/r/libertarian, whats up with the attitude?

booksandpowertools · 2012-05-23T01:27:50.732199+00:00

Disabling the downvote button doesn't change much because redditors can just disable custom interfaces and downvote.

Also - I always wonder when people complain about downvotes. Have an example? Sometimes people say libertarian things in very offensive ways. Or say something that's just not true.

Or sometimes people get -2 and complain about it. Don't worry so much about karma.

booksandpowertools · 2012-05-23T01:24:57.796626+00:00

Probably just depends on who is posting and what kind of news there is to talk about. Also there may be an ebb and flow of discussion.

But there is always, allllwaayyys complaints about how /libertarian could be better. It's just the internet.

If you see something worth posting here, post it. If you see something worth voting on, vote on it. If this place still makes you mad, there are other subreddits. Maybe it'll be better later.

The likelyhood that things changed drastically in a month is ... low. And I don't want to blame people coming out of school or whatever. It's just the tide.

no_front_teeth · 2012-05-22T18:32:05.629415+00:00

Just because your idea is "controversial" and you act like you don't care if other people don't like it doesn't make you wise, your opinion well thought out or worth listening to.

MisterHandy · 1 day

Screaming at someone draws attention to them, so that is more like upvotes.

In a healthy reddit the top upvoted comment(s) are all a reader needs to get the OP's answer, or the counter point, or confirming evidence.

Sometimes I'll look to the negative comments if I think the reddit is being a circle jerk. But I think most people usually read a handful of upvoted comments before moving on.

BQDC · 1 day

The podcast should have a write up on the content inside. It would probably attract more attention if it did.

I like podcasts, but it is taxing to try a new one sometimes. I'll take a listen tomorrow.

SargonOfAkkad · 1 day

Speaking at an easier reading level is a sign of better writing.

ljanacas · 1 day

You're taking the Internet too seriously I think.

praxeologue · 1 day

Johnson needs something big. I think if Peter Schiff became an economic adviser to Johnson, and spoke on Johnson's behalf, that could be a jump start he needs. But timing is difficult. It can't happen until Romney is the nominee, but if that happens it may be too late to make a difference for Johnson.

Someone like Schiff could focus people on Johnson without scuttling the inroads made on the Republican party.

NeedsEvidence · 1 day

It's not possible to hire people with compensation packages without exposing the details of that package. Either they give benefits based on a particular definition of marriage, or a general definition or they don't deal at all with spouses.

Straight people being kind to gay people while opposing homosexuality is bigoted behavior. I'm not saying its right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

A company that doesnt acknowledge gay marriage and only pays out, say, survivor benefits to spouses who were in a heterosexual relationship will be found out because the employees and their spouses will know of that policy because of their involvement. The information will leak out by neccessity because employees and former employees know about it. If a homosexual surviving spouse is denied benefits that's likely to create concern in the public at large.

If its a Catholic school maybe people will tolerate that contract. If it's a pencil factory maybe people will buy the competitors pencils.

gilbralter · 1 day

How did this wisdom come from /askwomen?

NeedsEvidence · 1 day

Well then business has to change how they offer services to employees and customers. Instead of saying "your spouse receives these benefits in the event of an accident" it could say "your one opposite gender spouse..."

Sometimes words change meanings from under people. Marriage today basically means building a life with one person who you have sex with. The church can't control the change in meaning of the word, because words change all the time. The government has a responsibility to process contracts. If groups don't want to serve people who are married to the same gender then they have to show their bigotry and specify that they serve married couples as defined by the Pope (or whomever).

NeedsEvidence · 1 day

But insofar as marriage is a contract between people, the government should honor that.

So the government doesn't care what the contract is called, they just process it in court. The contract signers can call it whatever they want though, and many will choose to call it marriage. Which from an anti gay-marriage person would amount to people using the word "marriage" wrong as they believe marriage has to be blessed divinely with a big pile of rules behind it.

NeedsEvidence · 1 day

That's a lot of extrapolation for a six second clip.

AnonForSenate · 2 days

Do you know other people with similar physical condition who have had a fulfilling sex life?

GIVEMEREPLAY · 2 days

Build taller skyscrapers, find new ways of living in harsh conditions (mountains, tundra, desert, ocean, arctic) find ways to get more use up of existing space (higher density farming, lower impact of waste disposal), build new islands, go into space...

There are tonnes of ways to use land more effectively or create new options. Also prosperous nations tend to have lower birth rates. But more importantly the communist doesn't have a solution either. 7 Billion people on 1 planet is 7 billion whether they are communists or capitalists. But capitalists will have better tools for making high rises or transporting food and energy to the arctic.

I think what the communist fears is that one person will buy ALL the land and then be a dick about it. But land is only a place where value creating things can happen. If I own a commercial high-rise in New York, how much I can charge is tethered to how much a business can earn there. If a good business can earn a million dollars a year at that location then the most I can charge is some fraction of that and a lot of workers and shareholders get a slice of that money too.

Land is a good like any other. What happens if someone buys all the food or all the power? Well the market doesn't really allow that to happen. And if prices go up the incentive to increase supply, or encourage economical use, goes up.

AbjectDogma · 4 days

If the game development company doesn't want to pay their taxes, bless them and I wish them luck.

However it is not up to the government to choose not to enforce some of its own laws. Or to opt to treat the company differently because of political pressure. That's what gets us things like the GM bailout.

My criticism lies with the government. If the government porously enforces rules it is picking winners and losers.

But if I were an investor in the game company, or a business adviser, I would tell them that they should pay their taxes because if you don't your company will soon stop existing.

They are in the business of making games, not of fulfilling a libertarian Atlas Shrugged wet dream. If a company can't pay its taxes it will probably cease to exist soon. Call it paying protection money if you want. You pay the people who will not negotiate first.

If they can find a way to not pay their taxes and still make video games, have at it.

SargonOfAkkad · 4 days

I'm not an American but I see no reason why that would be a problem from a libertarian point of view.

There are a tonne of legal and logistical issues. But in essence, yes, that would be possible. I'm sure there is even historical president for it, where the US voluntarily withdrew from territory it was controlling. Withdrawing from a US state is many times more extreme, and probably a silly idea for other reasons, but that doesn't change the answer to the question.

AbjectDogma · 4 days

Of course.

HXn · 5 days

I like that Muslim.

AbjectDogma · 5 days

Taxes should be low, but you still need to pay them. Giving them a break on taxes would be an unfair advantage, also it would be picking winners and losers.

whatsonmymindgrapes · 5 days

You'd think your bio would be something you would absolutely get right.

It's almost as bad as a typo on the author's name. I don't really give a fuck, but it is interesting.

edwardunknown · 5 days

Sure it is.

Crazy anti-evolution people want to debate Richard Dawkins all the time and he just ignores them. Because if he's seen debating an anti-evolutionist it gives them credibility. He'd rather say it's a waste of his time and seem untouchable.

Obama and Romney will do the same.

In 2000 I don't think Ralph Nader got to debate Gore or Bush (correct me if I'm wrong). And Nader is probably a more well known figure over Johnson. At this time anyway.

edwardunknown · 5 days

It's generally terrible policy to "punch down", meaning to attack those who are behind you in the polls.

Obama, and Romney, have nothing to gain from debating Johnson, just being on stage with them would make Johnson look good. They will both pretend he doesn't exist if they can. And honestly that's good strategy.

Osterstriker · 5 days

Sure, TED invited someone to speak. But TED won't know whether the speech is any good until you actually record it. TED has a product, excellent talks on subjects you won't hear anywhere else.

They are not in the business of mediocrity, or "better than average". Anyone whose been in any form of production (TV, Movies, Books, Magazines, anything) knows that you leave out stuff all the time. Writers have a term for this called "murder your darlings" which is a way of saying that even if an author likes a passage and want to work it into the work that it is sometimes necessary to leave it out. Content creators know that the audience will never miss what was cut from the final product because they don't know what isn't given to them. Chef's do this too. They throw out good food the cooks made because it doesn't meet the chef's exacting standards. If you start leaving out high-quality content that is a VERY good sign.

You said you saw a standing ovation... I see some people standing. I hear a few hollars. Obviously about half liked it because I see some people who looked like they hated it. Some aren't even clapping out of politeness.

And in the end, it's not our call. We aren't TED producers. We don't have to compare that talk to all the other ones who are vying for a spot in an exclusive club. It's not our reputation on the line.

The only reason why we know about this okay TED talk is because the speaker went to a PR company to try and bully TED into releasing it. That's it. There are hundreds of TED lectures that will never be on the website.

hondaaccords · 7 days

It might violate US federalism, I actually don't know if it does or not, but it is a libertarian position.

AnonForSenate

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login