LPD: Libertarian Police Department (2014)(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
LPD: Libertarian Police Department (2014)
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
106 comments
It's also visibly dated.
Today, the gun would just automatically burn a token on the BulletCoin chain whenever fired, after uploading the current GPS location, barrel cam footage and gyro data to the Smith & Wesson IoFA cloud for analysis and product development.
You can also earn prizes and discounts by firing the gun inside the designated District of the Day!
Who still has quarters?
Today, the gun would just automatically burn a token on the BulletCoin chain whenever fired, after uploading the current GPS location, barrel cam footage and gyro data to the Smith & Wesson IoFA cloud for analysis and product development.
You can also earn prizes and discounts by firing the gun inside the designated District of the Day!
Who still has quarters?
NFTs commemorating assassinations of important targets available at the gift shop after conflicts.
With and Smesson naturally would also use the gun images to identify people injured and killed by their bullets, and then sell that data on to lawyers, opiate dealing pharmaceutical companies and doctors, prosthesis dealers or funeral companies, etc.
Don’t shoot the bullets! HODL the bullets. Greshams law tells us that the harder munitions will push out the weaker munitions.
Surge pricing on arms fire. Obviously it couldn't work, but I can think of worse ideas. A conflict diffused because the combatants are about to become insolvent on the next shot!
Chris Rock on "Bullet Control". It's a classic.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98949-you-don-t-need-no-gun...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98949-you-don-t-need-no-gun...
Fixed Price War, Charles Sheffield.
Available at https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781618240644/9781618240644___...
Available at https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781618240644/9781618240644___...
> A conflict diffused because the combatants are about to become insolvent on the next shot!
The Free Market(TM) solves yet another problem that was previously considered intractable
The Free Market(TM) solves yet another problem that was previously considered intractable
Huh, I bet the futures market for arms sales is wild.
..."Do we have any leads?"
"Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so."
"Easy, chief," I said. "Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair."
He laughed. "That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski."
"Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so."
"Easy, chief," I said. "Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair."
He laughed. "That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski."
> I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
Anytime this story comes up, this bit cracks me up the most.
Anytime this story comes up, this bit cracks me up the most.
Can't believe this was in the new yorker. It reads like a typical internet shitpost. I swear it was just another copypasta.
Reads more like something from McSweeney's, to me.
They do enjoy taking a swipe at The Fountainhead, the low hanging fruit of poli-sci-fanfic.
One long, brow-beating joke parodying one long, brow-beating joke. Symmetry there.
that's because I've been using it as copypasta for 8 years
It actually makes a very effective copypasta, in my personal experience.
There's been a few attempts at this kind of humour.
What always strikes me is that in many parts of the world, there's almost no police response at all. Here in New Zealand at least having the option of a paid for police response would be a marked improvement on many peoples safety and security.
What always strikes me is that in many parts of the world, there's almost no police response at all. Here in New Zealand at least having the option of a paid for police response would be a marked improvement on many peoples safety and security.
Ah yes, New Zealand, that crime-ridden hellscape. Makes RoboCop’s Detroit look like Singapore.
Do you just assume violent crime doesn't happen because somewhere is far away, and has a highly funded department of tourism?
I never said it was South Africa. All I said is that police do not meaningfully respond for smaller crimes (assault, theft etc).
I never said it was South Africa. All I said is that police do not meaningfully respond for smaller crimes (assault, theft etc).
Property and violent crime disproportionately affects poor and disadvantaged people. Not just because they might be forced to live in "bad" neighborhoods, but because they have less money for home security measures, they may have to walk, cycle, or take public transport more frequently, they may have to work nights and odd hours and in public facing service jobs. And because the relative cost and difficulty of replacing and repairing their home and belongings, or getting physical or mental health care for the damage to themselves and time off work to heal, is far far higher.
The idea that police services to poor people and less advantaged neighborhoods should be cut, is one of the most out of touch, limousine-liberal notions that I have heard in a long time. The fact that it's an overwhelmingly popular idea on places like this with no discussion or concept of any potential downsides, shows how out of touch the crowd is when it comes to the problems people face.
Just because you've had to walk past some homeless people on the way to a restaurant in the city, or been occasionally offered drugs, or had your car broken into, or hear gunshots and sirens sometimes, or driven through a place where people don't stop at red lights, or read things on the internet, does not make an expert... My point after that long rant is, don't be surprised or upset by people pontificating on this subject with no idea what they're talking about.
The idea that police services to poor people and less advantaged neighborhoods should be cut, is one of the most out of touch, limousine-liberal notions that I have heard in a long time. The fact that it's an overwhelmingly popular idea on places like this with no discussion or concept of any potential downsides, shows how out of touch the crowd is when it comes to the problems people face.
Just because you've had to walk past some homeless people on the way to a restaurant in the city, or been occasionally offered drugs, or had your car broken into, or hear gunshots and sirens sometimes, or driven through a place where people don't stop at red lights, or read things on the internet, does not make an expert... My point after that long rant is, don't be surprised or upset by people pontificating on this subject with no idea what they're talking about.
And also why “defund the police” does not resonate with black communities the way it does with white liberals.
Laugh all you want, but many towns live in fear of the vicious sheep gangs that run the place.
I'm sorry, but your comment has only served to increased the amount of laughing that I was enjoying.
[deleted]
You think rural crime isn't a thing? Livestock theft and poaching is an issue on both islands, to the extent that people avoid grazing near the road.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/130397588/security-...
Again, this isn't South Africa, but it isn't Hobbiton either.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/130397588/security-...
Again, this isn't South Africa, but it isn't Hobbiton either.
An honest evaluation and critique of your response: acting in a defensive and offended manner at someone making a subjectively funny (though low-effort) joke about a subject very serious to you is a natural reaction. However it would help your cause to suppress this reaction and come back in a few minutes before writing your reply. The one you wrote hurts you more than helps you by making you appear unreasonable and emotional.
/unsubscribe from response evaluations
When seconds count and the police are minutes (or hours) away...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-response-times-soar-auc...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-response-times-soar-auc...
Are there truly no private security services in NZ? Is the issue really that there are no options, or is the issue that you just can't afford it? I think the economics of private security makes it basically impossible to be a mass market consumer commodity, especially if you start considering liability of lethal force.
Either it's a public service, service to the rich or adhoc/DIY(gang, militia, self-armed).
Either it's a public service, service to the rich or adhoc/DIY(gang, militia, self-armed).
Max Barry's "Jennifer Government" does a much better job of this kind of satire.
Hm. Not sure it's as funny as The Machinery of Freedom, but admittedly that one might suffer among some audiences for being too subtle. This one has brevity on its side, I suppose.
I find a lot of doctrinaire Libertarian policies silly too, but the status quo deserves the same scrutiny; Conor Friedersdorf had a good reply to this piece when it first ran:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/nlpd-no...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/nlpd-no...
This reads like a hodgepodge of ideologies smushed into some kind of retort here. The original is poking fun by taking libertarian ideology to the extreme, this one is... Conor's sour grapes?
Always reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4
[deleted]
This is an absurd strawman. Not a bear in sight: https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...
In 2014 I considered myself a little-l libertarian and thought this was hilarious when it came out. The sponsored parts kill me every time.
> “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®"
> “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®”
> I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
> “Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®"
> “Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®”
> I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Libertarianism is analogous to calculus limits in political philosophy. It's useful in terms of what you're approaching with regard to an ideal, but forever mismatched & inapplicable to the real world with initial conditions.
As an ancap, I’d say this is pretty insightful, and reflects the way I interact with politics fairly well.
Would I like no government at all? Sure - assuming society reflects that state of being. Removing our existing institutions tomorrow would be a terrible idea; all kinds of things depend on them.
Instead, I’m all about reducing the size of government through consensus. I’ll ally with whichever party is in power to support that end.
If I’m right, eventually government will have such a minor role in society that its dissolution would hardly be noticed. If I’m wrong, then an iterative approach limits the potential for societal harm.
Would I like no government at all? Sure - assuming society reflects that state of being. Removing our existing institutions tomorrow would be a terrible idea; all kinds of things depend on them.
Instead, I’m all about reducing the size of government through consensus. I’ll ally with whichever party is in power to support that end.
If I’m right, eventually government will have such a minor role in society that its dissolution would hardly be noticed. If I’m wrong, then an iterative approach limits the potential for societal harm.
You seem reasonable, which is an exception amongst the ancaps I have encountered, so I will engage. How do you respond to the notion that government is a way for society to protect itself the best way it can? How do you manage to deal with orphans, old, infirm, poor, disabled, etc? How do we collectively fund things that are usually terrible for private markets to control, like research, military, education, law enforcement, infrastructure, and ecological preservation? How do you deal with injustice?
There are so many jet-airliner-sized holes in this philosophy to me, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone with any empathy and intelligence could follow it. Help me out here.
There are so many jet-airliner-sized holes in this philosophy to me, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone with any empathy and intelligence could follow it. Help me out here.
> You seem reasonable, which is an exception amongst the ancaps I have encountered, so I will engage
Well, thanks :). My experience shows that a lot of people who call themselves ancaps are mostly either after the “extreme” nature of it, or want to use it as an excuse to argue. I’m too old for that.
> How do you respond to the notion that government is a way for society to protect itself the best way it can?
So far, I’d say you’re largely correct. My position is that mankind has basically achieved a local maximum, and that the conditions that led us here have to change before we can search for a global maximum.
> How do you manage to deal with orphans, old, infirm, poor, disabled, etc?
The TL;DR here is “private charity”. I hold that charity is significantly suppressed because of the widely held belief that it’s “someone else’s problem”.
I could write at length about the reasons I think that’s the case, and how state interventions exacerbate the scale of those problems today, but I’m sure you’ve already read those arguments elsewhere.
> How do we collectively fund things that are usually terrible for private markets to control, like research, military, education, law enforcement, infrastructure, and ecological preservation?
Of those, I hold that all are better left to private enterprise - for different reasons, for each.
Law enforcement is the only one that really has much nuance. While many others have written about that topic (see my other partially-tongue-in-cheek post about PDAs), I’m not 100% convinced that we can really predict how it would be handled in a world where governments died of neglect - as opposed to power vacuums, which is how almost all anarchic societies today and in living memory have formed.
> How do you deal with injustice?
Ah, this is the big one - in fact, I’d say it’s a superset of all of the above.
Injustice would existing in an ancap society, just as injustice exists today. In fact, because injustice exists today in a state-based society, my primary argument here is that it’s intellectually dishonest to insist that an ancap society must eliminate injustice to be acceptable.
Specifically, though, I’d think a functioning anarchic society would place a very high value on personal honor. Reputation would matter, and that alone would provide significant incentive to work things out without drama.
> There are so many jet-airliner-sized holes in this philosophy to me, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone with any empathy and intelligence could follow it. Help me out here.
There are similar sized holes in the way we do things today, when you apply the same standards to it. Consider all of the grievous injustices that have occurred until our various systems of government: war, genocide, chattel slavery, enforced divisions based on religion, race, caste, etc.
I think the biggest place where I diverge from “mainstream” Anarcho-Capitalism is that I don’t think it’s the solution to all of the world’s problems. I don’t think a society structured around it would be perfect, because I don’t think human beings are perfect (or capable of perfection).
Well, thanks :). My experience shows that a lot of people who call themselves ancaps are mostly either after the “extreme” nature of it, or want to use it as an excuse to argue. I’m too old for that.
> How do you respond to the notion that government is a way for society to protect itself the best way it can?
So far, I’d say you’re largely correct. My position is that mankind has basically achieved a local maximum, and that the conditions that led us here have to change before we can search for a global maximum.
> How do you manage to deal with orphans, old, infirm, poor, disabled, etc?
The TL;DR here is “private charity”. I hold that charity is significantly suppressed because of the widely held belief that it’s “someone else’s problem”.
I could write at length about the reasons I think that’s the case, and how state interventions exacerbate the scale of those problems today, but I’m sure you’ve already read those arguments elsewhere.
> How do we collectively fund things that are usually terrible for private markets to control, like research, military, education, law enforcement, infrastructure, and ecological preservation?
Of those, I hold that all are better left to private enterprise - for different reasons, for each.
Law enforcement is the only one that really has much nuance. While many others have written about that topic (see my other partially-tongue-in-cheek post about PDAs), I’m not 100% convinced that we can really predict how it would be handled in a world where governments died of neglect - as opposed to power vacuums, which is how almost all anarchic societies today and in living memory have formed.
> How do you deal with injustice?
Ah, this is the big one - in fact, I’d say it’s a superset of all of the above.
Injustice would existing in an ancap society, just as injustice exists today. In fact, because injustice exists today in a state-based society, my primary argument here is that it’s intellectually dishonest to insist that an ancap society must eliminate injustice to be acceptable.
Specifically, though, I’d think a functioning anarchic society would place a very high value on personal honor. Reputation would matter, and that alone would provide significant incentive to work things out without drama.
> There are so many jet-airliner-sized holes in this philosophy to me, and I can't wrap my head around why anyone with any empathy and intelligence could follow it. Help me out here.
There are similar sized holes in the way we do things today, when you apply the same standards to it. Consider all of the grievous injustices that have occurred until our various systems of government: war, genocide, chattel slavery, enforced divisions based on religion, race, caste, etc.
I think the biggest place where I diverge from “mainstream” Anarcho-Capitalism is that I don’t think it’s the solution to all of the world’s problems. I don’t think a society structured around it would be perfect, because I don’t think human beings are perfect (or capable of perfection).
> There are similar sized holes in the way we do things today, when you apply the same standards to it. Consider all of the grievous injustices that have occurred until our various systems of government: war, genocide, chattel slavery, enforced divisions based on religion, race, caste, etc.
My response is that we have been progressing, and we continue to do so. There is no 'philosophy' that I think will work -- the only thing that I can see happening is that we iteratively improve until we either destroy ourselves, run out of the ability or desire to harvest energy, get conquered by AI/Aliens/Genetically-engineered-beings, or failing all of those, somehow reach perfection.
Removing the one thing that people can use to enforce collective will on each other is a terrible idea, IMHO, because people are not (usually) able to individually work towards communal good. Sure, in small groups such as tribes or villages we can look after each other's families when needed and pitch in together to get works built or enforce understood norms and punish crime, but in aggregate as a species in large enough groups this is just not possible. Expecting for-profit motivations to accomplish this is either self-serving or naive.
Of course you have built in an escape-hatch for yourself with the 'if I am wrong' bit, so kudos for that. I guess you can use that to have a clear conscience since you appear to have intelligence and empathy enough to know what the consequences are if such a philopsophy fails.
For what it is worth, the preceding was written in a non-combative stance, so please don't interpret it that way (it is judgmental, though; I can't help that).
My response is that we have been progressing, and we continue to do so. There is no 'philosophy' that I think will work -- the only thing that I can see happening is that we iteratively improve until we either destroy ourselves, run out of the ability or desire to harvest energy, get conquered by AI/Aliens/Genetically-engineered-beings, or failing all of those, somehow reach perfection.
Removing the one thing that people can use to enforce collective will on each other is a terrible idea, IMHO, because people are not (usually) able to individually work towards communal good. Sure, in small groups such as tribes or villages we can look after each other's families when needed and pitch in together to get works built or enforce understood norms and punish crime, but in aggregate as a species in large enough groups this is just not possible. Expecting for-profit motivations to accomplish this is either self-serving or naive.
Of course you have built in an escape-hatch for yourself with the 'if I am wrong' bit, so kudos for that. I guess you can use that to have a clear conscience since you appear to have intelligence and empathy enough to know what the consequences are if such a philopsophy fails.
For what it is worth, the preceding was written in a non-combative stance, so please don't interpret it that way (it is judgmental, though; I can't help that).
I’ve been busy the past few days, and haven’t been on HN. If you’d like to chat sometime, I just created a Twitter throwaway account: @ancapistani_ (note the trailing underscore)
Shoot me a follow and a mention, and we can chat over DMs if you’d like, or move to another platform. It’d be a lot easier than a long-running comment thread here.
A couple quick thoughts:
> Of course you have built in an escape-hatch for yourself with the 'if I am wrong' bit, so kudos for that. I guess you can use that to have a clear conscience since you appear to have intelligence and empathy enough to know what the consequences are if such a philopsophy fails.
Well, I’ve been wrong on things before. It seems to happen less as I get older and gain experience, but one that same experience leads me to consider the consequences of my being wrong and mitigate them to the extent possible when recommending a course of action.
It only takes one time of recommending a company move everything over to microservices to learn that lesson!
> For what it is worth, the preceding was written in a non-combative stance, so please don't interpret it that way (it is judgmental, though; I can't help that).
Only talking to people you agree with doesn’t make for very interesting conversation. If you didn’t think I was wrong, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
So no, I’m not going to interpret defending your beliefs as being combative.
Shoot me a follow and a mention, and we can chat over DMs if you’d like, or move to another platform. It’d be a lot easier than a long-running comment thread here.
A couple quick thoughts:
> Of course you have built in an escape-hatch for yourself with the 'if I am wrong' bit, so kudos for that. I guess you can use that to have a clear conscience since you appear to have intelligence and empathy enough to know what the consequences are if such a philopsophy fails.
Well, I’ve been wrong on things before. It seems to happen less as I get older and gain experience, but one that same experience leads me to consider the consequences of my being wrong and mitigate them to the extent possible when recommending a course of action.
It only takes one time of recommending a company move everything over to microservices to learn that lesson!
> For what it is worth, the preceding was written in a non-combative stance, so please don't interpret it that way (it is judgmental, though; I can't help that).
Only talking to people you agree with doesn’t make for very interesting conversation. If you didn’t think I was wrong, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
So no, I’m not going to interpret defending your beliefs as being combative.
My understanding is that as a doctrine libertarianism generally believes that there is a role for government in society and that its functions should be explicitly enumerated, not arbitrarily expanded without the consent of the people, and not infringe on certain guardrails (freedom of speech, consent, etc) notwithstanding rediculously claims about society that certain individual libertarians often make.
Not sure how that's a "limit". Seems more like a "compromise" with anarchy.
Not sure how that's a "limit". Seems more like a "compromise" with anarchy.
The only role they see is enforcement of contracts.
By Libertarian definition, only governments can be oppressive; anything a corporation does is just the market acting the way it does: at worst, a temporary aberration that will be fixed soon by someone noticing an opportunity to make a profit.
By Libertarian definition, only governments can be oppressive; anything a corporation does is just the market acting the way it does: at worst, a temporary aberration that will be fixed soon by someone noticing an opportunity to make a profit.
What happens when a corporation becomes large enough and powerful enough to enforce its will on the citizens under it? Is it is still 'the market'?
That definitely happens, and there’s even a word for such an entity: a “government” :)
So when free markets don't align with the philosophy then we just redefine words until they do?
I was only being trite.
From memory, a government is a political entity with three distinguishing characteristics:
From memory, a government is a political entity with three distinguishing characteristics:
* it claims a physical territory
* it claims a monopoly on the *legitimate* initiation of force
* it claims the moral right to levy taxesI was referring to the free market. If the free market creates a government, then you have redefined free market to mean government when it was created by the market forces.
Which is silly, because a corporation, in the end, is nothing more than a group of people cooperating. So a group of people agreeing to murder is just a market imbalance that will be corrected by market forces.
I think this is a limited view. Most libertarians would probably agree that collective defense, consent management, and management of rivalrous goods are the primary roles of the government, and the squabbling is mostly over what goods are rivalrous (is the environment rivalrous? Some would say yes and point to market based fisheries and nox/sox reductions as big successes, others not so much) and what exactly is consent.
I think "AnCapPD: Anarcho-Capitalist Police Department" would be a better title, no?
Funny read regardless.
Funny read regardless.
Don’t be absurd. There are no police departments in Ancapistan.
We have Private Defense Agencies.
We have Private Defense Agencies.
This was a 4chan greentext before it was in the NY.
Even before I could chuckle at this tardy piece of comedy, the Champagne Socialist publication New Yoker starting annoyingly soliciting about their "Cyber week Sale" with a big enough pop-up that a libertarian would consider 'violence'.
Talking about the Pot calling the Kettle black!
Talking about the Pot calling the Kettle black!
>the pot calling the kettle black [is] used to convey that the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves.
I think this is accurate here. The new yorker is opening their own slave factory is this example, not buying products from said factory. Or manufacturing cars without seatbelts or being an oppressive Lord. All while denouncing those who do the same. That may have a positive effect, even a net positive effect, but "the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves" because they are doing the same thing, just being aware of it. If the new yorker was a zero profit company then your point would be valid but they are instead a subsidiary of a Condé Nast which is owned by one of the richest people in the world. It's more like the Washington post (owned by bezos) writing an article about amazon's absuse of workers while also abusing their own workers.
When I tried to go back to the article, I was greeted with this message:
>You’ve run out.
>We hope you enjoyed your free article.
>Subscribe for $29.99 $6, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime.
These dark patterns are not necessary to run a website. They are strictly profit seaking acts meant to charge you at every turn, exactlty as in the story.
So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black
I think this is accurate here. The new yorker is opening their own slave factory is this example, not buying products from said factory. Or manufacturing cars without seatbelts or being an oppressive Lord. All while denouncing those who do the same. That may have a positive effect, even a net positive effect, but "the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves" because they are doing the same thing, just being aware of it. If the new yorker was a zero profit company then your point would be valid but they are instead a subsidiary of a Condé Nast which is owned by one of the richest people in the world. It's more like the Washington post (owned by bezos) writing an article about amazon's absuse of workers while also abusing their own workers.
When I tried to go back to the article, I was greeted with this message:
>You’ve run out.
>We hope you enjoyed your free article.
>Subscribe for $29.99 $6, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime.
These dark patterns are not necessary to run a website. They are strictly profit seaking acts meant to charge you at every turn, exactlty as in the story.
So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black
I don't know if you did this intentionally, but it's funny that the comic is an equally valid criticism of the New Yorker article itself
This comic is as bad of a strawman as the New Yorker story. At least the New Yorker bothered to include humor.
[deleted]
I don't get it, can you please explain
I think it's the thing from the "yet you participate in society! Curious!" comic, but—incredibly, in this the year of our lord 2022—played straight.
[deleted]
I do not know if I can explain it, but the point is the article is mocking an imaginary version of capitalism at the same time the publication is flashing me a Sale pop-up which is real capitalism. The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer. That irony of this situation prompted my response. But I would ask, not to read too much in either comments they were both made in lighter mood and were neither preceded by and not likely to be succeeded by 'deep thought'.
> The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer.
That's a false dichotomy (and the street drug dealer comparison is hyperbole).
Advocating for leftist ideas like a floor on the standard of living and ensuring equal opportunity doesn't contradict pursuing a smart, aggressive, and legal business strategy, except in the mind of a libertarian absolutist.
That's a false dichotomy (and the street drug dealer comparison is hyperbole).
Advocating for leftist ideas like a floor on the standard of living and ensuring equal opportunity doesn't contradict pursuing a smart, aggressive, and legal business strategy, except in the mind of a libertarian absolutist.
You're complaining about hyperbole and false dichotomies in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism.
> in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism
You didn't seem to read the comments clearly.
I defended the right to charge for an article while also satirizing libertarianism (making no comment about the quality of the article), because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
You didn't seem to read the comments clearly.
I defended the right to charge for an article while also satirizing libertarianism (making no comment about the quality of the article), because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
Is your clarification that you aren't defending the article per se, but rather the right to charge for access to said article?
Sure, but it doesn't really change my point, or my comment.
> because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
Your whole condescension here is completely unwarranted. I am well aware that there are a variety of economic systems historically and now.
Look, is it juvenile to accuse lefty/progressive publications of hypocrisy for trying to make money? Sure. And if this was all about some thoughtful criticism of capitalism then the juvenile nature of such a remark would be out of place.
But the original article was likewise completely juvenile and to be frank doesn't even really make sense. It paints a contradictory picture of Libertarianism without concerning itself with whether those contradictions exist in reality or merely in author's own understanding.
I could have responding to the OP with the same sort or "well actually..." type of response as you just did, but it would be like casting pearls before swine. The OP is not a serious intellectual work, and isn't even really that great artistically. It's just an Internet shitpost with fancy letterhead.
Sure, but it doesn't really change my point, or my comment.
> because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.
Your whole condescension here is completely unwarranted. I am well aware that there are a variety of economic systems historically and now.
Look, is it juvenile to accuse lefty/progressive publications of hypocrisy for trying to make money? Sure. And if this was all about some thoughtful criticism of capitalism then the juvenile nature of such a remark would be out of place.
But the original article was likewise completely juvenile and to be frank doesn't even really make sense. It paints a contradictory picture of Libertarianism without concerning itself with whether those contradictions exist in reality or merely in author's own understanding.
I could have responding to the OP with the same sort or "well actually..." type of response as you just did, but it would be like casting pearls before swine. The OP is not a serious intellectual work, and isn't even really that great artistically. It's just an Internet shitpost with fancy letterhead.
The implication is that the New Yorker is just as greedy as the capitalists and corporations it professes to hate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Death to Capitalism" shirts on sale now for $29.99!
This is textbook whataboutism, an extremely dangerous, antisocial logical fallacy
shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d
shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d
So is this an actual honest-to-god industry-plant astroturfing shill, or someone trying really hard to pretend to be one to push the opposite agenda?
It's a gimmick account
> shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d
wat
wat
Check the profile. Someone’s throwing a fit and just saying anything to get downvotes.
ah, gotcha.
This is so good - unlike seemingly everything else I read in "The New Yorker" which is usually so much verbose low-signal drivel.
I want to learn about the new cancer breakthrough, not read 5 paragraphs about what the scientist's office looked like in self-satisfied "prose" only to set the stage for a meandering intro and finally finishing with a few sentences of actual information - often misrepresented by the author's lack of understanding for the science involved.
I want to learn about the new cancer breakthrough, not read 5 paragraphs about what the scientist's office looked like in self-satisfied "prose" only to set the stage for a meandering intro and finally finishing with a few sentences of actual information - often misrepresented by the author's lack of understanding for the science involved.
Reading the New Yorker for science is like reading The Economist for sports.
It's the same for politics, etc. I also don't want to hear about what their office looks like, etc.
[deleted]
bendbro(1)
In a real market utopia, there would've been surge pricing on the gun.