|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.074aba2f71f3quote:After the alt-right march on Charlottesville last month, Matt Lewis, writing at the Daily Beast, pointed out the existence of an apparent “libertarian to alt-right pipeline,” an ideological trajectory through which those who begin life as ordinary, freedom-loving libertarians wind up more aligned with the torch-wielding demonstrators. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 19, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Though you could equally characterize that as theocracy simply catching up with modern methods. A number of those predate fascism, which is sort of a point about the "not everything you hate is fascism" thing, there are lots of other forms of government that have elements of it, fascism didn't spring fully formed from the earth without any prior influences. God drat it, I knew I forgot something big, obvious, and important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Caros posted:My point is libertarians specifically, because even though fascists love free markets, they also love a strong state with the ability to jam their fist into whatever particular part of the free market they feel like. It is that last part that makes them incompatible, in my opinion, because even your 'light' libertarians like Ron Paul wouldn't accept the government unilaterally deciding that they wanted to run 'oil' or 'healthcare' or whatever, even if it meant that the majority of the market was left alone. The Pauls don't seem too troubled with a government that can run the bedrooms of gay people and the medical decisions of women, let alone mandate the legality of chattel slavery. Nor has Donald Trump managed to make the GOP split along liberal vs anti-liberal lines. I see very little evidence to suggest that huge numbers of libertarians wouldn't flock to any sufficiently-popular politician that promises them economic benefits and the suppression of the right classes of undesirables.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:The Pauls don't seem too troubled with a government that can run the bedrooms of gay people and the medical decisions of women, let alone mandate the legality of chattel slavery. Nor has Donald Trump managed to make the GOP split along liberal vs anti-liberal lines. I see very little evidence to suggest that huge numbers of libertarians wouldn't flock to any sufficiently-popular politician that promises them economic benefits and the suppression of the right classes of undesirables. All of your examples are social issues, which, I agree, libertarians are hypocrites about. Libertarians, Ironically, don't give too much of a poo poo about the concept of liberty as it relates to anything but money, because they incorrectly believe that if markets are free, then everything else will just follow suit. The problem with libertarian fascism is that it doesn't allow for truly free markets (not that there is such a thing) which is the hallmark for libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Sorry Caros, you're making a Jrod-quality argument here: "Libertarians say they're anti-government therefore they could never support fascism because that's a government QED". Libertarianism is not a consistent nor coherent set of beliefs and much of it depends on premises hidden behind vague arbitrarily defined terms like "aggression" and "retaliatory force". Those definitions can be selected to be whatever one likes and if you pick the ""right"" ones fascism follows naturally. And many Libertarians do just that. Not the dabblers like say Nozick who tried to put the theory on a logical foundation (although even then there's pretty solid arguments that his conception naturally leads to feudalism at best as business becomes the government, and could easily become fascism if that's what businesses want because one of the features of fascism is a marriage of government and big business). And he's like the best example. Hoppe makes no bones about it and barely even tries to conceal the fact that "freedom" and "individual rights" are just a thin veneer over a totalitarian central government that ruthlessly enforces religious and racial apartheid with a powerful secret police to neutralize crimethink and enforce ideological orthodoxy and loyalty to the state, but all done with supposedly consensual mandatory easements and property agreements and poo poo about governance by "natural social elites" that nominally take the place of oligarchical dictatorship but function exactly the same. Rothbard believed the Nazis were right that black people were literally a different species of (sub)human and the United States fought on the wrong side of the second world war. And despite calling himself an "Enemy of the State" he got practically giddy over the idea of abolishing civil rights and unleashing a newly unaccountable militarized state police force to brutalize whomever they see fit. Molyneux also fantasizes about an all-powerful surveillance state that imposes swift punishment or even unpersonhood and exile for crimethink, and because he's a creepy weirdo, is careful to add that that the panopticon state would of course hold women as the property of their fathers or husbands. The Cato Institute is also quite blunt that its definition of liberty is liberty only for big business, and therefore recognizing human rights is a negative to your position on the Freedom Index because human rights infringe upon the liberty of businesses to own slaves. Jrod himself was just find and dandy with dictatorship, he loving loves Qatar and the UAE because corporations can own slaves and don't have to respect anyone's human rights or individual liberty, and turns out he loving lovvvvvvvved Big Government whenever it came to abusing the rights of black people and Arabs. Like yea it's possible to be a Libertarian without being a fascist or a totalitarian but that's the exception and those people tend to leave the movement when they find out Libertarianism is incompatible with human liberty. For the rest all the Libertarian stuff is just the outer narrative over some sort of authoritarian beliefs they're embarrassed to admit to, often but not always fascist ones. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Further:Friedrich von Hayek posted:As long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression…is that in Chile…we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government….during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers. (From: http://crookedtimber.org/2013/06/25/the-hayek-pinochet-connection-a-second-reply-to-my-critics/ ) There are certainly circumstances under which libertarians (by their own admission) would support a government with at least some elements in common with fascism, which does not make me hopeful about their inability to support fascism overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
There's Nothing Moral about Opposing "Price-Gouging" Let’s face it. The economic case for “price gouging” is one for which economists have both a strong argument and minority view, relative to more popular narratives drilled onto the three-by-five card of acceptable opinion. In that sense, we are in familiar territory, going back at least to Thomas Carlyle’s attack on economics as “the dismal science” when he realized economic arguments, when accepted by the broader population, would hasten the demise of slavery. DONATE $5 TODAY So I was not surprised when a good friend sent me a Dallas News op-ed by University of Texas sociologist Daniel Fridman raising moral objections to the economic case defending rising prices for necessities following natural disasters. I had an idea about the depth of Mr. Fridman’s argument when he began acknowledging the economic case thusly: quote:[Some economists] claim that we should not mess with prices, whose job is to get goods to those who want them the most. If prices go up, buyers will think twice before purchasing something they may not need, while suppliers will be incentivized to go the extra mile and provide needed goods in order to make more money. If you take that extra gain away, you will have fewer goods and in the wrong hands. It’s very broad-minded for Mr. Fridman to acknowledge some truth to the Laws of Supply and Demand. Coming from someone in the People’s Republic of Austin, this must be something of a milestone. (One wonders what other natural laws in which he recognizes some truth.) But it’s not the truth of these laws that concern him. Rather, it’s how they ignore the moral case against “gouging,” which Mr. Fridman believes is understood “almost universally.” He writes: quote:The moral condemnation of price gouging is a recognition that in certain social situations, raising prices is kicking vulnerable people when they are down. Our reaction to price gouging is not some silly knee-jerk rejection from people who don't know enough about economics, as it is sometimes portrayed. It is, rather, deeply reflective of the societal need for mechanisms other than markets. I am not here to criticize the moral case against price “gouging” except to note that a thinker on the level of Thomas Aquinas considered its shortcomings. Rather, I would suggest that morality is hardly divorced from the case made by economics and that recognizing this relationship is key to returning economics to its roots. Between the time of Adam Smith and the Progressive Era, one studied economics as a branch of the Moral Sciences. Even today, a common thread between a Thomas Sowell and a Paul Krugman, or a Jeffrey Sachs and a Bill Easterly, would be moral indignation about something, and the desire to apply economic theory to correct it. So what are the moral cases for “gouging”? Let’s consider three. First, one wonders about the morality of those who would urge acts of violence — fines or imprisonment — against individuals for selling their own property at whatever price they want. This is essentially what Mr. Fridman argues for when supporting anti-“gouging” rules. But would he be willing to impose it himself by, say, personally raiding the perpetrator’s savings or locking her up in his garage for charging prices he dislikes? If he would have moral qualms about executing such acts himself, then why wouldn’t he have qualms about leaving them up to individual functionaries of the state? By arguing for such state power, Mr. Fridman simply trades small, disparate moral harms (subjectively determined) for actual large, institutionalized ones. This point gets to the nature of the state, which is an entity in society that performs actions legally that would be considered profoundly immoral when performed on an individual basis. Those who support anti-“gouging” legislation effectively support putting a boot on the neck of many producers crucial to surviving a natural disaster. Second, there’s the morality of allowing prices to reflect market conditions before and after a natural disaster. Given the certainty of shortages, waste, and needlessly prolonged recoveries when anti-“gouging” laws are enforced (through threats of violence!), then why can’t opposing such ordinances be based on morality as well? While Mr. Fridman argues pro-“gouging” economists such as Mark Perry and Michael Salinger ignore morality, they might be motivated by it. One is reminded of the role of market prices in causing self-interested individuals to act in ways that are socially beneficial. One woman from the Florida Keys told USA Today about the sense of foreboding she felt driving back to her house and witnessing the damage wrought by Hurricane Irma, and the profound relief she felt upon finding her own home relatively unscathed. “Thank God our insurance company threatened to cancel us if we didn’t put on a metal roof,” she said. The threat of lost or higher priced insurance motivated many property owners to upgrade their houses to hurricane strength. Hundreds of thousands of Floridians, for instance, received discounted insurance for buying and then using hurricane shutters. According to the Associated Press, “Citigroup estimated that damages were just $50 billion — well below initial figures — in part because some homes were better equipped to weather the wind and rain than during [Hurricane] Andrew.” Finally and most importantly, the debate over “gouging” illustrates a dominant utilitarianism in which the majority should be allowed to force its will on the minority, as long as the end is valued highly enough. For Mr. Fridman, the near universal acceptability of anti-gouging laws are enough for him to determine their morality. Mises addresses this point in Human Action (Scholars Edition, p. 153): quote:The liberals do not maintain that majorities are godlike and infallible; they do not contend that the mere fact that a policy is advocated by the many is a proof of its merits for the common weal. They do not recommend the dictatorship of the majority and the violent oppression of dissenting minorities. Liberalism aims at a political constitution which safeguards the smooth working of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of mutual social relations. Its main objective is the avoidance of violent conflicts, of wars and revolutions that must disintegrate the social collaboration of men and throw people back into the primitive conditions of barbarism where all tribes and political bodies endlessly fought one another. It follows that permitting “gouging” is congruent with a political economy of peace, whereas intervening in the price system invites violence. Forcing markets below those that would clear the market always and everywhere, in normal times and during natural disasters, pits buyers against sellers and consumers against producers, when they otherwise would have strong incentives to cooperate. I fear I may not have been fair to Mr. Fridman. After all, he wrote an op-ed with strict word count restrictions. He may well be familiar with the moral case on the other side of the “gouging” debate and yet be unable to address them. Still, I’d hope he’d concede that while natural disasters are by nature disruptive, the anti-“gougers” have no unique claim on the moral high ground. Economists who advocate against policies that prolong suffering and hinder recovery have morality on their side too. DONATE $5 TODAY Christopher Westley a professor of economics in the Lutgert College Business at Florida Gulf Coast University and an associated scholar at the Mises Institute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Man you don't need to go to mises.org for that, pro-price gouging arguments were being made right here in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Not exactly related to the prior discussion but lol nonetheless: https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/905191236046381056 (it's one of them threads so there's more after that)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jrod himself was just find and dandy with dictatorship, he loving loves Qatar and the UAE because corporations can own slaves and don't have to respect anyone's human rights or individual liberty, and turns out he loving lovvvvvvvved Big Government whenever it came to abusing the rights of black people and Arabs. Not that you're wrong, but a lot of that also came from the more pedestrian reason that Jrod was too stupid/lazy to read his own sources and just grabbed the first thing who's headline and synopsis appeared to support his "freer markets = better than" argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
There's a lot of ways to look at libertarianism. One is to look at various versions of it that have been expounded in print by political thinkers, and to take those at more or less face value, albeit in their context. Another is to look at how that ideology has deformed - like all ideologies do - with exposure to real life. Another is to try to search for unifying themes and try to come up with some kind of standard minimum definition of libertarian doctrine. People are just talking past each other because they're talking about libertarianism meant in one of these ways and not the other. Robert Nozick, the theorist, is different from Von Mises, and Nozick is very different from Ron Paul, let alone Jrode. And I always told Jrode - you always cite the worst examples and thinkers available to you. He'd rather cite Walter Block than Nozick or a classical liberal like TH Green or JS Mill.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And I always told Jrode - you always cite the worst examples and thinkers available to you. He'd rather cite Walter Block than Nozick or a classical liberal like TH Green or JS Mill. Worst is subjective here, depends whether you agree with Walter Block's inner narrative or not. Captain_Maclaine posted:Not that you're wrong, but a lot of that also came from the more pedestrian reason that Jrod was too stupid/lazy to read his own sources and just grabbed the first thing who's headline and synopsis appeared to support his "freer markets = better than" argument. That didn't occur in isolation: the backing of murder cops and love of racial profiling (and belief that black teenagers shouldn't go to school after they've learned enough letters and arithmetic to be passable laborers) were all him tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:11
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Worst is subjective here, depends whether you agree with Walter Block's inner narrative or not. To some extent, but you could say 'less respected in academic and intellectual circles'. Walter Block is not really taken that seriously by the academy; Nozick is. Hayek is more than von Mises, but less than Friedman.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That didn't occur in isolation: the backing of murder cops and love of racial profiling (and belief that black teenagers shouldn't go to school after they've learned enough letters and arithmetic to be passable laborers) were all him tho I just wanted to be sure his laziness and stupidity were given the credit they are due, rather than assigning all to his other moral and intellectual failings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
If the liberal statist academic establishment hates someone, that's how you know he's right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the liberal statist academic establishment hates someone, that's how you know he's right! Uhh excuse me, ever hear of a little thing called praexology? We don't need no stinkin' evidence to know we're right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Murry Rothbard stated that a free market actually necessitates slavery. If there is no slavery, labor cannot be bought or sold, only rented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
I mean, maybe it's possible that libertarianism doesn't have to lead to fascism, but considering there was that study that said literally over NINETY percent of libertarians also consider themselves Republicans, it would lead me to believe that such a group is tiny, even within the libertarian population to basically make it almost irrelevant to debate such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
What do you all think of Jesse Ventura?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What do you all think of Jesse Ventura? he's irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:he's irrelevant Welcome to Libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What do you all think of Jesse Ventura? I liked him in Predator and The Running Man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What do you all think of Jesse Ventura? His in-ring work is a bit before my time, but iirc he was an entertaining presence at the commentary desk
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What do you all think of Jesse Ventura? I saw him speak live sometime in 2007 or so and he was full on ranting at Alex Jones levels about various conspiracy nonsense. I have no loving idea how he got elected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Jesse Ventura is a conspiracy theorist with a heart of gold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
SatansOnion posted:His in-ring work is a bit before my time, but iirc he was an entertaining presence at the commentary desk Indeed; I loved him with Gorilla Monsoon. Jesse would occasionally even break kayfabe and call Gorilla by his real name, "Gino". Still wasn't as good as Bobby Heenan, but that's an awfully high bar to leap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
"If White Supremacy is real, then how come Asians are the only minority that do better than Whites, libtards?  "https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/72pqo9/colin_racism_white_supremacy_and_asian_americans/ quote:If there was racism under every rock and around every corner, then how in the hell did Asian Americans outpace White Americans in affluence indicators? It's a simple question. quote:I literally COMPLIMENTED ASIAN AMERICANS and pointed to their DEMONSTRABLE STATISTICAL SUCCESS, asking how if racism was so systematic against all minorities, how can their success be so tangible? It's a question worth asking because, when squared with the Oppression Olympics, it MAKES NO loving SENSE. quote:I'm flatly saying that the fringe, identity-obsessed left cannot reconcile Asian American success as a group with their projection of white supremacy. Because, plainly, Asian Americans would be doing far worse than White America -- not demonstrably better -- if "White Supremacy" was actually a nefarious and active force against all minorities. More brilliant comments from the libertarian who coincidentally loves White people at the link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Not to sound like i dont believe in institutional racism , but what is the answer? Are there studies? Hell, is it even really demonstratably true that asians are better off or just a talking point? Stickfigure fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Stickfigure posted:Not to sound like i dont believe in institutional racism , but what is the answer? Are there studies? That it's a myth: http://fortune.com/2017/04/17/the-model-minority-myth/
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Like all libertarian talking points, it's based on a lie or a set of lies
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Stickfigure posted:Not to sound like i dont believe in institutional racism , but what is the answer? Are there studies? I answered part of this question in another thread: quote:Heck, I can answer this one in like two sentences: racism exists on a curve and even includes so-called "positive" racism. The lighter your skin, the less racism your experience. Asians also get the benefit of a lot of "positive" racism or stereotypes that make them "model" immigrants suited for specific types of high-paying jobs (programming, accounting, etc). Finally, there is a good chance that a lot of asian immigrants to the US are already coming in with some level of wealth and above-average educations. Others also noted: boner confessor posted:there's a large divergence, there are quite a few wealthy asian immigrants and asian american families have tended to do well in academia and white collar work Groovelord Neato posted:if you compare by income groups, whites make more than asians. also ignores that a lot of asians come over educated and weren't enslaved en masse and subjugated even after being freed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Good long post by a former libertarian about how libertarians have problems maintaining happy marriages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
http://drakus79.tumblr.com/post/165656444579/the-end-of-socialism
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Good long post by a former libertarian about how libertarians have problems maintaining happy marriages. also, ms-demeanor is a sweetie and illustrated and designed the fabulous cover of my fabulous book, if you need graphic-designed art go give her work
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
nah
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Good long post by a former libertarian about how libertarians have problems maintaining happy marriages. quote:Everyone I’m talking about here is rich, his parents own a loving bank and wouldn’t buy their ten-year-old shoes because that would teach him the value of a dollar. Whaaaaaaat the gently caress? What the gently caress?  This is how supervillains are created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Good long post by a former libertarian about how libertarians have problems maintaining happy marriages. quote:Also republicans are authoritarian as fuuuuuuuck but a lot of the problems we’re currently having with needing a majority of 51 instead of a majority of 60 in senate votes is the result of Obama era democrats attempting to ignore the republican minority that has come back to bite us and shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place jesus gently caress you can’t privilege the majority party that much assholes;  Yep, checks out this is the kind of person that would fall for Libertarianism
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Good long post by a former libertarian about how libertarians have problems maintaining happy marriages. So, when I was an Objectivist, one of the early bits of disturbing poo poo I found out was that many of the highest-ranked Rand acolytes (specifically Leonard Piekoff, the inheritor of Rand's estate, but others as well), would routinely trade in their wives for newer models. I'm pretty sure he's on his third or fourth marriage to some young, blonde idiot (he's pushing 90). Basically, for many Objectivists, if a woman isn't a perfect representation of Dagney Taggart or Dominique Francon, she may as well be trash. Remember folks, if the wife isn't satisfying your (crazy, nonsensical, Rand-based fantasy) values, she's useless and you need to discard her!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
That's just Objectivist Family Values If you want to bang someone younger and hotter, that proves your new fuckpiece is a better, more rational, more intelligent Objectivist than your spouse because as an Objectivist your emotions are perfectly informed by the highest intellectual values of your rational mind. But if your partner wants to screw around on your wrinkly unwashed rear end, that proves they were never a real Objectivist at all because only whim-worshiping second-hander wouldn't want to gently caress the most Objectivist rational mind in the room regardless of attractiveness or (lack of) personal grooming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's just Objectivist Family Values It's not precisely like that, but it's also sadly pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 06:06
|
|