>audio-video.gnu.org
>Freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice... when people say: "Yeah, I wish I could use Free Software but it's inconvenient in a certain way". What they're saying is: "I don't value my Freedom enough to make any sacrifice." and you're not gonna get Freedom if you do that.
Do you agree, Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
well that's pretty basic economics so no shit
pretty funny too with RMS's views on economists
I use Weston. What do you think?
Oh look, the left can’t meme.
why do you put arrow before the url
>Being a fiscal liberal that spends money haphazardly on social programs and the military is a good thing
>Making sane economical decisions that don't result in eventual austerity and allow for economic growth in the productive classes is a bad thing
Jesus Christ. This picture more than anything reminds me why I stopped being a leftist and eventually fell for the classical liberal meme: because you literally can't have a functional gov't that spends more than it actually allows it's populace to actually generate revenue
Yeah, I think people should personally carry the burden of their bullshitting. I personally advocate for free software and all that stuff, so I use GNU+systemd+Linux everywhere I can. I suffer sometimes because of this, but I am at peace with myself. If you advocate for the war - you should go to the war, otherwise you're a fucking bigot.
>productive classes
The ones that are already replaced by robots or those who soon will be replaced by robots?
who is this semen demon
>Implying that advances in technology have stopped economic advancement before
Clothes used to be made by artisans in the middle of a farm out in the rural parts of the country. When the Industrial Revolution came, they started being made by machines in large factories and in Europe at least, the artisans revolted and started Luddite movements. Yet here we are 200 years later and the clothing economy hasn't collapsed and there are still jobs in the market as well. The adaption of a new technology doesn't magically destroy the job market in said industry, kid.
Hairy McArmpit
The adaptation of a new technology does destroy the old job market to create a new, smaller, job market. Instead of 15 trained wool croppers, you need 1 apprentice to operate a machine. 15 people are left on the streets and the only thing they were trained to do is cutting wool. They are fucked, will revolt and cause trouble, but now you can buy cheaper stockings of lesser quality for no reason but "hurr durr we need more stockings because more stockings means more progress".
freedom ain't free
> 15 people are left on the streets and the only thing they were trained to do is cutting wool
More like, 15 people take other jobs that are in other fields that require very low amounts of skill and still make a living (which yeah it is unfortunate but to say that they go homeless is pants on head retarded. it's like saying that the peasants who had their jobs replaced in the Industrial Revolution just laid down where they stood and died, instead of doing the rational thing and getting another job that was closer to the city, which is what happened because they weren't fucking idiots and knew they had to pay for food somehow).
>More like, 15 people take other jobs that are in other fields that require very low amounts of skill
Yeah, except that does not happen as fast as "development" eating their jobs, hence Luddites did exist. I guess it won't happen again, too.
>doing the rational thing and getting another job that was closer to the city
>sane economical decisions that don't result in eventual austerity and allow for economic growth in the productive classes
Can't see any "economic growth in the productive classes" here, can see only people dying of hunger desperate to do anything to survive. So,
>Being a fiscal liberal that spends money haphazardly on social programs
Is a good thing because they will have time to adjust to the new job market without diving into the poverty hole.
>Can't see any "economic growth in the productive classes" here, can see only people dying of hunger desperate to do anything to survive.
Well, that really says a lot more about you really since you think everyone is so stupid as to not starve when they lose a job even though the exact opposite is true in real life for the most part.
Also, there's better ways to actually keep people moving up on the social ladder than continuously giving them social handouts, like literally creating a tax subsidy for small or regional businesses for hiring people that are in the lower classes, so they don't have to starve and there's actual economic growth and not keep on the gov'ts' dole for generations at a time, as what happened to the African American community and the growth of that demographics use of welfare per capita, leading to unstable family structures, decaying and downright shit infrastructure in a lot of their neighborhoods and the crime problem. You can create social programs that aren't wasteful and actually have a measurable economic and social return, you know. Giving away free money isn't the solution to everything.
mises.org the post
listen to sam seder
That's a false dichotomy. RMS chooses to think software "freedom" is more important than any other definition of freedom in any different arena. And he implies anyone with different values than him is in the wrong.
How about you listen to someone who actually understands economics like Thomas Sowell:
youtube.com
no thanks I was 15 a while ago, no need for Real Economics (TM)
youtube.com
Okay.
>Using economics to justify moralistic rhetoric to justify something that while it has good intentions, may have quite disastrous consequences, despite economics being a study of consequences of actions and how to allocate finite resources in the most efficient way
That sounds more like what a braindead 5 year old would do really.
This is why I don't take the left seriously. They confuse good intentions with good outcomes and try to browbeat people with their hardliner rhetoric without actually looking into the consequences themselves.
...
>it ain't econ if it's not a dry hours long lecture
got spuds behind your ears or something?
why don't you call in to the show tomorrow and set him right
I'll listen in during my lunch
your problem is you don't see the negative consequences of private action or government inaction
government power bawwwwwed, private power behhhhhhhhhter
broaden your horizons dude, maybe keep your mouth shut about your feudalistic rightist worldview over the holidays
can you point out what in specific sam said that was wrong? first of all it's okay to get inflamed about serious fucking issues. second, complaining about someone's tone doesn't make them wrong
give SPECIFICS
>t. pedo
Thomas Sowell literally teaches economics at Cornell and UCLA, so I would think he knows a little more than some random comedian. Why would I take some random entertainer seriously? I mean, you literally are no better than someone that unironically believes PJW or Alex Jones. And you have the audacity to call me underaged despite not being able to literally read (in this case I guess listen) to a fucking informational book.
as expected, no specific points of dispute, appeal to authority
oh and there are no leftist economics at universities apparently
at least the fat pedo fuck is not a hypocrite, I give him that. I'm looking at you, Hollywood liars. Sad!
What do you mean? One of the first videos I saw was something calls Ron Paul a "corporate feudalist" which is bullshit . Ron paul is essentially a minarchist like myself, meaning that we want to reduce the scope of gov't within the economy and within the private matters of the citizens of the country. he's also an isolationist and very anti-corporation, seeing that he realizes that big business often is more able to influence a larger gov't than a smaller one seeing that the gov't has more control over the economy and has the ability to form monopolies/oligarchies that favor big business (like the Robber Barron Age in the late 1890s). Just because you follow an idiot that can't differentiate between a corporatist like John McCain, the Bushes and the Clintons (along with their former pal Trump) and Ron Paul doesn't mean he's a valid source for anything but entertainment, like Alex Jones
Also, your beloved late-night talk show host makes the mistake of believing that a person that says some out there shit represents all Libertarians and all Libertarians think alike to him when he says some AnCap, almost neo-Darwinistic thing like the" poor must die because they're poor". When in actuality, most Libertarians aren't AnCaps and in fact, since this past election the Libertarian Party has gone to the left a bit really, since they were literally talking about how a Jew had to bake a Nazi cake and Christians should bake fag cakes, which was the stupidest bullshit I ever heard and made me leave the Party, along with Gary Johnson's record on guns, which was complete rubbish, just like his candidacy. Honestly, Ron Paul should've won the Republican primaries or Jim Webb the Democratic Primaries. It would've been fun to see The true Bluedog Democrat vs. Yes We Rand in 2016. Sadly, all we got was a braindead socialist, the Zodiac killer, Le Wall Man and a blatant corporate shill
>a sacrifice in form of losing sane mind
>being this much of a neckbeard fuck that you have to bother other people to do proprietary haram and otherwise dangerous things for you, like downloading a birthday card
wew
If you're not self-sufficient, you don't have Freedom.
Source on girl?
"Killing yourself back to and drooling over generic, random sluts there": The Second Coming
We're at a point now where automation only creates jobs because it frees up bottlenecks in manufacturing chains. Unfortunately this leads people to believe that automation ~always~ creates new jobs, but that's just not true. For a base case we can just look at jobs which had only one link in the chain to be replaced (operators, elevator attendants, etc) which now no longer exist. Combine that with the fact that there is no process with an infinite number of unique links/steps and it becomes clear that as automation is implemented we approach a state where that process no longer has any need for human work.
At that point it becomes less important to find what jobs humans can still do, since that's a futile task, and more important to find an economic system that functions when human labor is not needed nor wanted. No one has proposed an answer that makes sense with that idea and also doesn't conflict with shitty human psychology. A post-scarcity "everything is free" type system is ideal but it simply can't happen unless you reeducate billions of people, so good luck. Basic income is shit because it refuses to give up on the idea of money entirely, even though money at its core is an abstraction for labor which would no longer really exist at that point. It's just a band-aid there to make everyone feel like the current system it's been jammed into still functions well, when that just isn't the case.
sauce
...