|
Disinterested posted:Conversations about libertarianism are only worth having if one person in the conversation is a proponent of it? You're almost pedantic and boring enough to be a libertarian, so you'll have to excuse people for making that mistake.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:18 |
|
Jizz Festival posted:You're almost pedantic and boring enough to be a libertarian, so you'll have to excuse people for making that mistake. I await your searing hot takes on this subject.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:A lot of people associate "anarchist" with century-old terrorists and/or the black bloc, so it's a loaded term. Not that "libertarian" isn't loaded either, but Also, they aren't anarchists. They just want the state to be corporate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Also, they aren't anarchists. They just want the state to be corporate. Left-libertarians do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
.
Internet Nobody fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Apr 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Tom Steele posted:Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition The comments are making GBS threads on them for misrepresenting the Free Folk and we need that Wall to keep out rapist sand Muslim terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I await your searing hot takes on this subject. Well, I understand what you're doing now, sorta, and at least you're keeping this thread active. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Please stop trolling, dis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Moi, a troll?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Not even a good one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
I think the problem here is how to distinguish between moderate libertarians and embarrassed republicans
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Kind of a random political philosophy question I have been thinking about. When I was a teen I identified as libertarian because I really liked the idea of people being able to live their lives as they see fit without outside intrusion or coercion, there are many reasons why I don't identify as libertarian anymore but one is the most glaring. Say you have a libertarian fellow named Todd who really hates people with green hair. Todd knows that his political philosophy would not sanction government prohibitions or punishments for green hair so instead he goes around to all of the local businesses and tells them not to serve people with green hair. He then goes and talks to all of his friends and tells them to socially ostracize people with green hair and disallow their children from befriending them. Todd then writes a book about how people with green hair want to kidnap and murder your children and annihilate western civilization unless they are stopped immediately. Todd is technically a good libertarian, he's suggested no punishments for the green-haired coming from the big bad government! Basically my teen expectation of libertarians was this: https://twitter.com/ap4liberty/status/729103297647398912 And in reality I got Mises and his "In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children." Is there a name for a political philosophy more in tune with what I was envisioning as a teen? Kind of like "live and let live" or lifestyle pluralism formalized into some sort of political and social ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Kind of a random political philosophy question I have been thinking about. When I was a teen I identified as libertarian because I really liked the idea of people being able to live their lives as they see fit without outside intrusion or coercion, there are many reasons why I don't identify as libertarian anymore but one is the most glaring. Just normal anarchism? I mean they'll probably have Strong Words (backed by machineguns) if you want to start exploiting the labour of others but otherwise that's broadly compatible with anarchism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:And in reality I got Mises and his "In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children." Pretty sure that was Rothbard, not Mises.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Kind of a random political philosophy question I have been thinking about. When I was a teen I identified as libertarian because I really liked the idea of people being able to live their lives as they see fit without outside intrusion or coercion, there are many reasons why I don't identify as libertarian anymore but one is the most glaring. Maybe? Probably not. There's a lot of ways to approach an explanation, but the basic problem is that we have to share space. If I want to sit underneath a tree to enjoy its shade, and you want to cut it down for lumber, one of us is not going to let the other live how they'd like to. The societies that seem to have come closest to a basic level of access/equality/etc. for all involved in that society is some form of...whatever the various scandinavian countries have going on. I don't remember if it's called democratic socialism or social democracy, I just remember the distinction is pretty important because I seem to also remember that one of those has a history of getting pretty bad results and the other doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Pretty sure that was Rothbard, not Mises. Yeah, the article was on the Mises website and I didn't look closely enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Basically my teen expectation of libertarians was this: Well I mean, that IS what you're envisioning as a teen. You just never stopped to ask why the fully automatic machine guns to "defend" the weed fields would even be necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Maybe? Probably not. There's a lot of ways to approach an explanation, but the basic problem is that we have to share space. If I want to sit underneath a tree to enjoy its shade, and you want to cut it down for lumber, one of us is not going to let the other live how they'd like to. Well you have a latent case of heatstroke and I have a chainsaw, so it seems like the invisible hand of the free market (pbuh) is pointing at one of us (you) while its other hand makes an "L" sign on its forehead
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
So I just watched a short video going over what a lovely person Ayn Rand was and I learned something from it. While addressing Rand's hypocrisy in taking Social Security and Medicare benefits, he mentioned that other Libertarian leading ladies avoided this. I've never heard of this Rose Wilder Lane or Isabel Paterson. Do they deserve to have Rand's cultural legacy? What were they like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:
Rand doesn't deserve her cultural legacy, why should it be different with any other libertarians?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So I just watched a short video going over what a lovely person Ayn Rand was and I learned something from it. While addressing Rand's hypocrisy in taking Social Security and Medicare benefits, he mentioned that other Libertarian leading ladies avoided this. Seems like Rose Wilder Lane became a libertarian to LARP being her mom more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Rand doesn't deserve her cultural legacy, why should it be different with any other libertarians? Because I don't think all Libertarians are selfish sociopaths. I'm sure some of them actually meant well. I just wasn't sure if these women are examples of that. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Texas Observer Presents: The Rise and Fall of the Tiniest Town in Texas https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/ quote:“This is one of the worst things I’ve ever done,” she said of being mayor. “I’ve never dealt with such angry people. I’m washing my hands of everything. … I’m going to travel. I’m going as far away from Von Ormy as I can.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
There are tiny clues that whoever wrote that was having fun.quote:“This ain’t going well at all,” he said. “We’ve got a bunch of empty buildings, a lot of [federal] grant money spent, and for what? We have a fire station that nobody wants to operate and a police station with no police. Where did all that money go?”
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
I also has a philosophical question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQwd2SvFok So this twat seems to be bitching about some new "censoring" program that Youtube's thinking about implementing to combat "hate speech". Now, he hasn't argued that the government should be involved and force Youtube to protect people like him and his ilk, but he is saying that people should raise a stink about this. Now, I know that libertarians have made the case that people should "vote with their feet" and find another service if they're not satisfied with something, and that boycotts are (generally) okay, but if you're of the mindset that our benevolent job creators can't do anything wrong, and that it is within their rights to run their businesses however they drat well please, isn't the idea of demonstrating opposition to them when they do things you don't want a contradiction?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
No, the idea of consumers exerting pressure on corporations is the only possible argument for the free market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I also has a philosophical question: I would characterize it more as being a demonstration that libertarianism doesn't work. There's this assumption that companies would never do anything people don't like, because it would cost them money, because people would use the other company that is exactly like the company doing the bad thing except it doesn't do the bad thing. Then when a company goes and does something they don't like the harsh reality of there not being a perfect substitute sets in and they have no way to be consistent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:I would characterize it more as being a demonstration that libertarianism doesn't work. There's this assumption that companies would never do anything people don't like, because it would cost them money, because people would use the other company that is exactly like the company doing the bad thing except it doesn't do the bad thing. Then when a company goes and does something they don't like the harsh reality of there not being a perfect substitute sets in and they have no way to be consistent. Isn't the actual argument that money does talk. Advertisers don't want their products pitched alongside video with hate speech, mostly because the group of people with money to spend (i.e. young professionals) are trending more socially liberal. It's the market literally selecting out the things that they don't want to see, but libertarians continue to complain because shocker a huge faction within the libertarian community are just closet racists who want to go back to a pre-civil rights hellscape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:I would characterize it more as being a demonstration that libertarianism doesn't work. There's this assumption that companies would never do anything people don't like, because it would cost them money, because people would use the other company that is exactly like the company doing the bad thing except it doesn't do the bad thing. Then when a company goes and does something they don't like the harsh reality of there not being a perfect substitute sets in and they have no way to be consistent. From what I've seen, the lack of an alternative is just evidence that we don't live in a truly Free Market. Obviously there are crony capitalists and bureaucrats and whoever else putting barriers to competition in place. It isn't just a situation where natural barriers to competition exist or where a natural monopoly forms out of the most popular service becoming the best due solely to its popularity. It can't be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Isn't the actual argument that money does talk. Advertisers don't want their products pitched alongside video with hate speech, mostly because the group of people with money to spend (i.e. young professionals) are trending more socially liberal. It's the market literally selecting out the things that they don't want to see, but libertarians continue to complain because shocker a huge faction within the libertarian community are just closet racists who want to go back to a pre-civil rights hellscape. No you see it's OK for business to discriminate because people will just vote with their dollars !! and (users boycott Mozilla over Eich, YouTube pulls ads from videos its advertisers don't want to be on) no not like that you sjw cvcks
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
divabot posted:No you see it's OK for business to discriminate because people will just vote with their dollars !! and Yeah, this sums it up better than anything I've seen stated. "The cure to bad speech is more speech" always disappears as soon as some actual consequences show up. It's also why "There's no such thing as moral consumption under capitalism" falls flat too-- if your purchasing decisions can shove a bunch of Nazis back into the dustbin of poverty and keep a bunch of young kids from finding regressive populism, I'd call it a win and entirely moral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yeah, this sums it up better than anything I've seen stated. "The cure to bad speech is more speech" always disappears as soon as some actual consequences show up. It's also why "There's no such thing as moral consumption under capitalism" falls flat too-- if your purchasing decisions can shove a bunch of Nazis back into the dustbin of poverty and keep a bunch of young kids from finding regressive populism, I'd call it a win and entirely moral. That has nothing to do with what you consume, and everything to do with what you refuse to consume, and thus, it remains true that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That has nothing to do with what you consume, and everything to do with what you refuse to consume, and thus, it remains true that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Yeah, Ethical Consumption is the idea that if you use certain products you'll be a moral person. Just buy Fair Trade Coffee from Starbucks, and don't forget that this month the coffee comes with rainbow flags.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That has nothing to do with what you consume, and everything to do with what you refuse to consume, and thus, it remains true that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Except that it's commonly also used to suggest that not buying things from assholes is pointless, since it's still unethical or whatever. Same as how No War But Class War is commonly used to justify pushing white working class losers ahead of minorities lucky enough to escape the poverty spiral. White Coke posted:Yeah, Ethical Consumption is the idea that if you use certain products you'll be a moral person. Just buy Fair Trade Coffee from Starbucks, and don't forget that this month the coffee comes with rainbow flags. Ssince young professionals (the only demo that actually spends money) favor this stuff, alt right weirdos are being separated from a funding source (YouTube) and hopefully end up in some hovel with a crippling opiate habit. Advertisers pushing to get adverts for products away from racist content is what's driving this. How is that not a moral good under anything other than some bitter marxoteen's metric?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Because you're still just buying things from people who produce them by not paying their workers what they're worth. Even if it's rainbow coloured you're not actually supporting LGBT rights you're just buying rainbow coloured exploitative coffee. Refusing to consume is thoroughly ethical for a lot of reasons but again, consuming specific things does not help. Watching unmonetized lovely content or monetized non-lovely content is at best, slightly less ethical as simply not watching lovely content.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier's firmly in the perfect being the enemy of the absolutely everything and everyone that isn't my ideal vision camp.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That has nothing to do with what you consume, and everything to do with what you refuse to consume, and thus, it remains true that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. In Australia, our lovely government is trying to bring in legislation to make it illegal to engage in an organised boycott of a company if it results in them losing money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
So the marxoteen defense. By saying this stuff can't be right to do, you are missing the good it does. Mainly no platforming populists and forcing them back to the economic tier their lack of talent warrants. Again, the loss of this funding stream isn't about not buying things. It's about being a decently adjusted person and having enough spending power to be in an influential demographic. This is a push because advertisers realize that young professionals are people who actually spend money and do things, and by and large they have been educated out of poo poo populist behaviors and are making it known.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:In Australia, our lovely government is trying to bring in legislation to make it illegal to engage in an organised boycott of a company if it results in them losing money. How would that even work? "You're under arrest, for not drinking your Ovaltine"? (And is it an anti-BDS thing, or just generally shielding corporations from criticism?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OwlFancier's firmly in the perfect being the enemy of the absolutely everything and everyone that isn't my ideal vision camp. What? I'm saying that the good part is where you withhold your support from malevolent causes, and that supporting less-so-but-still malevolent causes has nothing to do with why that is good? Whether you like the sound of that or not doesn't change that it's the case. Why do you need to swing back round to "actually capitalist methods of production are good" in order to recognize that you can refuse to participate in some of the most objectionable forms of it some of the time? The point raised is based on a failure to comprehend what "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" means. It means that you can, at best, do something less bad, and nothing good, with your consumption choices. Also populism is a tool and is as good or bad as the end it serves, the reason the alt right are objectionable is not because they use populism. And lol at "young professionals are too smart to believe in populism  " What do you think the modern incarnation of social liberalism is, with all its attendant touchy feely yet largely meaningless community participation symbols like the aforementioned rainbow coffee is, if not a form of populism? What is it if not an ideological position and method of practice well tailored to appealing to the sensibilities of that class and making it feel valuable and righteous by its practice?
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 14:54
|
|