/liberty/ - Liberty

>>57813

Confront them with it. They're deliberately lying and using emotional manipulation instead of engaging readers on an intellectual level. If they don't understand, they probably aren't good people or friends.

>>57813

>our local AnCap newspaper

Where the fuck do you live where such a thing as a 'local ancap newspaper' exists?!?!?!

>>57813

>low-key members of antifa

Why are they members of antifa and how do you manage to stay friends with people that want to take away your liberty?

>>57816

I don't want to be hit with a bike lock.

>>57824

http://frontrangevoluntaryist.com/media.html

>>57825

>Why are they members of antifa?

Because they're idealistic idiots that think antifa isn't violent/the violence of antifa/local socialist groups is fixable, but nazis deserve the premeditated punchings.

Our antifa group lives in a military town that's extremely conservative, and most of them are college kids. They'd be shot if they actually attacked anyone, but they like to think they're prepared to punch people. It's kind of cute. Most of them are old friends from High School who just fucked up their lives doing stupid shit and racked up massive debt.

>>57829

The concept of freedom or actualized freedom? I don't think the former is really explicit to capitalism, but I think the latter can only be discovered/actualized by a capitalist mindset.

>>57813

You're a poor judge of character and probably unsorted. Check out Jordan Peterson to help straighten you out.

A little off-topic, but this is the only active board that's economically literate so I thought I'd ask: Is an IRA (specifically Roth because taxes have a tendency to increase in the long-term) a good, stable way to invest personal savings, or is it just a meme?

>>57813

>Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread

I thought this was the Tor thread. Well, no matter…

>>57824

>local AnCap newspaper

What the flying fuck.

>>57843

Here's what gets me about those. If you're already speculating about whether taxes are going to increase in the future, shouldn't you also be speculating about whether the government is even going to keep their promise that they won't double-dip into retirement accounts?

Something I've been wondering about…are people with more degrees are more likely to get a disproportionate share of their income from the State?

Basically, I want to look up statistics about how many people work for the government by education level. Can anyone point me somewhere?

>>57843

It is if you know what you are doing in terms of investment knowledge. People may say "how do you know that the market won't collapse or the country get overthrown", well we don't know and in any apocalyptic scenario no investment is a sure investment. In the meantime we make do with the options we have. So yes make sure to take advantage of a Roth and/or 401(k).

>>57845

Are you referring to people who are employed by the state, or welfare leeches?

>>57832

Is Colorado /liberty/ friendly or has it really become California pt 2?

I've lived in California and Massachusetts my whole life and want to live anywhere that isn't 2 steps away from communism

>>57891

>I've lived in California and Massachusetts my whole life

Ouch.

You want liberty, friend? Go rural.

>>57932

Fuck that, not moving to Colorado then, sounds like a raw deal. The biggest dealbreaker is actually the part where I have to drive 70-100 miles for a decent job. I have issues with 50 mile drives(albeit in Boston where the roads are pure garbage) so 70 would make me insane.

What state is most /liberty/ friendly then? Do I have to move to Asheville/Keene or do I have other options

>>58047

I don't think I'll ever bother becoming a parent. I had no good models for parenting growing up, I'm fucking struggling financially thanks to college debt (biggest fucking mistake I ever made), and it's really not easy to build a family these days (most women are just fucking not worth it, and I certainly wouldn't ever have kids with most of them).

>>57946

It's 70-100 miles going an average of 60-90mph on the highway, so it's not too horrible. Anything That isn't highway or major roadway is littered with potholes though. The police go after people driving straight because sober folks drive like they're drunk to avoid the potholes.

>>58047

I want to have kids one day. Partially to continue my failed bloodline, partially to say fuck you to my dad since he was a horrible father/abusive/an alcoholic and I want to prove not only that I can do better, but also deny him the ability to see his grandchildren unless I'm around. Plus I want someone to keep me together with that lady to help us overcome long term relationship issues, and a kid would be a reason to get my shit together.

Probably never gonna happen since I refuse to date a girl who doesn't work out (she needs to at least care about her body), doesn't know how to take care of herself, doesn't want kids, and/or has ridden the cock carousel. -So, y'know, 90% of single women after high school.

>>58047

A bit of offtopic I seriously think these kind of people would be better off without welfare.

The sister looks like the type of girl that has always got FREE STUFF because of being a succubus from every other man and because the "my brother has autism, my family doesn't care about me" sob story.

I may sound like the fucking evil here, but if someone like her has kids without having the means to take care of them, the best would probably to let them die instead of giving them free money. Those kids are fucked, and if they have more kids they will be also be fucked, and so on. By not giving them any help or free drugs treatment or any of that pity bullshit they would probably die or fucking wake up and starting to get their shit together. Any of the two cases is better than what's happening right now.

I have a question.

1. Do you think monopolies are inherently bad or are they ok if they are voluntary? I know some people here argue that without the state a lot of monopolies would collapse but still I want to get a good idea on what you guys think about it.

>>58060

they have inherent drawback

however it is true that monopolies (silicon valley style) are enormously practical for things like monetization, economies of scale, coordination (vertical integration; see apple and spacex)

check out peter thiels stuff, particularly zero to one (book)

One thing I don't get about public healthcare supporters…do they seriously want to pay for ailments caused by obesity?

>>58123

No, but I don't want people to die either, or have to worry about the cost.

People have argued that over-eating actually saves the healthcare system money because they have fewer old people.

>>58123

I'm against giving money to fat people, but I've talked with others who support it and basically it reduces to "but people dying is bad :(".

I think our society has come to value life above anything else when I think that shouldn't be true. Having a miserable life is not awesome, having higher rates of suicides is not cool, having higher rates of depression, obesity, mental issues, unwanted pregnancy, veneral diseases, divorces, single parenting, abortions, etc… it all happens more and more because the state allows it because "life is valuable". By giving out free money people forget about doing time preference decisions, and the value of life comes down. Life is now "guaranteed", but by doing so is misery is also guaranteed.

There wouldn't be as many fat people if the state didn't give them free money or healthcare. Some would die in the process, yes, but in the long time more lives would be saved, and less lives would be miserable.

>>58060

I would say they are bad in the long run since they would turn corrupt. But sure, they can be good in some instances, just the same way the state can also be good in some others.

The issue is that it will always decline and go corrupt, and that corruption often includes taking out the "voluntary" part you are talking about, directly or indirectly by taking freedoms for you.

>>58131

America is far more obese than Europe. And life does have value.

You people are immoral, ignorant children.

I'm 20 and in community college. Don't know what to do with my life yet.

I'm interested in the social sciences and humanities I guess but they don't make much money.

I also suck at math.

Any advice?

>>58147

Learn to program as a side activity and use that with your social sciences and humanities studies. You could make websites, 3D animations, work in simple databases or make simple web apps.

>>58147

Pharmacy Technician AAS while you figure your shit out I guess?

>>58147

How do you feel about logic and reasoning?

Hey Catholic-bro.

Hey.

Does anyone else remember when you could browse freely through the library on Mises.org instead of being forced to use their search utility?

Remember when they had a forum, and it was pretty good?

Remember when they had a wiki prominently displayed on the front page, instead of hosting it but never talking about it?

REMEMBER WHEN THEIR WEBSITE WAS FUCKING GOOD?!

>>57946

Michigan

Now we post our favorite comedians.

So I'm semi-actively seeking to move out of my state (NY). I'm eyeballing NH as a possible destination, but are there any other northern states that are relatively /liberty/ friendly, preferably with a decent software sector?

>>58456

There is an old Chinese proverb, "Those who live far from the King are happy."

Whichever state you choose, go rural, my friend. Leave the big cities. The income will not be as high, but the cost of living is something more than half most of the time.

>>58469

The good news is that I'd ideally go rural as is. I enjoy the open space. The bad news is that software companies usually don't aim for such areas.

>>58472

>The bad news is that software companies usually don't aim for such areas.

*BIG software companies

I'm not sure how much of what I'm about to say is true, it's just a hunch and based on limited personal experiences. This should be obvious, because I'm not working two jobs at the same time, and I haven't switched jobs very often. Therefore, the total number of jobs I've ever had is very small (three). But with what limited experience I do have, I'm inclined to think that one reason that perception occurs is that rural areas do not have large labor pools, which means they do not have large businesses or corporations, which means that they do not have the resources for large HR departments (or an HR department at all), and thus the vast majority of these businesses you are not going to find on an online job board. In fact, the place I work at now only accepts in-person applications. So, to find work in rural areas, you'll have to do things that seem unconventional to the mass opinion and dogma.

So how? Well, again, I'm not for sure, but you know that scene in Patton where there's a bunch of men stuck in a building looking up and down maps to find a place to ford and Patton just goes out to the river and finds a place to ford by just walking up and down the river? It felt a lot like that for me. The whole reason I ended up going for smaller cities was because I had to throw away the traditional job board/send a resume/hope for an interview approach to finding a programming job at all, let alone a job at all, let alone in a bigger city. A lot of it is still in the traditional style of going into their front doors or calling them up one-by-one and asking if they have a position open.

It's tedious, but just to reiterate the benefit of it is that is not only more closely knit and away from the city garbage, but also if you find a job in this way you'll likely be working somewhere that doesn't have an HR department. If you call them and they say, "You can apply on our website," then you probably don't want to work for them anyways. For programming I had to be a little bit more creative, because obviously many such small businesses don't have an explicit programming job (it's not unheard of by any means, though). In my case, I had to basically find something the slightest bit tangentially related as a part-time job, and then in bits of spare time on the job make programs that helped them out until I eventually had a de facto full-time programming job.

It's not easy, but finding a job never is.

>>58047

families have lots of problems

child rearing (and creation) should be properly commodified

Im talking ectogenesis and industrial child rearing

the economics are very interesting too these days, because most of the education can be handled with a 200-600$ computer*, wich would reduce the cost close to food and real estate

*I learned much much much more about the world from the itnernet in general, books by intellectual leaders and interviews of billionaires than from my blue collar father. and of course my abusive / clinically insane mother has been a hindrance in my life as long as she was around

we should probably make this more clear to the catholic grandpas that run the mises institute

>they nonironically think organized religion is still the best way to structure society

>>58047

I am a father and it is the best thing that has happened to me. Until one has become a parent it is hard to understand fully what it is like of course. There are after all a lot of shitty parents, but there are a lot of people that take that responsibility seriously. I often reflect back on the fights I got into with my own parents and the bad choices I made on my own in order to guide my own style of parenting. My son will be 13 next month and I just hope he doesn't impregnate some hood rat before he is out of the house, or else I am chaining him up in the basement as my parents did to me.

>>58131

>I think our society has come to value life above anything else

wonder how that came to be

>>58138

hes talking about the cost of conducting labour

the value of 'labour' (any action) is the economic optimization it achieves - also called 'productiveness'

calm your tits mises, we know its hard to quantify

>>58537

>it is really a good idea to give free money to africa population to make them dependant of that money and just have them living without actually working or searching for their own subsistence?

Yes. Get fucked, porky

i have a couple questions

1. is the concept of unions at work and communities alright with liberty? i think so since they are just the extension of the self, like parties

2. how would regulations and accountability work? lets say someone builds a bridge privately but he used cheap materials and didnt care about safety so the bridge fell. what would happen next? would the city or the local union file a complain? to whom? how would inspections happen? how would be in charge of them?

>>58549

2 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>58549

1. Sure thing, they just don't get special privileges. They can give workers legal counsel or coordinate non-violent strikes, for example. Just no sabotage or violent strikes and so on.

2. Many violations of safety regulations would be the equivalents of crimes or torts. In your example, the guy who built the bridge would owe compensation to the victims and/or their families. These same people would also pursue action against them.

>>58552

Regarding 2, what are you thoughts on LLCs then? Because there was some discussion about that in the Tor General thread that seemed to go the exact opposite way.

>>58559

You cannot empirically prove normative facts, because you cannot observe them. You can only observe conditions that, combined with a certain normative law, prescribe a specific course of action. The normative laws themselves, you gain from logical analysis and introspection. One anon here asks if the normative claim implied in an action is contradictory; theft would be, because the action implies the invalidity and validity of property rights at the same time. To put it short, of course, and Formal Logic Man could explain it better.

I tend more towards an aristotelian/thomistic approach, but haven't formulated it yet.

>>58542

So you're fine with sending all that food over to Africa that puts local farmers there out of a job and usually ends up in the hands of warlords and corrupt politicians? That and some of these people get taken advantage of by NGO's with nefarious intent. Truly a champion of the working class.

>>58572

>Im fairly certain that was a sarcastic post.

Sorry about that then. I guess my reading comprehension needs some work.

>>58552

but for him to owe that for real, it had to be stablished in some contract. i watched the video the other anon posted about contracts and private courts and it makes some sense

In a society where the state has less infuence on the economy, how can consumers protect themselves from frauds and low quality products; does asymmetric knowledge make it harder for consumers to choose accurately and safely? If not, are consumer associations possible and/or desirable as a force of improvement for the market?

>>58598

>but for him to owe that for real, it had to be stablished in some contract.

No, it's enough that he caused the damage. Just because people could've avoided damage by not driving over your bridge doesn't mean you're not responsible. That would only be the case if they knew what they were doing, which they didn't. They couldn't have assessed the risk of your bridge.

>>58673

Why is it different if there is a state or not?

>>58673

I guess some basic forms of consumer protection could be consumer protection groups, reviewers, yelp, word of mouth and etc.

>>58724

You're welcome! Best of luck to you and your girl.

I don't want stupid people to breed more and more in the future,

BUT

I also think that designer babies and parents deciding to genetically engineer their children is a bad idea.

Why is there no cognitive dissonance on this subject?

What's to stop extremely affluent people from buying up whole neighborhoods if not suburbs and renting it out to tenants. How would ancapistan seek to ameliorate those dispossessed of property?

>>58768

>renting things is bad, mmkay?

Go away proudhon.

>>58768

As property is taken off the market, the price of property will begin to increase. The cost of maintaining an ever increasing amount of rental properties will eventually make it harder for such a company to purchase further property without sending the price to a point it cannot afford.

>>58771

Okay, but that just makes it harder for working people to afford property, and housing no? They'd effectively live off renting their house, or land now.

>>58773

>They'd effectively live off renting their house, or land now.

Okay, but all that means is your big renter doesn't have tenants anymore, in turn causing them to have to reduce their employees and perhaps sell more land back onto the market. Unless you are attempting to use some leftist doomsday scenario where all the land is bought up by evil porky, I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you implying that everyone is entitled to a parcel of land? Is renting bad? Are landlords immoral?

>>58774

>Okay, but all that means is your big renter doesn't have tenants anymore, in turn causing them to have to reduce their employees and perhaps sell more land back onto the market.

Why wouldn't he have tenants anymore, or did you mean he wouldn't have new tenants? I'm more concerned with how property would function under libertarianism. Not implying that everyone deserves land, but as to how the poor, and middle class would be able to viably purchase property.

>>58777

I'm not really seeing the problem here. Why would this be a problem for a free society but it hasn't happened in places with (mostly) free land ownership? How come there are so many different landlords in New York?

Like any market, the theoretical monopolistic landlord must continue to provide the best service for the cheapest prices or face competition. If this guy somehow managed to buy up a whole city by supplying the best and cheapest apartments, you'd have to imagine the tenants satisfied. They'd leave if they weren't, and falling property values would crash his business. Of course there's only so many ways to innovate as a landlord so it's impossible in the first place.

In reality, if a rich guy started buying up all the property, landlord demand would remain constant but supply would start disappearing, thus the price goes up. The marginally more expensive properties become harder for one man to buy since the other landlords want in on the market. Competition provides a barrier to one man owning a whole city.

What is the ontological status of Lebesgue non-measurable functions?

>>58472

My cousin used to work for a software company out of bumfuck KY. They had a side IT-typed business but shut it down to focus on the program they made. There's shit out there in rural areas.

You guys say that automation won't kill jobs because human desires are infinite and the people who will end up having decent jobs related to automation and new technologies to come alongside the entrepeneurs who will be successful are going to demand new products and services.

But that's absurd. ¿How can be an infinite space for new products and services when our bodies have physical limitations and days will continue having 24 hours minus sleeping time?

>>58966

Minimum wage keeps more people unemployed than automation does.

>>58967

You are right. But I was talking about the future.

>>58966

>How can be an infinite space for new products and services when our bodies have physical limitations and days will continue having 24 hours minus sleeping time?

To be honest, I don't understand how this is related to what you said before. What do our physical limitations have to do with whether we can infinitely expand production, or at least expand it for the foreseeable future? Or with whether demand can increase and thus create an incentive to increase production?

As for what you said, I'm careful about claiming that automation cannot kill jobs. In the short term, it may suck for those that are only trained for jobs that the machines can do better and cheaper. In the long term, everyone will be better off as real wages rise. Resources are freed that can now go into other ventures, and that's how new jobs will be created. They don't have to be created, of course. With the rise in real wages, leisure becomes less costly too. That's why people nowadays are working fourty hours and not eighty hours. In the future, we may well see people work ten hours a week to afford a luxurious lifestyle for a family of five.

>>58968

We don't know the future. We can only try to grasp but not predict. When the automobile came around, carriage makers, horseshoe makers an other related equine businesses went bust. Some of those lost jobs, aside from going other places, were funneled into new businesses such as automotive repair garages, roadside dinners, gas stations etc. If one is afraid of automation becoming a Luddite or an Amish based society is certainly a possibility. However, one option is to keep human labor valued realistically so that businesses have an incentive to buy human labor instead of using capital to replace more expensive human labor through automation. Every time a union or politician asks for higher wages in whatever particular industry, beyond that valued by the free market, you can be assured that the incentives of businesses to hire human labor is diminishing.

>>58966

>>58970

One concern I heard from a former friend once - not sure if you share it - is that full automation will ensure that no one but a privileged few will find employment at all. The rest will live in a world of luxury with no money to buy any of it. This is the same fantastic scenario as the one where one man owns the entire landmass of the earth. If people other than the super-rich own any capital at all (and be it their labor), exchange will happen, production will expand, and more and more people will become prosperous.

>>58972

Do you think robots will eventually replace us as posters on the chans, is that why you saged?

>>58975

I saged because I didn't see your post when I sent mine, and I sage out of principle when I make double posts.

>>57813

you have to be free from the state AND capital to be completely free

>>58978

how am i opressed by capital?

>>58978

by capital you mean economics?

as in you can only be free if there no longer is an empirical standard to measure actions into good/bad ?

maybe this explains all the relativism commies push. havent thought about it that way.

>>59031

>post scarcity

not possible in this universe, since there are finite amounts of everything

you can maybe shift the problem of demand > supply away from food and water, but itll just be something else then. like spaceships etc.

How do I put a flag next to anonymous?

>>58347

As long as you're not in Ann Arbor. Where are you, /liberty/-bro?

>>59066

click

>show post option & limits

and then chose flag

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-01/25-house-democrats-back-bill-impeach-president-trump

If you're going to impeach Trump, you could do it under the war powers act. We've had continuous attacks in Syria for more than the past 90 days ( http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/ ). If Democrats are the supposed anti-war party, then why aren't they taking that approach instead of this bizarre legal-fantasyland that is the 25th amendment.

>>59031

I don't think anyone can accurately provide an answer as to how things will look when humanity reaches the point where it can transmute objects into existence. Barring the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms together plus far-future atomic manufacturing techniques, I don't think it's possible to do anything like that. And to think that this is a convenience that everyone will have in a small package is suspect at best.

>>59130

These are the same Democrats that thought (and for the most part still think) that hysterically screeching "raycis" was an effective campaign strategy, do you really expect them to adopt reasonable action now? Also, none of them are willing to set a precedent that might get in the way of their own warmongering in the future. This is all assuming, of course, that any cry for impeachment is genuine, and not a publicity stunt for the news agencies and the Dem's constituency.

>>59130

>If you're going to impeach Trump, you could do it under the war powers act.

Impeach a president for the same shit other ones have been doing for decades? Sounds like a recipe for civil war and Democrats (and their allies in the Cathedral) being hanged from lampposts. I hope they do it.

>>59133

And calling for impeachment on grounds of calling the President (and by extension his """deplorables""") insane wouldn't do that? Are you seriously saying that stopping an unconstitutional war would upset people's fee-fees so bad it would drive them to civil war instead?

>>59138

Both would result in bloodshed. He's clearly fit for his duties and no amount of media people kvetching about him shitposting on Twitter will change that. Impeaching him for engaging in the same wars, even if they're technically illegal/unconstitutional, is a clear double standard that would be the most transparent soft coup attempt in American history.

With tensions as they are, this political cold war will go hot if they seriously consider impeachment. Trump, and any successors on the right, are the last chance that Washington DC has to correct itself without violence. Either they propose a peaceful national divorce, completely neuter the deep state, or never allow the left to hold office ever again. If they can't accomplish any of these, it's going to be bloody. The managerial political apparatus in DC is like a cartoon vehicle that had all of its parts fly off until there's nothing left but the driver, sitting on the bare chassis, holding the steering wheel. That car is rapidly approaching a cliff; Trump can steer it until its momentum stops and then rebuild it, or the Democrats can yank the steering wheel and leave a bloody stain and a pile of twisted metal at the bottom of the cliff.

>>59141

Imagine Hillary was President, and the argument was this:

"Hillary should be impeached because she killed Seth Rich."

"Yeah, but previous Presidents have had people whacked. Impeaching someone based on that now would just create a double standard that would create so much friction that it would be treated as a soft coup and cause a civil war."

Would you still agree with what you're saying?

Also:

>He's clearly fit for his duties

That's not what the argument is about. I agree with you on this, and the 25th amendment approach some people are suggesting sounds insane to me and sounds like the actual approach that would lead to at least mass rioting.

>even if they're technically illegal/unconstitutional

It sounds to me like you're trying to weasel out by saying "technically illegal/unconsitutional." It's not some minor technicality. There is a war going on in Syria that has been going on for longer than 90 days. Call a spade a spade: it is a war. Are you a libertarian or another poltard?

>>59148

>Are you a libertarian or another poltard?

I'm not talking from personal opinion. My point is that the Democrats should think twice before attempting an impeachment for any excuse, especially an excuse they've encouraged other presidents to employ. It will be one of the greatest political backfires in US history.

The American public believe that the president has the right to wage war indefinitely if there's a just cause. Of course that's not true, but it's the same bullshit every president gets away with. Suddenly nailing his ass to the wall over it will rub people the wrong way. It's like getting a speeding ticket for going 30 in a 25. It's illegal and it might be wrong (depending on who you ask) but it's completely uncalled for.

Impeaching Trump for what little action he's done in Syria is ridiculous, and it would be clear that the motivation is 100% political, just like any angle they'd pursue for impeachment. This is not a principled stand against war. This is "Trump's not part of the political machine so he'll be judged by a different set of standards." This is the last desperate attack of the managerial class.

>"Hillary should be impeached because she killed Seth Rich."

Compare Nixon's Watergate scandal to Bill Clinton lying about getting his dick sucked. One was forever condemned for his political scheming, the other is hailed by his tribe as a great president who did nothing worthy of impeachment. Both, legally speaking, should've suffered the same consequences. Getting sucked off in the White House is practically an American tradition. Illegal surveillance of your opponents for the purposes of achieving your political goals was inexcusable. (Obama got away with it.)

Now go back to Trump. He's continuing a war they've sold with an overt purpose. (Even though that purpose is a complete false flag.) There's nothing abnormal or covert here. Most people don't have a problem with it. What do you think would happen if the Democrats started autistically screeching about illegal wars? Republicans would say it's hypocritical. Trump supporters would say it's a blatant deep state scheme to maintain the status quo. The media would support any excuse to impeach him. God forbid he's actually kicked out of office or imprisoned. Now you have a flash point for the tension that's been building. This is where you start seeing riots, assassinations, jailbreaks, suspension of rights to protect public order, and the complete destruction of any semblance of democracy in America.

>>58966

How can demand be limited? Can you count the number of your needs and wants? Don't you want a cure to cancer or have the desire to explore the universe? Many of the products we have today could scarcely be conceived centuries ago.

Sup

Is /liberty/ cyberpunk?

If yes, can you please join my Skype group? Is very cyberpunk-ish and we're accepting new friends!

charlie8_6 add me

>>59340

It is an interesting case study of leftist views. The majority of the time they can never agree on a single viewpoint except on the sole position of hating capitalism. Perhaps a better name would have been /antiporky/.

>>59584

>Also he brings the example of it happening during WWII, but weren't women and minorities hired then because of an already existing shortage of workforce because of the war and not because of some wage laws

Yes.

>wage ceiling forces employers to hire from groups they otherwise wouldn't because it increases the employer's price of discrimination

If they can't pay more for someone they want, they might as well hire even the less desirable workers- women and minorities. If you put up a wage ceiling and I know I am worth more, I'm not going to apply at all, unless I have absolutely no other choice. The best decision for an employer who can't choose would be to downsize and do the best they can with the little they've got available. Of course, you could also risk with hiring more volatile employees and see what happens.

>>59584

With minimum wage laws, the price ceiling is artificially raised allowing those traditionally seeking the job at a lower rate (blacks/minorities) to have to compete with those that would traditionally seek the job at a higher rate (whites). If a janitorial job paid $6.00 an hour, for a lower income minority teenager this is not such a bad deal, as it most likely was passed up by a white teenager for being a shitty job for a shitty pay. Now if minimum wage laws come in and raise the price up to $15 an hour for the same shitty job, the white teenagers might decide to apply for that job. This actually allows the owner to discriminate more easily, as a higher wage brings out more applicants. Now if the price ceiling is artificially depressed, by keeping that janitorial job at $6 an hour, the owner will have no choice but to hire minority applicants if they are the only ones applying, due to the job being below what whites would demand. All this is why we see black teenagers having a higher employment rate than white teenagers before minimum wage laws took off.

>How does that correspond to employment if we're talking on maximum wage control?

Because it still deals with supply and demand of scarce resources with alternative uses. Rent control being an artificial price control on the housing market makes the incentive to build new housing less and less. Sowell mentions in the book in the chapter on rent controls, how many construction companies went on to build industrial and commercial buildings instead as there was a reduced incentive to build housing. Those scarce resources which would have gone into building houses are now shuttled off by developers to other areas as they provide a higher return on their investment. Rent control and wage controls work the same but the results that show up in the economy are different.

Does the minimum wage not only increase the floor on lower-skill jobs, but also higher-end jobs as well? E.g., if you're a $15/hr autoworker, and then the minimum wage jumps from $7.50 to $15/hr, you start demanding even higher wages because, "Shit, I can go work at McD's."/"I'm an autoworker not some McJob shithead," and that just sort of works its way up the chain?

Why don't YOU support Net Neutrality, enforced by government?

The internet is a utility, like electricity, water, or roads. Once the utility infrastructure is set up, it's always going to be cheaper to acquire the infrastructure already in place than it is to build new infrastructure. It's not cost-effective for two cable companies to duplicate each other's work when they can just merge together and reach twenty towns instead of ten. Thus, monopolies form.

>>59732

What's the problem?

>>59732

I hope they ban americans from the internet

>>59732

>low-key

What is the typical age of someone who uses that term?

>>59741

23.

A meta question for you all.

There are a lot of threads that pop up that appear to me as "going off the rails." I won't go into a lot of details to avoid giving my personal opinions and try to keep this on a level that I think most readers here can agree with (for example, the threads that openly support pedophilia).

Typically, my modus operandi when seeing these threads is "Nice b8 m8 8/8," and I engage in a "Don't look at the man begging on the street response." I want to foster the interesting and deeper libertarian discussion threads when they rarely come up and last for two or three posts, not get embroiled in yet another cross-/leftypol/ shitthread.

I am starting to wonder whether this is the best approach anymore. Because a lot of these threads (ESPECIALLY the pedo ones) are being copied and pasted by /leftypol/ to mock the fuck out of /liberty/. So, on the one hand, I feel like I have some obligation to make sure /liberty/ doesn't have so much goddamned egg on its face and at least sage while simply saying, "Nope, not libertarian." On the other hand, I know that I'm not good at rhetoric, and I am basically a huge autist (like everyone else on the internet, I suppose), so I should probably just continue as I have been.

>>59739

>Non argument

>>59740

>1 hour video with no direction to the related moment

/liberty/ always gets whiny when they're cornered, huh.

>>59791

pedophilia =/= having sex with kids

LEARN IT MOTHERFUCKER

>>60188

do you suggest that

heterosexuality = having sex with the opposite sex

?

are there any actual examples of police being funded on a wide scale without taxation?

>>63928

The old railroad police in the US are an example. For most of history, enforcing your rights was also your own and not a public affair. Some places, like Iceland, had absolutely no police of any kind.

>>63928

Here's something from Detroit

>>63931

I think "abolish the police" won't ring with most people; but changing the funding mechanisms of police will sound more reasonable.

>>63935

You can probably sneak private police past them until going fully ancap doesn't sound so bad anymore. I'd be looking forward to that.