|
Tezzor posted:Your definition of aggression and the initiation of force is incoherent. If I jump you and beat you up to take your wallet, then clearly I have initiated force. If I mug you at gunpoint instead? Well, unless I pull the trigger, I haven't initiated force, I've initiated the threat of force, which is not the same thing, yet probably exists under your definition of aggression. Let's get more abstract. If break into your home while you aren't there and steal your TV I haven't initiated force against you, I've initiated force against your property, and neither used nor threatened any violence against a human. It is your property not because you are currently holding or using it, or inherently because you personally have the ability to stop me and all other comers, but because nebulous laws say so, and those laws are based upon the credible threat of force to maintain your ownership of property. You may find that the answer to these questions is whatever is more convenient for ~*Property Owners*~ at the time.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. Also there is the fact that this is what has happened historically when a government collapsed, people began to group into small societies which began to consolidate over time for stability and protection. Although based on this thread and previous ones libertarians understand literally nothing about history. Cnidaria fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
By far the most entertaining thing about libertarians is their ideas on Dispute Resolution Organizations because in the interest of pacing the thread I feel like maybe we should hold off on bringing those up. Let's enjoy some appetizers before moving on to the main course!Cnidaria posted:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. The better question would be how a libertarian proposes dealing with other parts of the world that don't abolish government. What do The United American States of Libertopia do when a Chinese State Owned Enterprise starts systematically buying all the arable land and public infrastructure? quote:Also there is the fact that this is what has happened historically when a government collapsed, people began to group into small societies which began to consolidate over time for stability and protection. Although based on this thread and previous ones libertarians understand literally nothing about history. It's just a coincidence that state's keep forming. Just because every previously stateless society eventually either developed a state or was conquered by a state should not detract from the fact that Libertopia will always prevail because the none aggression principle is just so clearly logically superior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Okay guys, I just posted the following at one of my posts from last night. Jrod should read it at some point in the close future which is good. Hopefully he'll get the message and take it to heart.quote:ATTENTION JROD! From previous experience in threads, I'd suggest that we not bitch at him for ignoring our questions. He is one heavily autistic guy, and if we insist that he answer every question he'll actually try and do just that, and we'll end up with a time warped thread where he is twenty pages behind. It looks cool but it ruins the fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. Any system dependent upon universal agreement to every detail of the system by all particpants will fail in exactly this way. Anarcho-anything is doomed outside small colonies protected by better system of government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:So because I've not long been dealing with the subject matter, this quote is new to me. I suppose it partially answers my nagging question why legitimate land ownership only appears to start with libertarians and their immediate forebears. The simple answer here is that Ayn rand was an incredible racist. Going by what I remember I don't think Jrodefeld is actually an Ayn Rand supporter. He's more of the An Cap free market jerkoff than the objectivism type. quote:So An Cap ideas are really silly, but let me humor them for a moment: In most versions that I've seen the answer is more or less 'we will try to equalize things out a little' followed by 'the past is the past tho. I didn't do anything wrong and I shouldn't have to suffer for it. Bad things will continue to happen until we get rid of the state, so even a little imbalance in wealth is preferable.' quote:How would anarcho-capitalists have vaccinated much of the world against, for example, polio? Clearly people would have seen the financial advantage in not having polio and would have vaccinated themselves. Some nebulous 'group' would have seen that there was an advantage to eradicating it overseas as well and would have done that for 'reasons'. An Caps would have a series of defensive organizations to protect them from other countries. People would pay into these because of rational self interest. They would not invade anyone, but they wouldn't allow themselves to be invaded. Reasons. People would have more money because they would not be paying taxes and everything would be so much better with a free market. With the improvement to quality of living people would actually need less charity, and at the same time people would simply be able to donate more of their time and money to charity because people are not at all selfish when times are tough. quote:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. Depends on who you ask. If its Herman Hans Hoppe his view is that anyone proposing setting up a state must be violently removed from society to keep it ideologically pure. I suspect Jrodefeld is more along the lines of the utopia however. He believes that once you get rid of the state things will be so good that you'd have to be stupid to want a state again. He suggests that he'd be totally okay with us starting our marxist paradise along his so long as we don't 'agress' against his libertarian paradise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. There's no way major companies wouldn't try to pool together and create their own state that benefits them- this one being far less accountable than the one we currently have. Think Republican congress/senate/presidency all over again except Ron Paul.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Murray Rothbard was an rear end in a top hat who thought that parents were under no obligation to feed their children because a burgeoning market for buying and selling babies would let them get the fair market value for the baby instead of just letting it rot on the vine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:How do libertarians explain why people wound't just form new governments the second the original was removed? Especially considering it would be in their best interest in a libertarian society to do so since numerous people would have more power than one. The whole thing seems like a huge power vacuum that would quickly be filled by someone that gives a lot less of a poo poo about property rights than the current government does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
None of it works because people like me (evil goverment statists) exist, we'd immediately start building the government again, perhaps not the exact same way as it currently exists but you can bet it would resemble the current republic more than galt market mk. 4.5 Edit: I'm pretty sure barring some sort of libertarian terminator drones the average citizen* would go along with it too. *libertarian for free market terrorist I think RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Not the best example there, Captain not-so-glib. I believe that that's an intentional misspelling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
quote:On the first request, if a moderator asks me to shut down this thread and move to an existing thread I'll do just that. For now, I'll continue to post here since this thread already exists. I don't see why starting a new thread is ban-worthy but I'll follow the rules. You would if you bothered to lurk for a few days. Or if you actually bothered to try to understand anything at all of the culture of these forums. Not to derail, but why SomethingAwful? Is it just that we're a wretched hive of leftist villainy so you wanted to come preach to us? What keeps bringing you back to a pay to post forum like this one? I'm genuinely curious about this because you clearly don't 'get' what these forums are about. You've never posted anywhere outside of D&D, and you don't seem to appreciate any of the humor or informal nature of the site. You feel like a missionary. quote:I don't accept that Hans Hoppe is a "racist shithead". I've read all of his supposed controversial statements and, without exception, those smears on the internet against him rely on distorted quotes and improper context. He strikes a nerve with some people. I don't agree with everything he says. And indeed, he does have a peculiar sort of social conservatism that he brings to bear on his libertarian analyses, but I think he is among the best in his theoretical economic work and his logical rigor. God I wish that the old thread hadn't been garbaged. Because I distinctly remember you having to distance yourself from Triple H on multiple occations when you had it pointed out to you that he said things like: quote:In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. Because in that very famous quote Hans Herman Hoppe is talking about physically removing homosexual people from his covenant communities. He is talking about segragation that could apply based on any criteria at all. In the Covenant community society he is suggesting (which incidently is no different from one with a social contract) Triple H believes that you can and should be allowed to remove anyone you find offensive based on any criteria. That is disgusting and you should have serious qualms trying to deal with the moral viewpoint that supports that. There is plenty more like that but I just wanted to remind you of the person that you actively said in the last thread had 'bad ideas'. I'll continue this line of thought shortly. quote:I know Rothbard has written quite extensively on questions such as these. I don't recall his precise wording on this subject. It's always amusing when you have to resort to completely impossible fantasies and cartoons to illustrate a potential problem with a real world principle for private property rights. It may be that other libertarian thinkers have a better answer than this, but if you were to literally erect a giant disk that would block out sunlight to an entire neighborhood, this would constitute an act of aggression unless the disk was built first before any houses were built. People's gardens would die, their health would suffer and their property would be as hurt as if you directly poisoned their soil, destroyed their lawns, etc. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The whole point of the exercise there was that it was an absolutely ridiculous example that could easily be scaled down to a smaller scale. More to the point, you didn't address the actual issue. Let me repeat the important part here: quote:On an episode of The Simpsons, Mr. Burns built a sunlight blocking machine which cast the town of Springfield into darkness. According to labor mixers, this should be perfectly legitimate since one did not mix labor with the sunlight or at least that sunlight (since sunlight is a continuous phenomenon). Many immediately jump to the claim that their use involved sunlight and is harmed by the blockage. Unfortunately, they cannot make that jump because, to do so, would mean that they abandon the mixing justification and switch to a use justification. If one's willing to jump to that standard then what does it mean that the indigenous people were using land? It's also an example of "Is that your true rejection?" You immediately made the jump here. Well clearly it would constitute an act of aggression. Why? As the quote points out, you have no right to that sunlight, you haven't mixed your labor with it and it is not your property. Clearly it affects your property, but your argument is that you only own what you mix your labor with, not what you use. While you are right that it certainly affects your ability to USE your land, how is it aggression apart from the fact that it is a comically large disk intended to block out the sun? What if someone built a giant fuckoff building next to your house that blocked out the sun for your garden. That impacts your property values, but is it agression? You suggest that we have a voluntary code to deal with those sorts of issues. We have that right now, its called zoning laws, it works because it is universal and enforced by law and city planning. What happens if someone doesn't voluntarily agree to that? What if Charles Koch decides that he loving hates you personally and builds a giant disk to block out the sun to your property. Or hell, what if he buys all the property around your home and simply states that you are not allowed on it. Congradulations, Charles Koch can now murder you via property rights. quote:I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists. I'm going to address this one in a separate post just below this one because I don't want to simply link to the articles and be done with it. I want you to understand just how wrong you are. quote:I don't accept your characterization. I think you are attributing racist motivations to people who are not racist. I support nullification and secession because I believe in decentralization and in weakening the State. I think the State has been especially vicious to minorities and they would stand to benefit most from its abolition. Ron Paul - The newsletters written under his name (probably by Lew Rockwell) a huge throbbing hard on for 'states rights' which has been code for abusing blacks since before the civil war. Opposition to the Civil Rights act and he was the only member of congress to oppose the issuing on a congressional gold medal to Rosa motherfucking Parks. Choice quotes include: quote:(“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.” quote:Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” quote:Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” quote:“Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Rand Paul - Second verse same as the first. Opposition to the civil rights act, hired a man who was previously known as the 'Southern Avenger', a pretty blatently neo-confederate who was a chairmen of the 'league of the south'. I can go on but this is too easy. Lew Rockwell - Undoubtably wrote the Ron Paul newsletters. Was a contributing editor on physical copies of sed newsletters. Close personal friend of David Duke. Murray Rothbard - Again a man who spoke kindly of David Duke, the KKK office seeker. The only reason he didn't support a seperate state for blacks was because he was afraid it would cost too much in foreign aid. Famously supported false studies that indicated the blacks are just plain dumber than us white folks. Charles Koch - False libertarian or not he pays the bills for most of your major organizations. Anyways, the John Birch Society loves them because their daddy started it. More to the point the Koch's have direct connections to the Reason magazine articles I'm going to be talking about shortly. That is to say, the supported aparthaid and Holocaust denial. Triple H - I covered this above. He believes that segregation of people you don't like is a-okay. Thats bad just fyi. quote:No it doesn't "concern me" that you think that some libertarians are racist. I don't see this racism in the movement and if it exists, it is clearly on the fringes. Since my concern is aggression and violence, what people think in their minds is less important to me. If some people hold some outdated prejudices and stereotypes about different people but they believe strongly in the non-aggression principle this would make them far more moral and decent people that most politicians who actually enact policies that murder people. Racism is a stupid, collectivist belief but on the scale of potential harm actually using violence against someone is far worse than secretly thinking ill of them. The people I linked above are some of the most high profile libertarians and libertarian thinkers in the country. They are ones that you have cited on this very board if not in this very thread. The people in charge of your 'movement' are largely racist, and if you follow the history of the libertarian movement in its inception you'll find that it is supported by two pillars. Racism, and big business. You are being hoodwinked into believing that you are fighting for some universal freedom while the people in charge are using people like you to promote vile beliefs. Again, perhaps the single most mainstream libertarian talking point 'states rights' is a dog whistle about the civil rights act and the personhood of black people. Does that not concern you that if you actually succeeded things would get very, very bad for a lot of people? Does it not concern you that if Triple H had his way Homosexual people should gently caress right off somewhere else? quote:What about Jeffrey Dahmer? If the family of the victims of Dahmer wanted him executed, would you not permit this? Can you create a system where innocent people don't get arrested and put on death row? But to answer your question, no I would not, because murder to sate murder is loving savage. quote:I don't accept moral relativism. There are certain ways that humans interact that can be considered "moral" and certain ways that are "immoral". The discovery of ethical rules for conduct come through philosophic inquiry. But I cannot accept that an ethical standard for behavior can be discarded due to popular opinion or a democratic election. What you are doing is muddying the waters. You are purposefully making things as vague as possible. Ethics and philosophy are supposed to bring clarity to the questions: "what is right action?", "What are morals?" I'm not attempting to be vague, I'm attempting to explain to you that morality is a human construction, no different from the value of money or the concept of society. The only 'moral' reason it is not okay for me to crack your skull with a rock is that society says that it is wrong. There is no universal underlying idea that prevents me from doing it, or that judges me for doing so. If there are only two people in a total vaccum apart from all history and society, the only decisions that are moral or immoral are what they decide for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
This all reminds me of anti vaccination people. People don't understand how terrible a stateless existence was, so they think we don't actually need a state after all. It's just instead of your kid getting measles because of "chemicals" it's your African nation getting bloody chaos because of black people. If you just live your life "right" you won't get measles! If you just have the "right" people, you won't all starve or be slaughtered! I'm guessing that much like the anti vaccination poo poo, if you try this and fail it'll just be seen as proof that you didn't go far enough. Your kid got measles because one of their friends contaminated them with chemicals! You guys all got enslaved by a brutal dictator because you didn't become stateless enough! A GIANT PARSNIP fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:None of it works because people like me (evil goverment statists) exist, we'd immediately start building the government again, perhaps not the exact same way as it currently exists but you can bet it would resemble the current republic more than galt market mk. 4.5 Yeah it's ironic how much libertarians talk about the government using violence to remain in power when the only way to enforce a libertarian society would be through literal threats of death. Without that no one would give a poo poo and corporations/states would quickly fill the power vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
OP, have you ever seriously considered moving to one of the world's many stateless paradises?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
quote:I don't know of Reason magazine and those articles you mention. So they had an article about Holocaust denial? And one that you characterize as "Pro apartheid"? I'd have to see a lot more specifics before I condemn them as racists. Here, here and here are three links from Pandodaily containing excellent reporting on the issue. I'm going to pull some choice quotes from the lot of them so that you can get an idea as to how loving wrong you are. Also are you a libertarian who seriously doesn't know about Reason magazine, the single largest libertarian publication in the United States? Christ, you're like a loving hipster who doesn't listen to something because it's too mainstream. quote:“Let the people who advocate immediate majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia take note. It would be very nice to have a minimal libertarian government and that is what South African libertarians would like to achieve. But as long as the choice is between being governed by a relatively informed white minority and a Socialist black majority, ‘apartheid’ in South Africa will stay.” quote:“The major black ethnic groups lumped together under the general term ‘Bantu’ are as distinct from one another as Germany and France. They are largely illiterate, largely uncaring, mutually mistrustful, mutually antagonistic. They are not the great single black mass yearning to be free that sentimentalists and self-servers in other lands try to portray them.” quote:“I regret the fact that honest, law-abiding blacks cannot own property in or near white cities, but I realize that without this restriction separate development will fail — and with it the capitalist system in South Africa.” Property rights for me, but not for thee! quote:“As all libertarians should know, unlimited democracies tend towards totalitarian systems, with the rulers competing with each other to control the political machinery. Some years ago, the whites realized that a democracy may deteriorate into a dictatorship in the ‘wrong’ hands—especially when those hands have the wrong color to boot.” quote:“It is possible that in the past decade no country has moved further toward a libertarian society than South Africa has. Yes—South Africa.” quote:“ To sell libertarianism, you must sell it under a formula which corresponds to the basic convictions of the guy to whom you sell it.” An awful, but perhaps helpful tip for you Jrod. quote:“The German concentration camps weren’t health centers, but they appear to have been far smaller and much less lethal than the Russian ones.” quote:Next Month's REASON will be a special issue on the subject of historical revisionism. the critical revision of "official" versions of the doings of states is an important adjunct to the overall battle for liberty. As a preview of next month's issue and to introduce the subject to our readers, we are pleased to present an exclusive interview with one of America's leading revisionist historians, Dr. James J. Martin James J. Martin is a noted 'historical revisionist' which is a fancy way of saying holocaust denier. He joined the editorial board of the "Institute for Historical Review" which is of course home to KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and David Irving the world's most prominent Holocaust denier. Authors who contributed articles to Reason magazine’s “special issue” included one of the most notorious American pro-Nazi activists of the postwar era, Austin J. App, author of the 1973 tract, “The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks and Fabricated Corpses” and contributing editor to the rabidly anti-Semitic magazine, the American Mercury. Two more authors hired to write for Reason’s “special issue” included James J. Martin, a regular contributor to the same neo-Nazi American Mercury magazine; and Percy Greaves, a founding board member at the anti-Jewish hate group, the Liberty Lobby. Perhaps the most shocking article in Reason’s “special issue” was penned by Gary North, who was also Ron Paul’s congressional aide that same year, and has been one of the most influential figures in the Christian radical-right since the 1970s. North’s article in Reason mocked the Holocaust as “the Establishment’s favorite horror story” and questioned “the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler.” North also painted other rabidly anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers in a positive, “contrarian-cool” light, praising the works of David Hoggan, author of “The Myth of the Six Million,” French neo-fascist Paul Rassinier, and American historian Harry Elmer Barnes, considered the godfather of American Holocaust denial literature. quote:Probably the most far-out materials on World war II revisionism have been the seemingly scholarly studies of the supposed execution of 6 million Jews by Hitler. The anonymous author of The Myth of the Six Million has presented a solid case against the Establishment's favorite horror story - the supposed moral justification for our entry into the war... It goes on to say: quote:One thing is certain: 6 million executions or not, we did not intervene when the Soviet Union executed millions of kulaks - the private owners of small farms prior to their expropriation. So what was the point of all of this? Well REASON and many of your favorite libertarians including HHH and others were supportive of aparthied because it was whites oppressing blacks. That is pretty easy to follow, they are racists, and they are happy to see white people get some over on they dark skinned individuals. It isn't exactly rocket science here. The holocaust denial is tougher. Part of it is simply white supremacy, Neo-nazi bullshit, but Mark Ames makes a facinating case that the point of supporting holocaust denial from say... the Koch viewpoint is actually an intentional attempt to discredit FDR. Now we already know that revisionist bullshit historians that you support come up with a lot of lies about how the New Deal worked, and that is part of it, but much of FDR's legacy is tied into the success of the Just War. FDR took us into WWII and it led to us kicking the poo poo out of our enemies, stopping the holocaust. You can't say that FDR made the wrong decision entering WWII because to do so suggests that you would be okay with us having left European jews to go extinct at the hands of Hitler, that we would have allowed for millions more deaths. Unless those deaths didn't happen. Unless the holocaust is bullshit. Then you can attack FDR on getting us into a stupid war, and if you do that... well then clearly the new deal must have been a failure and we should abolish social security. That aside, I think this goes to show just how rooted in racism and disgusting ideology much of libertarian thought is. Also, for the record, Reason has not done the sensible thing and said "That was hosed up, we don't do that anymore." like all good libertarians they are rejecting evidence and denying that they did what they clearly and verifiably did. This is because many of the same people from the 1970's are still on their board, or are still actively involved. Oh and for shits and giggles, that list of racists that I mentioned up above? Every single one of them has been published at least once in Reason magazine since 1970, IE, during their holocaust denial, pro-apartheid period. Caros fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Caros posted:The holocaust denial is tougher. Part of it is simply white supremacy, Neo-nazi bullshit, but Mark Ames makes a facinating case that the point of supporting holocaust denial from say... the Koch viewpoint is actually an intentional attempt to discredit FDR. Now we already know that revisionist bullshit historians that you support come up with a lot of lies about how the New Deal worked, and that is part of it, but much of FDR's legacy is tied into the success of the Just War. FDR took us into WWII and it led to us kicking the poo poo out of our enemies, stopping the holocaust. I've never heard of this before, but it's fascinating. If there was no holocaust, Hitler and Churchill were basically the same, and all we did was cause a 50 year long cold war for no reason. Thanks a lot, FDR! Of course the Pacific war is still justified because
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:I've never heard of this before, but it's fascinating. If there was no holocaust, Hitler and Churchill were basically the same, and all we did was cause a 50 year long cold war for no reason. Thanks a lot, FDR! Oh, no, the cold war was totally justified because if there's no holocaust, then that makes the USSR the biggest monsters in history, and allying with them against the Nazis was evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Trufax, I stumbled into this thread while watching an LP of Bioshock. Oh Coincidence, you silly bitch!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I asked this in Jrod's last thread. But I'm pretty sure Jrod got banned prior to being able to answer it, so here it goes again: Let me grant that your social and economic ideas are as naturalistic and self-evident as you say they are. Can you provide a concrete example of a society (even a small one, say 20 individuals or greater) that has existed at any time, present or past, which put into practice those ideals? And if you cannot, why not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Oh my god how I have missed the return of our Lord and Savior
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
I think, to accomidate Jrodefeld's particular compulsion to respond to everything in order, we should all blank out all previous posts and collaborate, possibly off-site, on a single resource that one of us can post here. He won't learn anything, really, but it'll be marginally less frustrating for us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Caros posted:Here, here and here are three links from Pandodaily containing excellent reporting on the issue. I'm going to pull some choice quotes from the lot of them so that you can get an idea as to how loving wrong you are. As for the supposed libertarian "support" for Apartheid, there is absolutely no libertarian justification for it whatsoever. I think we should look at Murray Rothbard's views on the matter: quote:For many years, America's campuses have been sunk in political apathy. The values of the 1950s are supposed to be back, including concentration on one's career and lack of interest in social or political causes. Is that clear? To pull a few quotes from Reason magazine in the early 70s and try to claim that this view represents the view of libertarians at large is patently dishonest. You are trying to establish the case that libertarianism is based on racism when the preponderance of the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I think, to accomidate Jrodefeld's particular compulsion to respond to everything in order, we should all blank out all previous posts and collaborate, possibly off-site, on a single resource that one of us can post here. I'm not sure how much is this an autistic gimmick, and how much he does it deliberately. I remember him skipping more troublesome questions in the previous thread. Near the end, he were responding mainly to the people that insulted him, chiding them for not discussing the topic in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
It's always good for a laugh to see people who a "pure" enough libertarians who go the whole 9 yards and literally think we should get rid of courts, the police, and military. Usually libertarians are massive hypocrites who loving love any government services that they personally benefit from, but they are a dime a dozen. An-Caps are so silly and retarded it's strange to see one in the wild because even the tiniest shred of thought should make it clear that not only would a "free" market be unbelievably stupid but also a complete impossibility. Hoppe was a massive bigot and really was basically a wannabe Hitler. Rothbard was a sociopath who essentially wanted to bring back slavery. I don't think much needs to be said about how much of a shithead Rand was so I'll just remind everyone that she ended her life destitute and living on welfare just as the "parasites" she always claimed to detest but justified it by claiming she was a special snowflake who deserved it. All the libertarian "philosophers" (and I use that term very loosely) are over-privileged hypocritical assholes who wanted to justify how awful of human beings they were by wrapping their lovely behavior in a cloak of faux-intellectualism and calling it libertarianism to pretend it was anything more than them just being broken people (it's not).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
JerksNeedLoveToo posted:I'm pretty sure I asked this in Jrod's last thread. But I'm pretty sure Jrod got banned prior to being able to answer it, so here it goes again: I too would like to know this. Also, if everyone is a good natured and rational individual who would flourish under your system, why do literally billions of people continue to vote themselves into state sanctioned servitude?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:You would if you bothered to lurk for a few days. Or if you actually bothered to try to understand anything at all of the culture of these forums. I'm going to focus on the charge of racism that you made towards the libertarians. Most of what you wrote is completely false or at least misleading. But I'll focus on Hans Hermann Hoppe for the moment. Please read this extensive rebuttal written by Stephen Kinsella: quote:Hoppe on Covenant Communities and Advocates of Alternative Lifestyles Do you now understand why those quotes you throw about that supposedly "prove" that Hoppe is a racist are misleading?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
They aren't really misleading, they are just trying really hard to absolve Hoppe. Like even in context those still have the same meaning. I mean adding the words "in a covenant" doesn't actually change anything and using the catholic church is not a good idea. As its no more acceptable when they discriminate based on church dogma. Though that still isn't a good example as a libertarian covenant would most likely expel you from land, while a church excommunication is just spiritual. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As for the supposed libertarian "support" for Apartheid, there is absolutely no libertarian justification for it whatsoever. This is literally the "sweatshops or poverty" argument, except somehow made even worse by applying it to loving apartheid. If this is the kind of poo poo that makes someone a great libertarian thinker, maybe I should sell out. I wonder if jrod knows how apartheid ended?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:It's always good for a laugh to see people who a "pure" enough libertarians who go the whole 9 yards and literally think we should get rid of courts, the police, and military. Usually libertarians are massive hypocrites who loving love any government services that they personally benefit from, but they are a dime a dozen. An-Caps are so silly and retarded it's strange to see one in the wild because even the tiniest shred of thought should make it clear that not only would a "free" market be unbelievably stupid but also a complete impossibility. Hoppe was a wannabe Hitler and Rothbard wanted to bring back slavery. Nothing incendiary and irresponsible about those statements! I have read Rothbard extensively. And his historical and philosophic work is filled with anti slavery and anti racism statements and beliefs. For example, Rothbard made the case that under libertarian justice the enslaved blacks should have had the right to rise up and kill their "masters" and then take over their property. Rothbard lamented that one of the great tragedies of emancipation, aside from the fact that it occurred after a bloody and protracted Civil War, was that those who stole the labor of the enslaved Africans should have had their property immediately siezed from them and transferred to the emancipated blacks who worked on the plantations. If all freed slaves were immediately given land and property, given that they homesteaded this property through their labor, imagine how much of a head start that would have given the black community in this country? I don't suppose a proponent of a return to slavery would be advocating such radical anti slavery views in his writings. It shouldn't be too much to ask that you actually be responsible in your accusations. Before calling someone a bigot, a supporter of slavery or a "new Hitler", maybe you should learn a thing or two about their positions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
My objection with libertarianism and especially anarcho-capitalism boils down to one question. "Who decides?" Who decides if a road gets built? Who decides what is scientific fact and what is hoopla? Who decides what we teach our children? Who decides that a given killing was just or unjust? Who decides that gold is valuable? In democracy, the politicians decide. In an ideal democracy, the politicians decide based on what their constituents want, because they accurately represent the wishes of their constituents. Yes, the current system isn't perfect, but it works. How the hell does anarcho-capitalism fix this issue of someone needing to decide something for the sake of everyone? How the hell does libertarianism do the same? jrodefield, why do you drive on roads or walk on sidewalks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Rothbard advocates selling children. That necessitates that under certain circumstances people can be property. People as property is slavery. Also in a covenant you're a loving idiot. You can't be upset about me calling you a loving idiot, because I said "in a covenant".
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:This is literally the "sweatshops or poverty" argument, except somehow made even worse by applying it to loving apartheid. If this is the kind of poo poo that makes someone a great libertarian thinker, maybe I should sell out. Rothbard was responding to calls from liberal intellectuals at the time who were advocating that we cut off all economic trade with Apartheid nations. Rothbard is saying that that would accomplish very little and would make conditions even worse for blacks in those countries. The Apartheid system can and should be overturned through violent revolt. But that doesn't mean that the United States military has to take it upon themselves to commit the violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rothbard was responding to calls from liberal intellectuals at the time who were advocating that we cut off all economic trade with Apartheid nations. Rothbard is saying that that would accomplish very little and would make conditions even worse for blacks in those countries. The Apartheid system can and should be overturned through violent revolt. But that doesn't mean that the United States military has to take it upon themselves to commit the violence. Turns out he was wrong, that has got to sting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
If in an An-Cap society corporations doing crimes would be shunned from society or nobody would do business with them, how can you explain the fact that so many corporations are RIGHT now doing horrible things (like coke or oil companies disappearing union activists for example) and nobody can do poo poo about it? Or do you believe that the only reason this is happening is because of State interference or something? If you've got a hateboner for the concept of centralized State that's fine, governments do some real lovely things too but at least join real anarchists and have an ideology that at least cares about your fellow man, not give the entire power to the other entities that screw everybody over, come on. PS: severe lack of  in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:Rothbard advocates selling children. That necessitates that under certain circumstances people can be property. People as property is slavery. Also in a covenant you're a loving idiot. You can't be upset about me calling you a loving idiot, because I said "in a covenant". Rothbard was wrong about that. I have said that before and many libertarians have criticized Rothbard and others for their lack of consistency in applying the non aggression principle to Children. Stefan Molyneux has been especially outspoken in this area. But it is not correct to pick out a few quotes from Rothbard were he made a fallacious argument and then suggest that this must invalidate all his other positions. In any intellectual tradition, it is expected that the successors should correct the errors of their predecessors and advance the movement and the ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
You specifically said that people that called Rothbard out for advocating slavery were wrong. They weren't, obviously, and him being wrong for saying it doesn't actually make it incorrect that he did advocate slavery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you now understand why those quotes you throw about that supposedly "prove" that Hoppe is a racist are misleading? Good to know that a Czar or a Christian King massacring Jews or committing a pogrom is fine. I mean Hoppe's argument is literally that a King owns the entire nation, so even beyond being able to create a covenant community according to Hoppe's logic that should be perfectly acceptable. I also love Hoppe's response to people pointing out that monarchies are less productive economically than democracies. First he got all racist and claimed this was because current monarchies are "negroid" and then simply insisted that historical arguments are invalid in economics. The reason they are invalid is apparently because Ludwig von Mises Said so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
why didn't we just ban the dude last time he did this? he's a class clown who keeps coming back to bask in the negative attention
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rothbard was responding to calls from liberal intellectuals at the time who were advocating that we cut off all economic trade with Apartheid nations. Rothbard is saying that that would accomplish very little and would make conditions even worse for blacks in those countries. The Apartheid system can and should be overturned through violent revolt. But that doesn't mean that the United States military has to take it upon themselves to commit the violence. You're aware that apartheid ended, right You're aware that apartheid ended in no small part because of international action sanctioning South Africa economically and politically for its actions, right I guess I at least can't complain that you skipped my posts since at least it means you aren't moving through the thread one quoted post a day
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:30
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me