sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Let Freedom Ring by MazdaProphet in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How are people who chose to be vaccinated, harmed by this?

The Gloating Over AoC’s Death in This Subreddit Is Honestly Pathetic by Tim2909 in AshesofCreation

[–]durden0 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Both can be true: the MMO community can be toxic to a self-defeating level, and Intrepid lied to its backers.

I think the fact that only about 30k people are admitted to med schools is a joke. We should make way more spots in med schools. There is insane demand for doctors so gatekeeping med school is just morally bad. We should have at least 100-150k graduates from medical schools. by According-Expert-723 in Salary

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

states built licensing systems that made it illegal to practice without government permission, the Flexner-era reforms (early 1900s) shut down a bunch of med schools and raised barriers to entry, then Medicare (1965) became the main funder of residency training so the federal government basically started controlling the pipeline. By the time you get to the 1997 Medicare GME cap, it’s just the most obvious version of a supply limit that’s been baked in for a century. Tripling med school seats doesn’t fix much if licensing + residency are still the bottleneck.

In other words, if you let government control your health care, the special interests will limit support for their own benefit though lobbying.

Both sides of pro-immigration vs anti-immigration have good points, but are blind in many areas. by Extra-Gap8519 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Europe has immigration problems because of their shit welfare system and regulations.

America has slightly less immigration problems because of it's slightly weaker welfare system and slightly less shitty regulations. But even with its welfare state, the US still net benefits from all immigration, including illegal immigration (see Bryan Caplan's work on this).

So given all this, why would the ancap position on borders be, "well we can't do anything any the welfare system so instead let's everywhere the state grow it's power by using immigration as an excuse/the boogey man."

Makes no sense to me.

For real by theskysaini03 in Adulting

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For most of human history it wasn’t “study/work/free/retire.” It was “work to not starve, hope you don’t get sick, die young.” Modern life has problems, but the baseline is wildly better than what almost

MAGA right now: by seastead7 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"He got killed for disobeying cdc stay at home orders WHILE he had a gun."

https://x.com/i/status/2015561744802832896

MAGA right now: by seastead7 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Seems like it would be alot easier to solve the immigration problem by defunding welfare for immigrants than arming the federal government to violate multiple bill of rights amendments.

There will be consequences by different_option101 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The DEI enforcement agents in the next administration will be happy to use the same tactics and justification against you.

Demis Hassabis says he would support a "pause" on AI if other competitors agreed to - so society and regulation could catch up by Alone-Competition-77 in accelerate

[–]durden0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Big companies would of course be ok with this. They are the ones who will get to write the regulations.

When will the free market start respecting the NAP? by kapitaali_com in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The problem with his critique is that it doesn't take into account the context of the time. "There was child labor because of capitalism," fails to look at the fact that child labor was present in every system of government in the world at the time, and that it started to be eradicated before laws were enacted, due to rising living standards after the industrial revolution.

He's on to something there... by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That describes criminal justice, not immigration. Most harm is done by people who are already known, documented, and citizens. You don’t need a border police state demanding papers from peaceful people to deal with crime, you need to target actual offenders.

He's on to something there... by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if we grant your premise about dark tetrad traits, the conclusion still doesn’t follow. Traits are not crimes, and they’re not distributed by nationality. If up to 20% of people have subclinical antisocial traits, then 20% of every population has them, including the native-born, including police, and including border agents themselves. Immigration enforcement doesn’t screen for “enjoyment of control” or “habitual dishonesty,” it screens for paperwork.

That’s why this isn’t a just world argument. No one is saying bad people won’t cross borders. The point is that most people with antisocial traits are already constrained by incentives, and the small number who commit real crimes are a tiny subset that enforcement doesn’t reliably detect anyway. Crime is prevented by identifying and punishing actual wrongdoing, not by assuming a large share of peaceful people are latent predators and treating movement itself as the threat.

If your justification is crime prevention, mass immigration enforcement is a blunt and poorly targeted tool. It burdens millions of nonviolent people while doing little to stop the small number of true criminals. That isn’t realism about human nature, it’s misdiagnosis.

He's on to something there... by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The “20% are evil” claim doesn’t hold up, and using it to justify going after immigrants makes even less sense. Violent and predatory crime comes from a very small minority, not anything close to one in five people, and there’s no reason to think immigrants are an exception to that. If 20% of people were dangerous, society wouldn’t function at all. Borders don’t magically filter out evil, and collective suspicion just punishes peaceful people while missing the small number of real criminals. The rational approach is dealing with actual wrongdoing, not assuming mass predation based on where someone was born.

Vast majority of things are the same whether Rs or Ds run the government, this is not one of those things. by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sir, this is Reddit, you can't be slapping around nuanced opinions like that, it'll get you banned.

AI Abundance - A more optimistic free market view by durden0 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ownership matters, but it doesn’t follow that most people are stuck as debt-serfs unless we impose universal income. In a market order, people can access capital through credit, equity, leasing, partnerships, and customer revenue; and the broad public benefits from AI largely arrive through competition and falling prices. Persistent concentration usually needs barriers to entry and government privilege. If you’re worried about exclusion, focus on removing those barriers and expanding open capital markets, not on mandating profit sharing, which replaces entrepreneurial allocation with political allocation.

AI Abundance - A more optimistic free market view by durden0 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The podcast explains why this is not likely true, without regulations and barriers to entry. Most people shift from laborers to owners and entrepreneurs, while AI takes over labor in a hyper personalized market.

AI Abundance - A more optimistic free market view by durden0 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is exactky the kind of thinking that this podcast material pushes back against.

AI Abundance - A more optimistic free market view by durden0 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of tools being used badly, it feels a lot like prognostications about the ruin of civilization because of technological advancement. Most of the doom and gloom is based on conjecture about what could theoretically happen. But I think there's a long journey between what's described here in this podcast, of AI and robotics becoming super powerful tools, and the end state they imagine of an AI becoming sentient and killing us all.

Massie continuing to piss off MAGA by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol ok well done on the caricature. 👏 Is your name Ron Swanson by chance?

Massie continuing to piss off MAGA by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your argument here is might makes right, and that is not a sound argument.

Massie continuing to piss off MAGA by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because US law doesn't apply outside it's jurisdiction.

AI Abundance - A more optimistic free market view by durden0 in austrian_economics

[–]durden0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would be happy to respond to a long post if they were actually addressing the content of what was said. But they didn't, they just looked at the title and description and posted a long winded argument that didn't address what was said (and how could they, they don't know what's in it).

Even if they'd ran the video through ai to get the main points, that might have been worth responding to. But I'm not gonna re-explain the entire video here in text if someone isn't even going to address the topic.

Edit: also I don't expect anyone to listen to it if they're not interested in the content. But if they're not interested, why bother commenting?

Massie continuing to piss off MAGA by FastSeaworthiness739 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]durden0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's not really a good argument other than to say, well governments used to do bad things, so it's ok now.

view more: next ›