On Libertarian Morality

Economic Inequality Is Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice

by Don Watkins, for The Federalist, 2016 April 14

Regarding businessmen, for example, we should condemn those who lie, cheat, and steal. But we should condemn them as individuals for their dishonest and predatory actions.

Universally, all white collar crime gets punished multiple degrees of magnitude less than hood crime. Condemning one businessman and not all of them is a concession that a couple of years in a comfy cell for frauding millions of people out of billions of dollars is approximately the right response.

There’s value in condemning a dishonest businessman over a dishonest person. A person’s role matters. A negligent student is nothing, a negligent mother should mean something extremely serious but doesn’t thanks to a certain demographic in tandem with a certain political structure, a negligent father has a special derogatory word made up just for him. Businessmen of today are lords of the past. It’s one thing to say they should be able to get away with more – maybe they should? But that’s not the argument libertarians make. “They’re just the same as everyone else!”

Replace “the rich” with “Hispanics” or “women” or “Jews” in that sentence, and ask yourself: isn’t this precisely the sort of prejudice we object to when it is targeted at other groups?

Good thing this isn’t a problem then.

Actually being against prejudice is even more stupid than buying Hanlon’s Razor, which I’m pretty confident was created to cover for corruption. You are prejudiced that your key will turn on your car, the switch will turn on the light, the food you buy isn’t rotten, and that you won’t get assaulted just walking down a street, unless you’re in South Africa, Detroit, Berlin, Paris, or London, then maybe you would. And why would that be reasonable? Is it because of ley lines? Some miasma? Special ghosts haunting those areas? Some other magic? Maybe it’s global warming? But we’re all “just” people right?

Equality is just for show. Your ten fingers are all different lengths and your two eyeballs have different strengths, you treat your mother differently than you do your wife but we pretend we’re all equal because as a public narrative repeated ad naseum at no one in particular and only believed by initiates, “it’s good for business”.

That’s why libertarianism exists. “It’s good for business”. Full sentence: It’s good for millionaires’ business in screwing over fresh cheap labor. And, on occasion, it’s good for businesses screwing over other businesses. Full sentence: It’s good for some bigger businesses screwing over other smaller businesses. And there’s no world outside of business. Nevermind that there are other narratives which are better for everyones’ business. “It’s good for business”.

Everywhere outside America immigration is primarily a cultural issue, but here it’s terrible to think about closing borders because startups might suffer. You know, those small businesses whose entire purpose is to sell out so that its owners can strike it big and always results in all its employees getting laid off because the buyout was for purposes of obtaining patents and the “brand”? Forget any other discussions, forget the state of demographics in this country, or unemployment, how the current generation of young adults have no future except grinding a life of poverty living in a truck at the parking lot of their dream job. If we limit immigration, startups might suffer.

Oh. No. Not the startups. Anything but the startups.

Prejudice encourages dehumanization – it encourages demonizing “the other” so they are seen as less than human and therefore unworthy of respect.

Whose problem is this? Is this an appeal to me to be a better person at any cost to me all for the benefit of someone else? Come back with a billion dollars and a sentence to few years in jail and then we’ll talk about “dehumanization of the rich” or whatever you want. Of course, the billion has to come first.

Should have plenty of billions laying around. You did seize all those assets right?

No?

We need to ask ourselves: Do we really think of rich individuals as human beings?

I can tell you how rich people in this country think of poor people.

No, I don’t have any citations. No reputable sources. I guess I’m just making shit up.

Making shit up that’s just magically on the mark every time.

Do we ever so much as ask: Did they honestly earn their money?

Considering most people quit their bosses and not their jobs?

Did they gain it by dealing voluntarily with other people, through an incalculable number of win-win trades?

Inside systems with many involuntary parts that favor them.

Remember: Libertarians think taxation is coercion and theft.

This is prejudice, plain and simple.

Repeat after me: The end goal of knowledge is prejudice.

What’s worse, it is not directed toward traits that have no bearing on a person’s character, it is directed at something that is in fact a moral achievement.

A literal statement straight from the mouth of a libertarian that having more money is a “moral achievement“, and that this moral achievement also, simultaneously, has “no bearing on a person’s character“.

Cult of Entropy.

This wasn’t a waste of my time after all.

When I discuss unfair treatment of successful businessmen, I almost always hear comments like, “Oh, boohoo. What do the rich have to complain about? Look at everything they have!” This reflects a crass materialism, which amounts to the notion that money solves everything, and that no one can be hurt by or object to mistreatment unless he’s poor.

We live in an advanced technological society, and enjoy a level of wealth, health, comfort, and opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. What made it possible? The effort of producers, on every level of ability, but with the most credit going to the men and women of extraordinary ability: the inventors, entrepreneurs, and investors who drive progress – and earn a fortune in the process.

Materialism is good or bad depending on the intent of the author in that particular paragraph. Or maybe the author wants it both ways; insults people for being materialistic but believes that they probably still believe it anyways, why not use that too for a little extra cha-ching I mean, impact? Maybe the author doesn’t think of his audience as human beings.

Or maybe this is all “human being” means to him.

originally discovered and commented on Facebook, 2017 April 17
edited and added upon for better flow as standalone

Aesthetics before Communists

I was going to make a comment about how I’ve played games with good aesthetics that have bad mechanics/balance, but never the other way around. I stopped, but not because I found examples of the other way around (which I did).

I stopped because I remembered that once upon a time, SJWs basically didn’t exist in videogames, and bad aesthetics were just a result of the art being done by non-artists or because of technical limitations.

RIP GW.

Cutting Cards

In urban planning, a transit-oriented development (TOD) is a type of urban development that maximizes the amount of residential, business and leisure space within walking distance of public transport.

A TOD typically includes a central transit stop (such as a train station, or light rail or bus stop) surrounded by a high-density mixed-use area, with lower-density areas spreading out from this center. A TOD is also typically designed to be more walkable than other built-up areas, through using smaller block sizes and reducing the land area dedicated to automobiles. […]

One criticism of transit-oriented development is that it has the potential to spur gentrification in low-income areas. In some cases, TOD can raise the housing costs of formerly affordable neighborhoods, pushing low- and moderate-income residents farther away from jobs and transit. When this happens, TOD projects can disrupt low-income neighborhoods.

 

Commies are so full of their own shit they actually believe that more public transportation is worse for the poor. Or at least some of them do. Those that’d cite such a statement would. I’m not sure about those who wrote it though.

I really wonder how many statements like these aren’t actually made with the overt topic in mind. Or rather, in obverse, how many statements were made with a different intent in mind but got cited in a different way because words can mean different things if cut different ways.

Sometime recently some HK bureaucrat was asked why he chose an existing apartment block to be demolished for a new one, rather than choosing nearby land that was only being used to house rusting vehicles and equipment. His answer was “it’s easier to move people than to move stuff”. Cue days-long grilling and laughingstock by public opinion, his true position was obvious given the situation, but that sort of thing generally isn’t recorded for the purposes of academia, because there, ad hominem is bad, and if you use it you should feel bad, while they simultaneously also admit that sources are important, and “irreputable sources” exist. No such thing as a irreputable researcher though, of course. Nevermind that researchers only get money if they publish and only get big if they get cited.

But I probably shouldn’t talk too much about that while I’m linking Wikipedia.

Punny

Liberals are not right about anything. After everyone else has actually attempted to make their own beliefs into reality, they are simply the group of people who are left.

A few centuries ago, these people were left to rot. Today with all the luxuries we’ve gained from the toils of every other type of person, these crapshoots are not only rotting, but also the only ones who have any time to talk. Thus, their voice is all we ever hear. That constant buzzing of annoying wandering flies.