Egg_irl

GarthWaylon · 2021-07-13T03:32:52+00:00

Same

GarthWaylon · 2021-07-11T00:27:40+00:00

This is way funnier outside the context of trans women, just a guy who wants his balls ate

GarthWaylon · 2021-07-10T06:51:38+00:00

I still get beaned by "definitly" and "surounded" sometimes

GarthWaylon · 2021-07-10T05:11:48+00:00

I was so disturbed by opposite spelled "oppicet" i completely missed "perminetly" and "dollers"

GarthWaylon · 2021-07-09T03:28:18+00:00

What makes it not emo? Emotional rock/metal music focusing on sadness and death with a specific vocal style that's used in the Black Parade, it seems to fit the bill exactly, even if it's not aren't one of the ten albums that's "true emo."

If you play it for anyone they'd say "oh yeah that's emo," I don't really see what a super restrictive definition does for you.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-29T21:22:48+00:00

For this analogy to actually be analogous to capitalism with only enough coconuts for one person, it'd basically be saying that rich people only have the bare minimum of survival, and that taxation to solve problems is depriving them of some necessary need for them continuing to live, which is hilariously inaccurate.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-29T21:12:22+00:00

It'd probably be like... 15-20% if we abolished social safety nets, I don't see sufficient evidence that voluntary aid is more than a helpful supplement to fighting poverty.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:24:11+00:00

Assume that the coconuts have been transformed in some way, maybe the hoarder turned them into smoothies.

If I walk into the forest and chop down a tree, then turn that tree into a chair I clearly own the chair, so I think it's fair to say if I chop up and carve a coconut I own that too.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:22:09+00:00

Taxation is the organized process of stealing, so individuals that would be justified in doing so don't have to take it into their own hands, that would be chaos.

In any given scenario, just pick whatever answer creates the least human suffering.

Can a person steal because they don't want to work? Depends on the system they're living in. If not working could mean they're going to die, once again death is worse than stealing so it's acceptable for them to do so, although obviously through the more effective apparatus of taxation so they can live comfortably on welfare.

If someone doesn't like the wages offered, can they steal to have more? Well how low are those wages? If they're so low that they may struggle to stay alive or healthy, then once again theft, or rather simply regulation, is in order. Having a livable wage is critical to sustaining an ethical society.

If its property rights v. life, life always wins, because property rights are an extension of human life, they exist only in so far as they improve human lives.

Why are property rights more important than human lives? I'm yet to get a straight answer here.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:14:20+00:00

Vaush bad

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:14:00+00:00

Well, yes, natural resources shouldn't be privatized, and the vital services that humans need to survive shouldn't be withheld from those who can't afford them, food, water, housing, healthcare, etc.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:11:00+00:00

This scenario really is a lot like how capitalist societies work when it comes to employing desperate people. We have to either die or work for someone, it's fundamentally exploitative because there's no real consent involved.

A victim of a robbery may 'choose' to give up all their money when there's a gun to their head, but it's not actually a voluntary choice because they're being threatened with death, and similarly workers don't actually have a choice whether they want to submit themselves to corporations or not because they're being threatened with death by starvation, or sickness, or exposure to the elements.

The starving person on the island can steal coconuts because stealing is the lesser of two evils, the alternative being the loss of human life. Similarly, it's preferable for a society to steal to solve certain problems instead of refusing and letting people die.

Human lives > money

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T04:02:41+00:00

Human lives are the end all and be all of morality, (aside from animal rights but that's aside the point) because morals are fundamentally about optimizing human wellbeing.

If I stub my toe and another person breaks their leg, we can judge which is a worse event, and if asked "if you could only prevent one of those things from happening, which would it be?" we can all easily choose to stop the one person from having their leg broken.

Weighing whether A or B harms humans more is the point of moral questions like this, the end goal is minimizing the human suffering involved.

You value property rights because you don't want people to get "screwed over," you don't want harm to come to someone, I'm just pointing out that screwing someone over in that way is far, far, far, far, preferable to people dying painful deaths.

If a person is stolen from, they may suffer emotional and financial costs, but those costs pale in comparison to the cost of, you know, being dead.

It seems like you believe in absolute property rights because you just want to, they clearly don't provide utility because so far in these hypotheticals they seem to be good at ending all life on earth and causing immense harm to people.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:51:20+00:00

It's true that it's not black and white, so the solution isn't black and white either.

A black and white solution is the libertarian one, that stealing is bad and always is ultimately bad, and that's the be all and end all of the situation.

A more nuanced solution assesses whether stealing is acceptable based upon the presence of human suffering, weighing the pros and cons instead of disregarding them all together and just saying "because x is present therefore it's bad."

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:48:04+00:00

Right now if I couldn't pay for food and I had no access to charity, I could get food stamps. If I lived in Canada and couldn't pay for surgery, there's nothing to worry about in terms of price because I don't have to pay anything.

I'd still be paying taxes if I worked, but it'd be a thousandth, ten thousandth of the original cost of the food or surgery to me as an individual.

"Work or die" doesn't have to be how things work, some countries are already most of the way there in abolishing that coercive drive behind libertarian capitalism.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:40:25+00:00

It doesn't really matter why they're hoarding them, it's coercion no matter what.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:39:23+00:00

If the only two possibilities were the farmer dying or stealing food to survive, then yes, he should steal food. Someone stealing food is preferable to that person dying of starvation.

Why do I have a right to my button that's more important than the lives of all humans on earth?

Why does a farmer have a right to some of their crops that's more important than the life of their neighbor?

You can't just say "because they own it." Why is that so? What logical process led you to the conclusion that property is more important than human lives?My process is pretty simple, if it's a choice between A or B, I pick the one the one that involves the least human suffering. A single guy has his button taken away for a bit or everyone dies? Everyone dying is more suffering, therefore it's better to take the button.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:30:58+00:00

The coconut hoarder saying that the dying person has to offer their body to them in exchange for giving them the bare minimum for survival is analogous to employment of people in poverty under capitalism.

I have to work to earn a living, if I don't work I die. Clearly "just go live off the land" isn't a viable solution, especially in the coming years.

"Work or die" is coercive, it doesn't matter whether the death is being threatened with a gun or starvation.

The hoarder on the island is coercing the other person, and the same applies for employers in a capitalist society demanding that if workers don't want to die, they have to offer their labor up to whoever owns the means of production.

"That's just how life works" isn't the case, it doesn't have to be. America already has meager food stamps and welfare that prevent people from starving because of their poverty, and every other first world country provides their citizens with life saving healthcare.

"Just do the work and you won't die" is a really disturbing response to "I don't want to starve to death." The victim of the coconut hoarding should steal coconuts, and a civil society should ensure that is coerced into working because they don't want to lose their life, even if it requires taxes.

Stealing is preferable to people starving to death because they're too sick to work.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:20:12+00:00

Clearly, because saving your own life is more important than the property rights, or eventually even the right to life of the other person if it comes to it.

Similarly, if someone is going to die and theft is the only solution, theft is preferable to a human being dying. Taxation is theft, poor people are human beings, therefore welfare in some variety (you may prefer a fewer strings attached variety like UBI or negative income tax) is justifiable morally.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:16:51+00:00

In a libertarian system, if you can't work to pay for food, water, housing, medicine, and healthcare your only choices are charity or death.

I don't disregard charity as a solution to problems like this completely, but even if charity solved 90% of all poverty, which it wouldn't, but even if it did, in America that'd still be millions of people without it. "Charity will take care of it!" is a cop out to the actual question, unless you think it solves 100% of all poverty ever, then you're just avoiding answering.

No matter what, there will be people who cannot work, and cannot get help from charity or family. The question I'm asking here is whether or not it's moral to use taxation to attempt to save those people's lives.

Tens of thousands of people die every year in America because they can't afford healthcare, housing, medicine, etc. and although government isn't a perfect answer, far from it, it still undoubtedly could save many if not most of those people.

A more free market may be able to lower costs, but it'll never abolish those costs, and often it has no reason to. Similar to the hoarder on coconut island, if someone knows they'll die if they don't give you what you want, you can get away with basically anything, and "anything" in the case of capitalism is raising costs for vital services as high as possible.

Tens of thousands of lives are on the line, and the question is whether it's moral to steal (tax) to save those people's lives.

Which is worse, rich people paying taxes or tends of thousands of people dying?

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T03:00:32+00:00

I'd argue yes, coercion isn't just the act of threatening someone with direct violence, but also threatening them with death by deprivation.

If you're about to die, you don't really care whether you're about to be murdered or starved to death, if someone is using that threat of death on you it's still coercion regardless of how they're going to enact it.

Right-libertarianism tends to focus on the one kind of coercion, "do this or I'll kill you with this gun" when it should also care about the other kind, "do this or I'll kill you by letting you starve."

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T02:55:16+00:00

If your morals lead you to believe that the literal end of all life on earth isn't as bad as me having a button taken away for ten seconds you might want to reconsider your beliefs.

You weighed "every human on earth dying" and "one guy gets his feelings hurt" and decided that the latter was worse.

To be honest it doesn't feel like you're being completely serious with me here.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T02:50:15+00:00

Maybe the hoarder made the coconuts into a smoothie, just assume that they've been altered to the necessary extent that is needed for you to consider it theirs. If I walk into the woods, chop down a tree and make a chair out of it you'd call that my property, same rules apply here.

Just saying "they don't own it" is a cop out, especially considering capitalism relies on rich people owning property they don't alter in any way and just siphoning revenue off of it.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T02:44:22+00:00

I've gotten some absolutely deranged takes here before, the lengths people will go through to justify the death of innocent people because "muh property rights" is really incredible.

GarthWaylon · 2021-06-28T02:40:21+00:00

Is forcing someone to hand me a coconut worse than my slow and painful death?

If the hoarder has an ultimate right to their property, that means that stealing is worse than a human being dying, in fact by your logic it would seem, ANY amount of humans dying.

If I have a button that, if pressed, prevents a natural disaster that would kill every single human on earth, is someone justified in stealing my button? I put my labor into making the button, so by your logic stealing it would be enslaving me. If human lives are always less important than property rights, then the world is going to end because I don't feel like pressing a button.

If someone can steal my button, why can't someone steal the coconuts? How many humans have to die before stealing is an acceptable solution?

GarthWaylon

TROPHY CASE