There's no relation to what's been said. Remember, the point here is that the NAP is useless as a governing principle because the state must aggress to achieve order. To instill "respect for property rights" as you prefer to put it. The relative propensities of Mexicans and Russians aren't under discussion. Anglo derived nations tend to be relatively law abiding because of centuries of aggressive law enforcement. The death penalty was meted out in England at the drop of a hat for centuries.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I'm So Embarrassed That I Ever Called Myself A "liberal."
- Thread starter Westside PUFAs
- Start date
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
What is your argument that the state must aggress to achieve order? I'm not accepting that assertion as a priori true.
The "death penalty" was meted out at the drop of a hat from the Mongolian Plains to the Tartar Steppe for 99.9999% of human history. It's law, decentralized and discovered in courts rather than dictated by legislative authority in England, that forms the basis for the respect of individual rights and property. If you read about the history of English Common Law your eyes might be opened as to the ability of the state to organize society vs. society itself in mutually beneficial and voluntary ways, producing law and order in a bottom-up rather than top-down method.
The "death penalty" was meted out at the drop of a hat from the Mongolian Plains to the Tartar Steppe for 99.9999% of human history. It's law, decentralized and discovered in courts rather than dictated by legislative authority in England, that forms the basis for the respect of individual rights and property. If you read about the history of English Common Law your eyes might be opened as to the ability of the state to organize society vs. society itself in mutually beneficial and voluntary ways, producing law and order in a bottom-up rather than top-down method.
Not in service to the law. That was warfare and murder.
You need to read less mises and more carl schmitt. You've clearly drunk deeply from certain ideological streams and it is my respectful opinion that they are the wrong streams.
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
What law? How is it different when the sultan kills someone, compared to some random soldier of the state, compared to some random private thief or a religious fanatic that stones you to death because someone accused you of heresy?
You need to read less mises and more carl schmitt. You've clearly drunk deeply from certain ideological streams and it is my respectful opinion that they are the wrong streams.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should try reading some Mises. Or the history of English Common Law, like I suggested.
I can tell you are not actually this dumb. Please recant. I am sure you can see the difference.
Coincidentally this appeared today :
The Economic School You've Never Heard Of
by Tyler Durden
May 15, 2017 6:55 PM
Submitted by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,
Mainstream economics is under heavy pressure. Consistently wrong policies and forecasts have damaged the field dubbed “the dismal science.” But what do critics propose should supersede the prevailing neo-Keynesian and neoclassical schools? Almost all alternative economists are calling for more government involvement to “fix” the free market and make it work better.
But there is one school of economics, once prevalent in academia until it was pushed into obscurity, that places the power to fix the world’s problems in the hands of the people.
“Economists err if they forget that economic life existed before them and that it operates, for the most part, independently of them,” American economist Peter J. Boettke wrote in his book “Living Economics.”
Economics was once tasked with describing how man manages the world’s scarce resources, a process far older than economics as a science. But it has morphed into a field that blames the individual and reality for not measuring up to its theories, and then uses the coercive power of the state in an attempt to shape individuals and reality according to its ends.
The Austrian school of economics, the once dominant school of economic thought at the turn of the 19th century, focuses on the individual—and his or her actions and motivations—to explain economic life. It derives its name from the many scholars from Austria who developed 19th-century classic liberalism into a coherent explanation of economic life.
“Economics is in reality very simple. It functions in the same way that it did thousands of years ago. People come together to voluntarily engage in commerce with one another for their mutual benefit. People specialize and divide work among themselves to advance their condition,” writes modern Austrian economist Philipp Bagus in his book “Blind Robbery!”
Reason Versus Force
A bedrock principle of this understanding is that exchange should occur voluntarily and not under the coercion of the state or any other party. If exchange is voluntary, the individual or company must offer something of value if it wants to obtain something of value.
This premise encourages innovative, creative, and productive behavior. It also forces individuals to think about what their fellow humans may appreciate or need. Every decision to allocate capital and labor needs to stand the test of reason, argument, and negotiation.
On aggregate, this decision-making process is much more elaborate and prudent than any central planning decision, which must use force to compel its subjects.
“Production is directed either by profit-seeking businessmen or by the decisions of a director to whom supreme and exclusive power is entrusted. . . . The question is: Who should be master, the consumers or the director?” Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) writes in his book “Human Action.”
Skin in the Game
This approach to economics can do without the complex mathematical models of the current schools because it admits that perfection doesn’t exist. There is no equilibrium.Things aren’t perfect, but the best possible solution to economic problems will be found by private individuals acting voluntarily, each assessing new situations for themselves.
“This is precisely what the price system does under competition, and which no other system even promises to accomplish. It enables entrepreneurs, by watching the movement of comparatively few prices, as an engineer watches the hands of a few dials, to adjust their activities to those of their fellows,” Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek wrote in his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom.”
This acceptance of imperfection, and the insight that those on the ground are best suited to make decisions about allocating scarce resources, avoids the false promise that central planning can solve every problem if only the right people are in power.
Even if central planners, including politicians and bureaucrats who pass laws and regulations, are not corrupt, they can never have enough information to make the right decisions for all individuals impacted by their directives.
They are also insulated from the consequences of their decisions, since their offices are protected until the next election. They have “no skin in the game,” as contemporary philosopher Nassim Taleb put it.
Positive View
The Austrian school also dispenses with the myth that individuals and companies are inherently greedy and need a government to restrain their avarice.
It takes a more positive view of humanity, which includes mutually beneficial exchange as well as charity. Anybody who has ever made time and money available to help a fellow human knows that the neoclassical description of man as only maximizing his material welfare does not hold true in the real world.
In fact, Austrian economists argue that the welfare state, which has so far failed to deliver on its promise to completely eradicate poverty—a promise the competitive system never makes—reduces the individual’s incentives to give. It limits the individual’s material resources through taxation and provides an excuse to evade philanthropy because the government is taking care of the problem.
What holds for market pricing also holds for charity. Individuals and communities can make charitable decisions based on their values and local considerations, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy.
Furthermore, if we are to believe that the individual is fundamentally selfish and cannot be trusted with these decisions, why should we trust central planners, if they can only be removed from office every couple of years (or never, in the case of some bureaucrats)?
“Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race?” asked Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “The Law.”
The answer, of course, is that the organizers are driven by the same flawed, human incentives as everyone else, and the more centralized power becomes, the greater the potential for maximum damage if bad decisions are made.
The Chinese tyrant Mao Zedong’s decision to increase steel output to rival that of the United States starting in the late 1950s cost an estimated 38 million lives, because he did not know or care that the situation on the ground dictated food production for survival.
The farmers, if left to their own devices, would have known better. If a couple of farmers had gone into steel of their own volition, they might have suffered losses, but the rest of the population would have been unaffected. Although this is an extreme example, the principles behind it are applicable to bureaucracies in democratic countries.
Limited Government
If individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies have the best information for making the best decisions, and if their mistakes cost society less than under central planning, then naturally the state will have to take a limited role in interfering with people’s lives. The system would also limit the scope of corporate and government collusion to limit competition, a malady many blame on free markets alone.
Bastiat said the only law the state should enforce is the protection of life, liberty, and property, including a court system for the enforcement of private contracts. He and many Austrian economists looked favorably on the U.S. Constitution, which envisions very limited powers for the federal government.
This is also the reason you’ve likely never heard of this school of economic thought, or read classic liberal teachings in high school or college. Since the majority of secondary and tertiary education is either government-run or sponsored, bureaucrats and politicians would undermine their own claims to necessity if Austrian-school ideas flourished.
A competition among ideas, however, is critical for intellectual discourse. According to another champion of the Austrian school, Ludwig von Mises, it is ideas that determine the fate of our civilization.
“The aim of the popularization of economic studies is not to make every man an economist. The idea is to equip the citizen for his civic functions in community life. The con?ict between capitalism and totalitarianism, on the outcome of which the fate of civilization depends, will not be decided by civil wars and revolutions,” von Mises pronounced. “It is a war of ideas. Public opinion will determine victory and defeat.”
The Economic School You've Never Heard Of
by Tyler Durden
May 15, 2017 6:55 PM
Submitted by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,
Mainstream economics is under heavy pressure. Consistently wrong policies and forecasts have damaged the field dubbed “the dismal science.” But what do critics propose should supersede the prevailing neo-Keynesian and neoclassical schools? Almost all alternative economists are calling for more government involvement to “fix” the free market and make it work better.
But there is one school of economics, once prevalent in academia until it was pushed into obscurity, that places the power to fix the world’s problems in the hands of the people.
“Economists err if they forget that economic life existed before them and that it operates, for the most part, independently of them,” American economist Peter J. Boettke wrote in his book “Living Economics.”
Economics was once tasked with describing how man manages the world’s scarce resources, a process far older than economics as a science. But it has morphed into a field that blames the individual and reality for not measuring up to its theories, and then uses the coercive power of the state in an attempt to shape individuals and reality according to its ends.
The Austrian school of economics, the once dominant school of economic thought at the turn of the 19th century, focuses on the individual—and his or her actions and motivations—to explain economic life. It derives its name from the many scholars from Austria who developed 19th-century classic liberalism into a coherent explanation of economic life.
“Economics is in reality very simple. It functions in the same way that it did thousands of years ago. People come together to voluntarily engage in commerce with one another for their mutual benefit. People specialize and divide work among themselves to advance their condition,” writes modern Austrian economist Philipp Bagus in his book “Blind Robbery!”
Reason Versus Force
A bedrock principle of this understanding is that exchange should occur voluntarily and not under the coercion of the state or any other party. If exchange is voluntary, the individual or company must offer something of value if it wants to obtain something of value.
This premise encourages innovative, creative, and productive behavior. It also forces individuals to think about what their fellow humans may appreciate or need. Every decision to allocate capital and labor needs to stand the test of reason, argument, and negotiation.
On aggregate, this decision-making process is much more elaborate and prudent than any central planning decision, which must use force to compel its subjects.
“Production is directed either by profit-seeking businessmen or by the decisions of a director to whom supreme and exclusive power is entrusted. . . . The question is: Who should be master, the consumers or the director?” Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) writes in his book “Human Action.”
Skin in the Game
This approach to economics can do without the complex mathematical models of the current schools because it admits that perfection doesn’t exist. There is no equilibrium.Things aren’t perfect, but the best possible solution to economic problems will be found by private individuals acting voluntarily, each assessing new situations for themselves.
“This is precisely what the price system does under competition, and which no other system even promises to accomplish. It enables entrepreneurs, by watching the movement of comparatively few prices, as an engineer watches the hands of a few dials, to adjust their activities to those of their fellows,” Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek wrote in his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom.”
This acceptance of imperfection, and the insight that those on the ground are best suited to make decisions about allocating scarce resources, avoids the false promise that central planning can solve every problem if only the right people are in power.
Even if central planners, including politicians and bureaucrats who pass laws and regulations, are not corrupt, they can never have enough information to make the right decisions for all individuals impacted by their directives.
They are also insulated from the consequences of their decisions, since their offices are protected until the next election. They have “no skin in the game,” as contemporary philosopher Nassim Taleb put it.
Positive View
The Austrian school also dispenses with the myth that individuals and companies are inherently greedy and need a government to restrain their avarice.
It takes a more positive view of humanity, which includes mutually beneficial exchange as well as charity. Anybody who has ever made time and money available to help a fellow human knows that the neoclassical description of man as only maximizing his material welfare does not hold true in the real world.
In fact, Austrian economists argue that the welfare state, which has so far failed to deliver on its promise to completely eradicate poverty—a promise the competitive system never makes—reduces the individual’s incentives to give. It limits the individual’s material resources through taxation and provides an excuse to evade philanthropy because the government is taking care of the problem.
What holds for market pricing also holds for charity. Individuals and communities can make charitable decisions based on their values and local considerations, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy.
Furthermore, if we are to believe that the individual is fundamentally selfish and cannot be trusted with these decisions, why should we trust central planners, if they can only be removed from office every couple of years (or never, in the case of some bureaucrats)?
“Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race?” asked Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “The Law.”
The answer, of course, is that the organizers are driven by the same flawed, human incentives as everyone else, and the more centralized power becomes, the greater the potential for maximum damage if bad decisions are made.
The Chinese tyrant Mao Zedong’s decision to increase steel output to rival that of the United States starting in the late 1950s cost an estimated 38 million lives, because he did not know or care that the situation on the ground dictated food production for survival.
The farmers, if left to their own devices, would have known better. If a couple of farmers had gone into steel of their own volition, they might have suffered losses, but the rest of the population would have been unaffected. Although this is an extreme example, the principles behind it are applicable to bureaucracies in democratic countries.
Limited Government
If individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies have the best information for making the best decisions, and if their mistakes cost society less than under central planning, then naturally the state will have to take a limited role in interfering with people’s lives. The system would also limit the scope of corporate and government collusion to limit competition, a malady many blame on free markets alone.
Bastiat said the only law the state should enforce is the protection of life, liberty, and property, including a court system for the enforcement of private contracts. He and many Austrian economists looked favorably on the U.S. Constitution, which envisions very limited powers for the federal government.
This is also the reason you’ve likely never heard of this school of economic thought, or read classic liberal teachings in high school or college. Since the majority of secondary and tertiary education is either government-run or sponsored, bureaucrats and politicians would undermine their own claims to necessity if Austrian-school ideas flourished.
A competition among ideas, however, is critical for intellectual discourse. According to another champion of the Austrian school, Ludwig von Mises, it is ideas that determine the fate of our civilization.
“The aim of the popularization of economic studies is not to make every man an economist. The idea is to equip the citizen for his civic functions in community life. The con?ict between capitalism and totalitarianism, on the outcome of which the fate of civilization depends, will not be decided by civil wars and revolutions,” von Mises pronounced. “It is a war of ideas. Public opinion will determine victory and defeat.”
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
Was your argument that English societies have relatively high respect for property rights, law, and order because the state killed people as a punishment? My retort is to point out that every state in existence killed people as a rule all of the time, and further back in time the death penalty was if anything more prevalent.
P.S. - maybe it's confusing to you because it's only been called "the death penalty" recently. So to you, without a term to frame it in your mind, the state killing people did not count as a "death penalty" explicitly. I don't need a pre-packaged phrase to see that when the state kills someone, it's a death penalty for whatever transgression got them killed (legitimate or otherwise).
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
My argument: Private spaces (stores, offices, amusement parks) are safer than public spaces (parks, alleys, roads) because the property owners and participants in commerce have an incentive to ensure the safety in the spaces they do business whereas the state has no such incentive.
Your response: "You seem to have misunderstood my point about security. You need virtually no security in highly ordered societies. The order is achieved by the state over generations. You see private security in relation to the extent people lack respect for the law. There are more and more mall cops in America because there are more and more degenerates to be dealt with."
My retort: If that is true, that would apply equally to public and private spaces in a given society based on it's history of order achieved by the state over generations. It doesn't.
Your response?
Totally stupid. Did you grow up in a cul-de-sac in Des Moines? This view of urban living is so detached from any lived experience I have to know your background. Maybe try traveling out of whatever weird bubble you live in.
The stores in dangerous neighborhoods are also dangerous. It's about the people that live nearby. Such stores will have multiple guards. In safe places the stores will have zero guards. Do you understand how it works yet? I can take you to both such places in less than an hour. The problem is shitty people. The power of the state exercised over many years and generations can eliminate shitty people.
By the way, I'd like to make clear to anyone who was wondering that this guy is totally full of ***t and did not short GLD or trade COMEX options ten years ago.
For reference, attached are my holdings with a bullion bank from 2006 at $644 per ounce of gold. I was accumulating for four years leading up to that so my cost basis is way lower.
This is certainly not an impressive trade, but it's not a bad one. More importantly, @signalguy is full of ***t.
Attachments
DaveFoster
Member
Badger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 960
"Hey liberals, I have news for you, just because I'm a heterosexual white male, that doesn't mean that I have anything to do with what "white" people who've long been dead did or did not to do other people 50-20,000 years ago. They want to blame everything on "straight white men" but they ignore history. "
Quote above, from 1rst post of this long thread, made me recall a woman blogger who came up with a superb article demonstrating what would very likely happen if men in the US would go on strike, basing her assessment on Dept of Labor statistics. She makes the case, against feminists, that such men are emphatically not gaining unfair benefit from male privilege. Here's a sample of her article:
"Let’s see what happens when the slaves revolt, shall we?
All information taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, 2013, except where noted.
Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
First up, the entire power grid is down. 100% of power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers are men. Now, it’s possible that there are a few women working in these occupations, but however many there are, they do not make up even 1% of the total workforce, so statistically, 100% of the workforce is male. dark 91% of the nation’s electrical engineers are men, and if they don’t show up for work, there is no one to monitor and manage the nation’s electrical supplies. Assuming some automation (designed by men, naturally) kicks in for the day, we had all better pray there are no problems. 97.6% of electrical power line installers and maintenance workers are men. Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.
Don’t bother turning on your taps, either. Or flushing your toilets. 95.5% of water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operators are men. Think you might be able to get out of town for the one day the men don’t show up? Think again.
Planes are out. 95.9% of aircraft pilots and flight engineers are men. If you happen to find a plane with a female pilot, don’t get too excited. 98.4% of aircraft mechanics and service technicians are men. You can, however, be assured of your comfort as you sit on a pilotless aircraft that has no mechanic for pre-flight clearance, because 77.6% of flight attendants are female. Should you be lucky enough to find a female pilot and a female technician to clear you for take-off, you still have some praying to do. Statistically, 0% of airtraffic controllers and airfield operations specialists are women. Of course, that doesn’t mean there are ZERO ladies working in air traffic control. There just aren’t enough to constitute even 1% of the workforce.
Trains, of course, are also out. 100% of locomotive engineers and operators are men, as are 100% of the workers who operate railroad brake, signals and switches. 94.4% of railway yardmasters are men, but if you chance upon a female yardmaster, it won’t help you much. She can’t operate the trains.
You might have better luck with bus drivers, almost half of whom are women. But the streets are likely to be chaos. And there won’t be anyone on hand to help you navigate that.
87.4% of police and sheriff’s patrol officers are men. 96.6% of firefighters are men. 68.8% of Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics are men, so if it all goes ***s up and you get hurt, there’s a small chance you might make it to a hospital. I hope you don’t get too badly hurt, though. 65.7% of all surgeons are men.
Maybe you should just work from home? In the dark, mind you. With no running water. Uh-oh. Looks like that might be a problem, too. For all computer and mathematical occupations combined, 74.4% of the workforce is male. Computer network architects, who design and implement all our computer based communications systems are 91.9% men. And 94.2% of radio and telecommunications equipment installers and repair technicians are men. Looks like that plan is ****88.
Most garbage collectors are men, too. 93.4%, to be exact. You’ll need to stop at the bank first, for a little cash injection.
The machine hasn’t been filled with money today. 81.5% of security guards and gaming surveillance officers are men. It’s unlikely the banks would be functioning anyways, with no men at work. 72.1% of all securities, commodities and financial services sales agents are men. 72.6% of the nation’s CEOs would be taking the day off, along with 70.9% of all the general and operations managers.
Don’t count on getting a weather report today. Statistically, 0% of the nation’s atmospheric and space scientists are women.
Hope it doesn’t get too hot, or too cold the day men don’t show up for work. Even if you had power, which you don’t, you would be hard-pressed to get anyone in to take a look at your wonky air-conditioner or furnace. 98.4% of heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics and installers are men. Oh well. Guess you’ll have to mosey on down to the local café, which has no power either, but what’s logic and consequence anyways? Be careful when you step over all that accumulating garbage! Remember that most EMTs are men, and they’ve taken the day off. Don’t want to get hurt now.
Actually, don’t plan on acquiring pretty much anything today. The workers in the entire production, transportation and material moving occupations are 78.2% men. Not only will no goods be moving on the day men go on strike, they won’t be made, period. 82.4% of all the industrial production managers are men.
Nothing will be built or extracted from the earth in terms of raw materials. 97.5% of that workforce is male.
Nothing will be installed, maintained or repaired. 96.8% of that workforce is male.
If men took a collective day off, we would instantly be without power, without the means to communicate, without protection, without water, without trucks bringing us the food and products we take for granted, because men are the ones who provide all those things.
Where in our culture do we EVER see that acknowledged? If women took the day off, with the sole exception of NURSES, nothing would happen. No one would die. The world would continue to function. The hair salons and primary schools and retail clothing stores would close, and the male management structure would have to find some way to answer their own phones for a day, but essentially, nothing would happen.
You will often hear feminists barking on about male privilege, usually in a well-lit room, comfortably warm, with her iPhone close at hand, buzzing with updates from her latest #mensuck Twitter feed, with zero awareness that every single one of those luxuries is provided by men."
She concludes: "Male privilege is the idea that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women.
http://www.thebabbleout.com/white-male-privilege/
Unearned. UNEARNED?!? The Department of Labor says otherwise, b****. It is women who have failed to earn their privileges. We live in a world powered and created and maintained by men, and yet feminists have created a whole philosophy and ideology that insists women and men are equal. We are not equal. We do not need to be equal."
More:
What would happen if no men showed up for work today?
What would happen if no men showed up for work today?
Quote above, from 1rst post of this long thread, made me recall a woman blogger who came up with a superb article demonstrating what would very likely happen if men in the US would go on strike, basing her assessment on Dept of Labor statistics. She makes the case, against feminists, that such men are emphatically not gaining unfair benefit from male privilege. Here's a sample of her article:
"Let’s see what happens when the slaves revolt, shall we?
All information taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, 2013, except where noted.
Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
First up, the entire power grid is down. 100% of power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers are men. Now, it’s possible that there are a few women working in these occupations, but however many there are, they do not make up even 1% of the total workforce, so statistically, 100% of the workforce is male. dark 91% of the nation’s electrical engineers are men, and if they don’t show up for work, there is no one to monitor and manage the nation’s electrical supplies. Assuming some automation (designed by men, naturally) kicks in for the day, we had all better pray there are no problems. 97.6% of electrical power line installers and maintenance workers are men. Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.
Don’t bother turning on your taps, either. Or flushing your toilets. 95.5% of water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operators are men. Think you might be able to get out of town for the one day the men don’t show up? Think again.
Planes are out. 95.9% of aircraft pilots and flight engineers are men. If you happen to find a plane with a female pilot, don’t get too excited. 98.4% of aircraft mechanics and service technicians are men. You can, however, be assured of your comfort as you sit on a pilotless aircraft that has no mechanic for pre-flight clearance, because 77.6% of flight attendants are female. Should you be lucky enough to find a female pilot and a female technician to clear you for take-off, you still have some praying to do. Statistically, 0% of airtraffic controllers and airfield operations specialists are women. Of course, that doesn’t mean there are ZERO ladies working in air traffic control. There just aren’t enough to constitute even 1% of the workforce.
Trains, of course, are also out. 100% of locomotive engineers and operators are men, as are 100% of the workers who operate railroad brake, signals and switches. 94.4% of railway yardmasters are men, but if you chance upon a female yardmaster, it won’t help you much. She can’t operate the trains.
You might have better luck with bus drivers, almost half of whom are women. But the streets are likely to be chaos. And there won’t be anyone on hand to help you navigate that.
87.4% of police and sheriff’s patrol officers are men. 96.6% of firefighters are men. 68.8% of Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics are men, so if it all goes ***s up and you get hurt, there’s a small chance you might make it to a hospital. I hope you don’t get too badly hurt, though. 65.7% of all surgeons are men.
Maybe you should just work from home? In the dark, mind you. With no running water. Uh-oh. Looks like that might be a problem, too. For all computer and mathematical occupations combined, 74.4% of the workforce is male. Computer network architects, who design and implement all our computer based communications systems are 91.9% men. And 94.2% of radio and telecommunications equipment installers and repair technicians are men. Looks like that plan is ****88.
Most garbage collectors are men, too. 93.4%, to be exact. You’ll need to stop at the bank first, for a little cash injection.
The machine hasn’t been filled with money today. 81.5% of security guards and gaming surveillance officers are men. It’s unlikely the banks would be functioning anyways, with no men at work. 72.1% of all securities, commodities and financial services sales agents are men. 72.6% of the nation’s CEOs would be taking the day off, along with 70.9% of all the general and operations managers.
Don’t count on getting a weather report today. Statistically, 0% of the nation’s atmospheric and space scientists are women.
Hope it doesn’t get too hot, or too cold the day men don’t show up for work. Even if you had power, which you don’t, you would be hard-pressed to get anyone in to take a look at your wonky air-conditioner or furnace. 98.4% of heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics and installers are men. Oh well. Guess you’ll have to mosey on down to the local café, which has no power either, but what’s logic and consequence anyways? Be careful when you step over all that accumulating garbage! Remember that most EMTs are men, and they’ve taken the day off. Don’t want to get hurt now.
Actually, don’t plan on acquiring pretty much anything today. The workers in the entire production, transportation and material moving occupations are 78.2% men. Not only will no goods be moving on the day men go on strike, they won’t be made, period. 82.4% of all the industrial production managers are men.
Nothing will be built or extracted from the earth in terms of raw materials. 97.5% of that workforce is male.
Nothing will be installed, maintained or repaired. 96.8% of that workforce is male.
If men took a collective day off, we would instantly be without power, without the means to communicate, without protection, without water, without trucks bringing us the food and products we take for granted, because men are the ones who provide all those things.
Where in our culture do we EVER see that acknowledged? If women took the day off, with the sole exception of NURSES, nothing would happen. No one would die. The world would continue to function. The hair salons and primary schools and retail clothing stores would close, and the male management structure would have to find some way to answer their own phones for a day, but essentially, nothing would happen.
You will often hear feminists barking on about male privilege, usually in a well-lit room, comfortably warm, with her iPhone close at hand, buzzing with updates from her latest #mensuck Twitter feed, with zero awareness that every single one of those luxuries is provided by men."
She concludes: "Male privilege is the idea that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually denied to women.
http://www.thebabbleout.com/white-male-privilege/
Unearned. UNEARNED?!? The Department of Labor says otherwise, b****. It is women who have failed to earn their privileges. We live in a world powered and created and maintained by men, and yet feminists have created a whole philosophy and ideology that insists women and men are equal. We are not equal. We do not need to be equal."
More:
What would happen if no men showed up for work today?
What would happen if no men showed up for work today?
Luann
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,615
Well, there's a little spoonful of truth.
goodandevil
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 978
You're a slave. Have you factored that into your model?
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
There is a law professor, Bryan Caplan, who writes on this issue. I can't find the statistics off hand but in all socio-economic zones across the country private spaces are safer than public. Also, most security provision in the US is private. The police constitute a very small amount of the security purchased by US citizens, and even then they statistically spend most of their time harassing people for so-called victimless crimes (drug use and sale, traffic violations, prostitution etc.). This does nothing to make a neighborhood safer, and actually the war on drugs that the police have been conducting since the 1970s has created the gang violence that is responsible for most of the homicides nationally, and most of the incarceration as well. Simply legalizing drugs would make the country safer than any other single policy change.
Yes, a store in the hood is more likely to be held up at gunpoint than a store in Peekskill, NY, but a store in the hood is safer than an alley or a street or a public park in the hood, and this relationship holds for Peekskill, NY.
Page 12 of this essay talks about private provision of security: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf
If you'd rather watch a video, Robert Murphy explains these issues here:
although with your right-wing sensibilities, a right libertarian might be more your style. Hans Hermann Hoppe does a good job explaining these issues in this talk:
P.S. - my "lived background" is that I was mostly raised in Southern NJ, elementary school age right across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, middle and high school age in Salem County which is rural and farmer oriented. Then I moved to a shitty town called Lindenwold that is almost majority minority and has gang activity at the high school, and I did my PhD recently in New Brunswick, NJ, in the North/Central area of the state with a decent amount of crime in the streets. We get emails every time there is a crime on campus, lots of minor assaults and muggings from black guys wearing hoodies (according to the reports). Now I live in Central Florida, about an hours drive south of Orlando, and I work close to Orlando. Does that background invalidate the arguments I'm making, such that your non-arguments are now superior?
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
Define slave
Kyle M
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,407
Are you making a binary distinction on property rights, and if so is that the correct analysis of the aggregate situation vis a vis property rights and it's effect on society? In other words, does having one individual in a given geographic area that doesn't respect property rights create the same condition as having 99% of individuals in that category?
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
