Will Torbald

Only in lala land where IQ doesn't exist and everyone is equally intelligent. People who are driven towards manual and skilled labor are the people who don't have the skills for entrepreneurship or STEM in the first place. Those laid off workers aren't going to jump into tech, or a medicine degree. They will remain unemployable and stuck in limbo - or what they usually do, resort to crime and homelessness - and/or government welfare.

The only problem with police is how they are funded, not what their job is. Until society is ready for private police, antagonizing them without replacing them is only going to make things worse. It is also a good idea to have higher standards in training and in the people the hire. But the actual idea and concept of a police force is a good one.

Not an argumento

It's like we read completely different books. I don't want to keep discussing this because you are unable to adhere to my previously made corrections. In the other thread you went back to calling upb preferred behavior rather than preferable, so I don't care what you think about upb anymore. Anything else is game.

I'm not an economist, nor austrian. When you pulled out equations you might as well have written black magic to me. I'll ask however, is it that interesting to write a value equation for upb? What does it help to understand that wasn't clear before with words?

UPB is the method of choosing standards without whim. It is systematic, not consequentialist. It doesn't go about enabling the whims of society, but challenges them.

The whim you're talking about is in another layer. I was talking about the whim of enforcers. If someone wants to decree that French is the official language of their country, they would have to enforce it. It's their whim. But if you want to say that all standars and all principles are whims, that's on another level, and I think that's the level of nihilism.

You could enforce anything if you want. The argument, philosophical argument - not a cultural decision - is what moral principles are worth enforcing that make rational and empirical sense. What is fair isn't decided through whim, but through reason.

I always try to remember that UPB says that morality is the subset that deals with enforceable behavior. Language is another subset of UPB, but it is not fair to enforce it, so it is an aesthetic behavior. What is fair to enforce is the NAP and it's derivatives of not stealing, assaulting, etc.

A lot of people in the world are not like that. The muslim world allows for many kinds of rapes, assaults, and murders. There is always a culture of the ingroup and the outgroup. We good, they bad. Killing ingroup bad, killing outgroup good. That's what UPB is up against, saying that murder and rape etc are bad no matter what group a person belongs to. In secular liberal societies like America it may be in vogue, but noooooot at all in many other parts of the world or cultures.

Those who care already know this, and those who don't care won't change when you show them because they don't care.

Just that they are applicable to all, not that they are already preferred. I don't know of any argument in it that states that UPB refers to preferences that are already in vogue by everyone, nor that they refer to local and cultural preferences. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. It's what people ought to prefer, and can prefer universally - not what they currently prefer.

On the bright side, it pushed a ton of democrats to read the constitution for the first time in their lives. Pro tip: there's nothing in there about a religious test for immigrants.

Only if stealing were universally preferable would two people in a room be unable to steal from each other. It's not a statement made in our world, but one in a hypothetical one.

Synths are instruments too.

To what industry would those US jobs go if all industries take the jobs abroad if the regulations and taxes choke everybody? All industries die at once and the result is unemployment, and underemployment. A lot of companies will sell at a loss just to capture market share, which is the model the videogame consoles do with PS4 and XBOX selling their consoles lower than cost to compete with Nintendo which cannot afford to do so since it only does games, while Sony and Microsoft can use the money from their other branches to carry the cost. If Toyota sells cheaper cars than Ford in the US, you can bet it is doing it at a loss or at cost of production, which summed with marketing costs is also a loss. So it's not an issue to say that if Ford "can't make cheaper cars they shouldn't make them at all" since Toyota is willing to lose money just to compete. Should Ford lose that money and risk losing all and having thousands of people unemployed? Also, you think of companies as if they "choose where to manufacture" as if their decisions were morally independent. They don't choose where to go when the government is forcing high taxes and regulations, and other countries seduce them without those. When Disney replaces workers with H1B serfs, are you going to defend them because they "freely choose who to hire"? While leaving Americans out of their jobs? This is why globalists are disgusting.

1- If you can convince people that they shouldn't be immoral just because, it can affect their behavior. Otherwise morality needs enforcers, with which it would be neutered ideology only. 2- If you make a logically consistent argument, I think it can be said to be more than a personal preference. I think it goes beyond a subjective opinion, because an opinion on murder would be "I love murder, I like doing it, it feels great!" and I'm sure there are people like that somewhere. But to say "murder is an immoral action because of this argument" then you're not really saying wether you think it's fun or boring or disgusting or cool.

Crazy is not an insult if it accurately describes what you were doing.

Of course, Google. Also known as the technology branch of the democratic party. I've been disgusted by Google long enough to switch to using Bing and Microsoft alternatives as much as I can even if sometimes Google is better. I just hate them completely. By the way, the results in Bing do have some Trump articles, but not obviously manipulated like in this case is.

INTP-A. Not surprising.

Were you being crazy, though? I mean, they could have been right. I don't know, you didn't give the details of what you were talking about before they called you crazy.

Taxing the income of native companies is not the same as placing a tariff on the imports of a foreign company. Don't miss that on purpose. If Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford, it's going to have to compete, so a tariff on Toyota to help Ford won't hurt Ford. But if Ford decides to make cheap cars in Mexico and bring back the cars to the US, then Ford is behaving like a foreign company since it is not creating jobs in the US anymore, and it's probably keeping the money in foreign subsidiaries as well. But if another US car company were to make cars for the US, and Ford gets to bring in cheaper Mexican cars - can it really be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US? When the other US car company that made the american cars gets to be undercut by the traitorous Ford?

What if that person actually looks like the original drawing?

Feminism = Penis Envy

I think you're arguing something different. I don't see where I said I am in favor of taxing domestic companies into oblivion. I was suggesting that tariffs on imported goods keep jobs inside since companies wouldn't take their manufacturing elsewhere and then sell it back. Tariffs plus low taxes for ingroup companies is what Trump is declaring he'll do. It's also what America used to do before the so called free trade deals were implemented and that did take the manufacturing abroad.