|
DrProsek posted:So how does Libertopia handle advances in technology that weren't even a thing back when the vehicle of oppression known as the State was abolished? Like in 100 years, I buy myself a comet, jrod buys himself a gas giant. Through no effort on my part, as a part of my comet's natural flight path, it goes through jrod's gas giant. Did I trespass on jrod's property? Who decides whether my comet naturally flying through jrod's gas giant counts as trespassing? Who decides how we calculate damages awarded to jrod in the event that my comet passing through his gas giant is trespassing? What if my Dispute Resolution Organization is a member of a different association of DROs than jrod's and has a different view on how comet/gas giant interactions work? What if in my DRO's view, jrod had an obligation to move his gas giant out of the flight path of my comet, and needs to pay me a fee for putting my comet in danger from having flown straight through a gas giant containing God knows what? Well your comet would be pulverized from the pressure of the gas giant's atmosphere so  .
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Destruction of private property!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:So how does Libertopia handle advances in technology that weren't even a thing back when the vehicle of oppression known as the State was abolished? Like in 100 years, I buy myself a comet, jrod buys himself a gas giant. Through no effort on my part, as a part of my comet's natural flight path, it goes through jrod's gas giant. Did I trespass on jrod's property? Who decides whether my comet naturally flying through jrod's gas giant counts as trespassing? Who decides how we calculate damages awarded to jrod in the event that my comet passing through his gas giant is trespassing? What if my Dispute Resolution Organization is a member of a different association of DROs than jrod's and has a different view on how comet/gas giant interactions work? What if in my DRO's view, jrod had an obligation to move his gas giant out of the flight path of my comet, and needs to pay me a fee for putting my comet in danger from having flown straight through a gas giant containing God knows what? I really want to read a short story with this as a premise. It would make really good satire/comedy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:I really want to read a short story with this as a premise. It would make really good satire/comedy. Contemplating lighter topics than sociopaths with free market ideals running society, I was trying to decide earlier today if Libertarians are just Kleptomaniacs with Wanderlust or would merely have the entire society destroyed by them.  I suspect it doesn't work though because said kleptos don't have a sense of personal property. I don't think anyone has actually come up with a fantasy race that is analogous because they all still think they need to have some form of society. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Lowtechs posted:Well your comet would be pulverized from the pressure of the gas giant's atmosphere so Well poo poo problem solved, I'm going to start protesting to strengthen State rights in order to bring us to a stateless society right now!  (I am clearly not an astrophysicist  . Pretend then that this is a dispute over my comet entering into orbit over jrod's asteroid, and whether I violated his asteroid's airspace, or if jrod's careless placement of his asteroid put my comet in danger and molested my comet's natural flight course)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Racial generalizations about personality or "inner life" are racist. Part (but not all) of why is that we do not currently live in a world where social biases can be fully eliminated from experimentation on human psychology. But we are not talking about some sloppy racial stereotypes. Hoppe was referring to observed, empirical studies which demonstrated different average levels of time preference between certain cultures and racial groups. My understanding of those Hoppe quotes in their proper context, is that the observed difference in time preference has less to do with some inherent biological difference and more to do with poorer cultures in African nations and more developed European nations. There are many factors that influence time preference. And these quotes were not part of some screed studying differences between races. Rather this was an aside which was meant to correct for the statistical anomalies when comparing Monarchies and Democracies between different cultures. If the average time preference of a population is different between two different cultures, it is not a direct apples to apples comparison. That is all that is being said. You are performing incredible mental contortions to try and label Hoppe a racist and supremacist. If you can dismiss someone by calling them a name designed to destroy their character, you don't have to refute their arguments or engage with their ideas. It is a cowardly tactic really. If the empirical data ends up showing average differences in a number of statistical categories between different races and cultures, is it racist to report this information? For example, the empirical data supports the notion that Asians, on average, are significantly more academically accomplished and competent than whites. I happen to be white but it is quite clear that my race is being left in the dust academically by smarter, harder working and more intelligent (in certain fields) Asians. Our colleges are populated by percentages of Asian Americans that are far in excess of their percentage of the population. Am I being racist against my own race if I point this average difference out? Should I support affirmative action so that less intelligent, less hard working white people can compete with Asians in academic fields? I don't support this. It is simply an absurdity to think that all races are identical apart from skin color. There are observable differences. Now, if one is a sober intellectual who is merely looking at the date, it is certainly not racist to report your findings. What is racist is to use pseudo science like the long debunked "phrenology" to attempt to prove the supremacy of one race over the others. But to say that, on average, black people tend to excel in many sports, or that Asians excel in academics or that black men have larger dicks and asian men have smaller dicks is not racist. It is just the observable data. To be a racist you have to have a belief in the superiority of one race over the others. You have to believe that any observed differences, or fabricated differences, prove that one race or multiple races are inherently inferior. It is also important to note that it can be difficult or impossible to differentiate between inherent biological differences and merely consequences of culture, poverty and so forth. Hoppe has never been a racist or a supremacist of any kind. He has never even written anything specific about race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Hoppe has never been a racist or a supremacist of any kind. He has never even written anything specific about race. Just in case anyone was still wondering if this was a religious discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
I would love to see these empirical studies that prove Blacks are just lazier than whites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I would love to see these empirical studies that prove Blacks are just lazier than whites. You haven't heard of a little book called "The Bell Curve"? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Verus posted:but in all seriousness: They can adopt and many do. But on average, gay people don't have children. For those gay couples that adopt, we can assume that their time preference would be the same as a married heterosexual couple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:They can adopt and many do. But on average, gay people don't have children. For those gay couples that adopt, we can assume that their time preference would be the same as a married heterosexual couple. I assume you mean a married white heterosexual couple, since blacks would still have lower time preference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
"Lower time preference" really seems like a "human biodiversity" type of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:You haven't heard of a little book called "The Bell Curve"? Oh poo poo, Hoppe is a big believer in the Bell Curve. That is probably what he is talking about. HAHAHAHAHAHAHa. HA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Listen, guys, NEGROIDS simply have a higher time preference and therefore don't respect the glorious vision of Libertarian division of labor and consequently are not really human, meaning it is OK to own them. No this isn't racism, its just hardnosed realism.  Well, save for those that acknowledge their lower capabilities render them more suited for sports and menial labor. What, this is strictly empirical!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
But guys, there is a ton of empirical evidence that there are differences between races. Mainstream scientists are suppressing the studies because they are too politically correct!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
I'd like to put forward the controversial theory that Caucasions are not the Master Race, as evidenced by the persistent plague of Libertarians. Perhaps Africans are the Master Race, they seem to be the most resilient to this mental pox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Bob James posted:The Libertarian Thread: The Negroids Have a Different Time Preference. I'm still waiting. Somebody page Xylo
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To be a racist you have to have a belief in the superiority of one race over the others. You have to believe that any observed differences, or fabricated differences, prove that one race or multiple races are inherently inferior. poo poo, anyone can be a genius philosopher if they're able to define whatever words they want and demand that everyone else use those definitions. I think I'm beginning to figure out why none of these discussions go anywhere. On the plus side, if we're getting into natural selection territory then I can take some satisfaction in the observation that very few libertarians seem likely to pass their (hardworking and thrifty) genes on to the next generation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To be a racist you have to have a belief in the superiority of one race over the others. You have to believe that any observed differences, or fabricated differences, prove that one race or multiple races are inherently inferior. Like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard, who touted the accuracy of The Bell Curve?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard, who touted the accuracy of The Bell Curve? But don't you see that they were sad about the unfortunate reality of white superiority? It was a tragedy for them to discover those objective facts for which no other explanation exists. If you will simply refer to the fact that racists are by definition vicious, drooling caricatures with hatred in their hearts, these fine men cannot be racists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I want to speak to the "racist" accusation once more. Caros and others have been trying to make the claim that racism is inherent to the libertarian movement. I am wondering whether you all could reckon with the academic work of two prominent black libertarian economists, Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell? These are two brilliant and accomplished academic thinkers who agree with Rothbard on most everything. In fact these men feel that the State and socialist ideology has devastated the black community and that moving towards a free society would provide the greatest opportunity to oppressed minorities. Walter Williams special "The State Against Blacks" shows why this is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGWDis2dJw This is part 1 (10 minutes long). The other parts are linked to below that video. I am curious to get your feedback on this argument made by a prominent black libertarian intellectual and economist? I get that you think the Mises Institute associated libertarians are somehow "tainted" due to their association with Murray Rothbard, the Ron Paul Newsletters and others. In the first place, these people are certainly NOT racist, rather they are less likely to kowtow to the enforcers of political correctness. But there are many other libertarians who have influenced me as much. Are these people all racist as well? Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, Scott Horton, Gary Chartier, Albert Jay Knock, Robert Nozick, going farther back abolitionist Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt and Leonard Reed. I suppose all these people are white supremacists as well? I find that people like yourselves derive immense pleasure from combing through a person's background to find any evidence that they once said something controversial or insensitive and then tarring that person with a label that is designed to immediately destroy that persons credibility and reputation. The problem that you have to sort out though is that libertarianism is incompatible with racism. Racism is a subset of collectivism. Libertarianism is the belief in individualism. If everyone is an individual and everyone is entitled to self ownership and the right to be free from aggression, then the libertarian cannot be a racist without contradicting his stated beliefs. Holding racist views in ones mind, or for that matter stereotypes, all manner of irrational prejudices and silly ideas is a far lesser crime in my eyes than actually initiating aggression against someone. However, for Statists, this sensible priority is flipped upside down. All of a sudden it is the advocates of voluntarism and non-aggression who are put on the offensive because someone might hold prejudicial views of some group in their minds, even though their advocacy of non-aggression means they would never use violence against these people. The Statist advocates State violence against people, for centralized authority that permits wars of aggression, the theft of money from the citizens to give to rich corporate interests and all other manner of violent acts that actually tangibly hurt people. I understand that Donald Sterling it a reprehensible human being for holding racist views. But, even still, he made quite a few black athletes and coaches millionaires. In contrast, Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War that actually caused the death of more than one million people. But at least she was never caught saying the n-word! Racism is reprehensible. But shouldn't acts of aggression and policies that actually hurt more than someone's feelings be considered a little worse?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the first place, these people are certainly NOT racist, rather they are less likely to kowtow to the enforcers of political correctness. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:12
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
I guess you're right as long as we're sticking to Rothbard's "It's not racist if blacks actually are stupid and lazy" definition.R to the B the boss MC posted:Why Malcolm X? Why the sudden rage, replete with baseball caps inscribed with X’s, for a man assassinated nearly thirty years ago? Partly it’s media hype, centered around the new hagiographic movie made by our Most Politically Correct Movie Director, Black Division. More seriously, the nostalgia for Malcolm is part of America’s permanent Jacobin Celebration Project, in which new politically correct birthdays and anniversaries are dug up and compulsorily celebrated (Earth Day, Earth Week, “Dr.” Martin Luther King Day, etc.), while others are overlooked or dumped altogether (Washington’s Birthday, Columbus Day – you should forgive the expression). To paraphrase LBJ, seize control of a nation’s celebrations, and their hearts and minds will follow. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to speak to the "racist" accusation once more. Jesus gently caress. I have no time to answer you in full right now as I am getting glazes from my wife but did you seriously just use the "Donald sterling made them millionaires " line without irony? Donald Sterling owned the team. That is it. Those players made themselves successful and made HIM rich in the process you contemptable peice of garbage. I'll deal with this when I get home.. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The problem that you have to sort out though is that libertarianism is incompatible with racism. Racism is a subset of collectivism. Libertarianism is the belief in individualism. If everyone is an individual and everyone is entitled to self ownership and the right to be free from aggression, then the libertarian cannot be a racist without contradicting his stated beliefs. Everyone get out your libertarian bingo cards! Can someone explain what this is supposed to mean, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am curious to get your feedback on this argument made by a prominent black libertarian intellectual and economist? OH MY GOD BLACK LIBERTARIANS, HOW CAN THIS BE??? MY LIBERAL BRAIN CAN'T TAKE IT Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are racists and useful idiots
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:Donald Sterling owned the team. That is it. Those players made themselves successful and made HIM rich in the process you contemptable peice of garbage. Richer - reminder that Sterling made a significant chunk of his fortune off of being a slumlord.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The problem that you have to sort out though is that libertarianism is incompatible with racism. Racism is a subset of collectivism. Libertarianism is the belief in individualism. If everyone is an individual and everyone is entitled to self ownership and the right to be free from aggression, then the libertarian cannot be a racist without contradicting his stated beliefs. It's fun talking to you because you reserve for yourself the unilateral right to define words in whatever way you want in order to demonstrate that something is true a priori. I guess it's handy because it means you never have to reflect critically on your own beliefs or think about what somebody else is thinking--which I think might be really hard for someone with your condition. "Libertarians can't be racist because racism is bad and therefore part of collectivism. As individualists libertarians are the opposite of racists and demonstrate their essential goodness."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Richer - reminder that Sterling made a significant chunk of his fortune off of being a slumlord. I actually didn't know that I knew he was wealthy before. Thank you for the correction. Donald sterling basically had a pile of money and decided to buy a sports team, as I understand it that is mostly where his influence ended in the actual management of the team. They did all the work and he got progressively more wealthy. It's the perfect example of capitalism being garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I understand that Donald Sterling it a reprehensible human being for holding racist views. But, even still, he made quite a few black athletes and coaches millionaires. In contrast, Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War that actually caused the death of more than one million people. Well I guess your view that team of black athletes apparently had no agency worth mentioning in their own success and were in fact shepherded towards wealth by a racist white guy is pretty insightful! I can't tell if this is racism or some kind of weird libertarian view where the captain of Industry gets sole credit for the work of his employees
Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:Well I guess your view that team of black athletes apparently had no agency worth mentioning in their own success and were in fact shepherded towards wealth by a racist white guy is pretty insightful! jrodefeld is the inspiration for Father Comstock?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Jrodefeld has conceded on multiple occasions that several of his libertarian idols (including his god Murray Rothbard) hold views that he believes to be contradictory to libertarianism. However, when these same people make transparently racist statements, it's our job to somehow overcome the "fact" that these men are now perfect avatars of libertarianism. When it comes to race, I guess libertarians are much more consistent and unified than they are on issues like child-selling and whether it's moral to steal a Twinkie to stay alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
I know you're pages behind, but how do you defend claiming boom and bust have anything to do with centralized banking when they're observable pre-centralized banking? Is this just a direct lie on your part or were you really ignorant of that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
"Discrimination is no big deal"-a white man JR should just do what tea partiers do, and wear his prejudices with pride. I respect Ted Nugent infinitely more than a man who insists that there are no racial undertones in modern libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Everyone get out your libertarian bingo cards! Libertarians aren't racist, Murray Rothbard is a libertarian, therefore Murray Rothbard isn't racist. QED libtards
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
All rise for the national anthem of libertopia: http://youtu.be/2vNzz2VMWac
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I know you're pages behind, but how do you defend claiming boom and bust have anything to do with centralized banking when they're observable pre-centralized banking? History is irrelevant to the a priori clarity of libertarianism, fool. If you just adopt his rigid set of assumptions and think about what would follow logically assuming the world is filled with the kind of people he imagines exist, all becomes clear. It's like when you disagree about whether Superman or the Hulk would win in a fight, you can come to an answer. Not one that will help you navigate reality at all, but still an answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:All rise for the national anthem of libertopia: http://youtu.be/2vNzz2VMWac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Hell, not even that. Somebody upthread got it spot on when they said he's just calling black people lazy. My god you are so loving stupid it is embarrassing. Why don't you enlighten us all with your in depth knowledge of the economic concept of time preference? A wage laborer agrees to work for a capitalist in part because the wage earner has a higher time preference. Meaning they want the money now for the labor they do. They don't want to put off a return on investment for months and months as the entrepreneur has to do. Does this mean that the wage laborer doesn't work hard, or in some cases harder, than the entrepreneur? No, but it still means that the wage earner has a relatively higher time preference. It has nothing to do with laziness or who works harder than someone else. Nor is it inherently better to have a very low time preference. Have a low time preference just means you are more future oriented and you plan for the future. If you are 70 years old and have no children, should you have an extremely low time preference and plan for fifty plus years down the road? This would be irrational. It would be stupid and nonsensical for people to have an extremely low time preference and delay gratification and consumption for no good reason. Furthermore Hoppe, in those quotes, was comparing African culture to European culture. On average, he said, people in African nations have a higher time preference than those in European nations. This probably has a lot to do with the differences in development and relative prosperity between the two cultures. A parent in Ethiopia is probably not saving money for their children to go to college. Poorer nations naturally have a higher time preference because people have to eat! How can you plan for the future if your immediate needs are not met? You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All you know is that if you can label Hoppe a racist, you don't actually have to consider his ideas or debate their merits. So, to recap, the oft quoted passage about covenant communities having the right to discriminate is not an example of racism, it was taken entire out of context by Hoppe's enemies. Second, this other quote about time preference is clearly not an example of racism. You don't even understand what time preference is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
I love this more every time it's posted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:37
|
|
