would that be an example of the government telling people how to live

why is it a stupid right

i guess a better way to frame it would be, if we decided that property rights were no longer valid and decided to expropriate that water source would that be an example of the government telling you (nestle's owners, in this case) how to live

so you think it would be an example of the government telling people how to live?

or laws telling people how to live

well no they don't have rights in this case

because we've decided they don't have the right to own that water source

and you have said that rights arise from collective agreement, no?

so it's not a right anymore and it isn't the government's job to protect their claim over that water source

yeah but do you think in that situation it would be fair to characterize the government or law as telling people (nestle's owners) what to do

i'm sorry, let me rephrase that

and use the phrasing i used when you originally objected

do you think the law is telling the owners how to live their life

well, i would

i don't support the notion liberals have of property rights

i don't like the idea of viewing things through the lens of "rights" in general

i would just support property arrangements that produce good outcomes

on a utilitarian/consequentialist basis

grounded in a materialist worldview

that doesn't mean that relative poverty is meaningless lol

yes

he did actually talk about this in wage labor and capital

his thoughts there are backed up by modern psychological research into relative deprivation

and even disregarding that a lot of right lib arguments against inequality are still crude

even if relative deprivation wasn't an issue it would still be better from a utilitarian perspective to have less material inequality ceteris paribus

huh

what sperg out

how is irish separatists being anti-zionist ironic

if anything it makes perfect sense

america

probably

i'm from the south so i most likely have scotch-irish ancestry

if that counts

does being mixed between various european peoples count as being a mutt

i do have distant native american and sub-saharan african ancestry but i'm lik 99% european

yeah i've had my dna tested

according to 23andme i probably had a fully native american ancestor in the 18th century

yeah probably

k

according to admixture analysis yeah

you can't tell that from admixture analysis

what's not racist

i don't understand what's racist here

what do you mean play a card

i'm just saying i'm white

not really a mutt

unless you consider distant nonwhite ancestry to make me a mutt

who is asking for victim points

when did i do that

why

what does that have to do with anything

all i said is that irish separatists being anti-zionist makes sense

do you disagree

because bakeon said it was ironic that irish separatists advocated against israel

money is not bad it is just the product of production for exchange

okay

it's a product of exchange

no people worked long before money existed

yes i mean product in that money is the result of exchange

societies that produced exclusively for use didn't have money

exchange would be if property changed owners

in primitive societies property was mostly held in common

like when hunters killed an animal the meat was held in common and rationed out

gathering and raising children probably

well it might vary from tribe to tribe

here's an article about the topic https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/

well related

what are you rambling about broo

what about it

what do you want me to read

i don't have enough time to do that

who are you quoting

when did i say anything like that

i said that i didn't have time to read everything

no one was really arguing either

that isn't what happened

i posted an article that discussed how property was held in hunter gatherer societies

then broo posted two unrelated links and told me to read everything

i said that i didn't have time to read everything, because unfortunately, i am not immortal

perhaps you are, but i'm not

nah i don't like heights

glasses wearers get the bullet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uAVHxPKS8o

lol that's so stupid

the bakery would probably raise prices

it's still possible they could go out of business

but his example sucks dick

yes but a minimum wage rise can also boost aggregate demand

which can offset the effects of increased prices, though it will vary depending on the products being sold

minimum wage increases don't necessarily result in a net job loss though

increasing the minimum wage might mean that certain types of businesses will become worse off due to the changes in people's spending patterns sure

but it also means others can become better off

i mean personally i'm not the biggest fan of the minimum wage but i think the typical critiques lobbed at it are absolute garbage and usually stem from a deep ignorance of economics

raising prices isn't the only way to offset the additional cost of labor

he's talking about bana alabed i think

people were better fed under socialism

these are just facts my dude https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/?page=1

your argument is just "great leap forward"

is that really it