10y ago
>Something being funded by the Kochs doesn't automatically make it a Koch propaganda outfit. When that something is a "think tank", adults understand that what it produces is intellectual ammunition for increased privatiza
132.
by harrumph 10y ago
Did you read this in English, or Portugese? I'm interested and I can't find an English translation.
133.
by harrumph 10y ago
Given that the company's own CEO didn't use his own company's "Zestimate" when it was time to zell his house, I think the accuracy of the number is fairly perceived to be zub-optimal. "You gotta eat your own do
134.
by harrumph 10y ago
>But if the employer could pay less for labor in the U.S. then perhaps they would have kept the jobs here. The notion of a sustained equilibrium between supply and demand is a real-world fiction to begin with, but even if it was not, we
135.
by harrumph 10y ago
>Is there any good way to solve it that won't result in less valid science work getting funded? Bona fide science has peer review and falsifiability. Also imperfect, but nowhere nearly as commonly manipulated as is economics for hir
136.
by harrumph 10y ago
> I wonder if the old redistributive working class left wasn't deliberately undermined by a push towards a more abstract, more divisive, and less politically coherent academic/intellectual left which focused on tokenism and ide
137.
by harrumph 10y ago
ITT: Lots of people talking about how Stallman is this, Stallman is that, when Stallman is once again 110% right -- this time, about Uber.
138.
by harrumph 10y ago
>Is the minimum wage too high or something? I would ask in response: why does anyone still believe that the supply of something, rather than the demand of it, overdetermines the price of a thing? This seems at best an incomplete worldvie
139.
by harrumph 10y ago
>The neoliberal approach throws your population under the bus as quickly as possible as they are not deemed worthy of investment. Absolutely. In fact, that's not just neoliberalism, it's capitalism generally. The fundamental i
140.
by harrumph 10y ago
>Not sure why the American people care so much about it. It's gone and not coming back. Because millions of older, former Obama voters in the rust belt can recall when their small towns weren't chained-shut shitholes drowning i
141.
by harrumph 10y ago
>The issues this election raised aren't going to be solved by writing code. I agree, but I would say that actively selecting what kind of code you will write using criteria that value wide economic utility -- much wider, say, than t
142.
by harrumph 10y ago
>No effort towards innovation would then go into that sector. Ever again. Good. You're talking about something that needs to handle a small handful of registers perfectly and produce a paper audit trail. Innovation is not only not
143.
by harrumph 10y ago
>Layoffs are capitalism and efficiency and all that so nothing to hold against GS but I find it strange how difficult it is to disloge the upper echelons even after unethical, reputation damaging and near criminal activities. I think cap
144.
by harrumph 10y ago
No apology needed! And yes, the tuning standard emerged from the wishes of the owner of a single mallet instrument factory in Chicago named Deagan. http://richsamuels.com/nbcmm/deagan/index.html
145.
by harrumph 10y ago
You are wrong about that. This is the third or fourth time I've seen this dippy nonsense in print, and I wish it did not persist. Its central sin is that it obscures the mundane, industrial-based reasons for the tuning standard's
146.
by harrumph 10y ago
I have no idea why this laughable article/idea persists, but the actual answer about 440 Hz is completely commercial and mundane. Decisions made by the J.C. Deagan mallet instrument company at 1770 W. Berteau in Chicago are the sole re
147.
by harrumph 10y ago
I'm not throwing away my / bot No I'm not throwing away my / bot I'm just like an attendee / No need to be unfriendly And I'm not throwing away my / bot
148.
by harrumph 10y ago
"[The Democrats] get you stuff like free healthcare, free college, unemployment insurance, etc." No offense, but there's something basic that is amiss with a formulation when two thirds of the examples given are political res
149.
by harrumph 10y ago
" Liberals do not refer to property as a mere social construct." Excellent point. Liberals are de facto capitalists.
150.
by harrumph 10y ago
Thanks for this. I'd say these are reviews taking place in a clinical setting and geared toward generating a care plan with a time frame of some length. Under these conditions, we could expect a patient to be laboring under the fewest

More ›