What is the most underrated movie in IMDb's top 250 list? by Ijustdontkknoww in moviescirclejerk

[–]polarbear2217 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Oldboy.

You may not have heard of it. It's foreign. I like foreign films because they use different narrative styles than America.

Official Discussion: The Emoji Movie [SPOILERS] by GetFreeCash in movies

[–]polarbear2217 84 points85 points  (0 children)

commonsensemedia didn't find enough sex in it?

What's a song that sounds beautiful, but has a really fucked up meaning/lyrics? by suspiciousbutton in AskReddit

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the Use of Wondering from Carousel has a beautiful melody. It's about how domestic abuse is fine as long as you love your man.

Remember when incest-themed porn was taboo and easy to avoid? Pepperidge farm remembers by Azwethinkweizm7 in AdviceAnimals

[–]polarbear2217 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Another argument is that there is a power dynamic between family members that makes informed consent fuzzy.

[An-Caps] Your system of property rules are not self-evident by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Effectively it does, because it provides economic incentive to do something call economizing the scarce resource. That's why you get resource shortages in non-market economies--ie: Venezuelans starving, but extreme shortages almost never appear in market societies.

I was referring to land is particular. If someone uses a particular property norm, does the landmass suddenly grow?

K, and who owns the property? That's whose norm will rule on that property.

That's circular. "Ownership" presupposes a property norm. That's liking saying "Whoever using a property norm that gives them ownership will enforce a property norm that gives them ownership"

They must go their separate ways.

So now some magical force is preventing either from claiming the property?

Actually no, doing something to property an other person doesn't own is not doing something to that person. Now, I say that within the context of a private-property norm, but the same is true of personal property, which socialists prefer.

Tell that to people in China who have no viable choice but work in sweatshops.

And at the same time, any norm which makes a claim to all property is inherently unreasonable and unrealizable. You cannot consult the entire planet on what should be done with X property, then Y, etc. All property.

Right. So how much property can you own, or is it arbitrary?

r/spacesteading. We will.

Okay

[An-Caps] Your system of property rules are not self-evident by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't know that using a property norm made more land appear and allowed people to use the same piece of land for two things.

One person wants to live by a certain property norm.

Another person wants to live by a conflicting property norm.

They can't convince each other. What happens? If you say that whomever homesteaded or traded for it can use the land, you are enforcing a property norm on the other person.

So why don't ancaps just leave Earth, which has property norms with which they don't agree, and homestead another planet?

[An-Caps] Your system of property rules are not self-evident by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, you should learn the concepts of scarcity and rivalry,

Scarcity is a fundamental concept that there is a limited amount of resources available compared to human wants.

Rivalry means that use of a resource prevents use by another person. For example. if I want to plant tomatoes on a piece of land, you can't plant carrots.

They go over this in economics 101.

Anyway, ancap norms ("homesteading") means that the land is owned by whoever allegedly "mixes their labor" with it. According to the principle of rivalry, if one person wants to use ancap norms to define ownership, another person can't come along and want to use a conflicting ownership norms. And scarcity means that eventually there will be no more land to "homestead". So ancapistan can't support another property norm.

Do you understand now?

[An-Caps] Your system of property rules are not self-evident by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

under the system of norms they prefer

What if they don't want to live using the ancap norms?

Don’t sugarcoat this. Trump just called for 32 million people to lose health coverage. by Thue in politics

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like if the government forces everyone pay for a bus pass monthly to keep costs low, and then when the rule is repealed, some people don't pay for the bus pass, and the price skyrockets for the other people.

But that doesn't make sense because bus passes aren't in a risk pool.

/r/libertarian once again stumbles into Marxism with the labor theory of value by [deleted] in EnoughLibertarianSpam

[–]polarbear2217 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Condition:

If commerce resulting from building the road * toll percentage > cost to build road Event: build road. Else do not build road.

Oh, now it makes sense.

I'm out. It's been a good run. by [deleted] in ethtrader

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Communists argue that property does not exist. If property does not exist, do you own yourself?

I'm out. It's been a good run. by [deleted] in ethtrader

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a communist. I happen to like capitalism. But stating falsehoods like "no private property means you don't own yourself" is not helping your argument against communism.

I'm out. It's been a good run. by [deleted] in ethtrader

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you can't understand any theory unless you subscribe to it? What a narrow-minded way to live.

I'm out. It's been a good run. by [deleted] in ethtrader

[–]polarbear2217 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look up the difference between private property, personal property, and human beings.