|
CharlestheHammer posted:I would love to see these empirical studies that prove Blacks are just lazier than whites. Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness!
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
It seems to me that the more problems that you need a libertarian "covenant community" to solve, such as security and criminal justice, the more it would resemble a government. Its key difference would be its basis in financial subscription rather than citizenship or innate rights, and therefore its ability to arbitrarily exclude undesirable elements. The precise nature of these undesirable elements is left as an exercise to the reader.
StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Having the right, no, the moral imperative, to expel, violently if necessary, black people from the community is not at all racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! Only a racist would say that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! So do you think blacks are biologically different from whites with regards to cognitive abilities? Don't give a paragraph of bullshit non-answers, answer yes or no
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! Time Preference is just dumb jargon for laziness. Maybe short sightedness if I am being charitable. I still want those studies that prove that, by the by. jrodefeld posted: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. Are you saying time Preference is sometimes class based instead of an actual preference? ?????? CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
I thought the purpose of libertarianism was to argue from a purely logical and reasonable debate of ideas, I'm not sure why the color of someone's skin determines if their work is a counter-example to the statement "This entire philosophy is bigoted horseshit". Maybe I don't get it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
The reason we're still harping on this, jrodefeld, is that through all of the threads you've started you've yet to demonstrate why and how a libertarian society would shun racism. Sure, "the state did it," but one reason that blacks in the south and in the inner cities have remained poor, is that plenty of private citizens have been racist too, in their hiring, renting, and selling practices. In fact I think we've suggested convincingly (see I'm arguing just like you now!) that in the absence of the state, racism would gain a whole variety of avenues through which it could be expressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Thank god there are so many starving parents in Ethiopia who choose to live at subsistence level instead of choosing a lower time preference as entrepreneurs choose to do. Otherwise the gloriously lubricated wheels of the free market might not deliver just desserts with the maximal efficiency like they do now, when 3/4 of the world makes the personal and deliberate decision to live at subsistence level. I wonder why they would have those preferences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. It really is loving depressing to know that jrodefeld's argument is literally "I'm not racist because blacks (and gays, liberals, and other undesirables) really are mentally inferior to the white man"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:Jesus gently caress. NBA owners have nothing to do with the salaries that professional basketball players make? Sure it is the players who have to play but it is not the physical effort that makes them worth the money they earn. It is the fact that owners, executives, television channels and the combined sports economy advertise the sport, get people to pay for tickets in the arenas, get people to pay for cable and satellite sports packages like NBA League Pass and so on. Without this revenue from the buying public and all the advertising money that is spent to promote it, the salaries for these players would have to be much lower. For example, a couple years ago the tv channel Comcast Sports Net purchased the exclusive rights to broadcast Lakers games for something like $10 billion dollars for twenty years. The Lakers franchise was worth this much because of what the Buss family did to promote the Lakers, build a competitive team, create a final "product" that the fans around the country wanted to watch. If is from this revenue stream, this popularity that allows the Lakers franchise to pay around $100 million dollars a year to its players and coaching staff. It is a combined effort, from the owners to the players to the commissioner and the various sponsors that has permitted the league to grow to the point where the average NBA player earns much more than the average player in virtually any other sport. I know you are a Marxist and you think that the owners are just exploiting the players, but why do you think Lebron James is worth $15 million a year or more? Let's suppose that tomorrow all the owners, all the promoters and executives disappeared from the face of the Earth. Now, explain to me how the NBA players are going to get paid the same salaries they do now? Who is going to sign their checks? Who is going to handle the business side of professional sports, the promotion, the advertising etc? Also, are you physically unable to have a discussion without using attacks like "you contemptible piece of garbage"? Is it an involuntary tick like tourette syndrome or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
It's just a coincidence that racial and religious minorities will bear the brunt of their terrible policy goals. But seriously, white supremacy and confederate revenge fantasy is core to the belief system. I can find a Johnny Rebel song that covers anything jrodefeld posts, because "against the welfare state" means kill black people, "smaller government" means shut down the largest employer in the inner city, and "self ownership" means chattel slavery. A lynch mob is one of the few times you can see an uninhibited free market in action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
The fact that you speak of "European" versus "African" culture as a defense of what are at their core racist claims speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideas. When something is no longer acceptable as an argument, simply substitute terms while keeping the argument intact. If all else fails, rail against political correctness. Fool proof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It really is loving depressing to know that jrodefeld's argument is literally "I'm not racist because blacks (and gays, liberals, and other undesirables) really are mentally inferior to the white man" It is indeed depressing, but you must understand, this is one of the appeals of libertarianism mixed with anarchic principles. You're allowed to not only think whatever you want but you can say whatever you want too, no matter how much of it is complete and utter bullshit based on logical fallacies, pseudoscience that was discredited before the turn of the previous century, or blatant hate and/or stupidity. You're a free soul! You're free to do anything! As long as it's not based upon a centralized governmental authority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Speaking of children, there is a reason you have to look long and hard to find a woman who will agree with the OP and if you do she is almost certainly not a mother. As I understand, the stated Libertarian position on such matters is that private charities would end up serving as a worthy stand-in for state services - that if the mean old tax man wasn't bleeding them dry, people would happily donate the same amount of money to charity. Because it's not as though there's a major mismatch between what tugs at people's heartstrings and what society needs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:As I understand, the stated Libertarian position on such matters is that private charities would end up serving as a worthy stand-in for state services - that if the mean old tax man wasn't bleeding them dry, people would happily donate the same amount of money to charity. Because it's not as though there's a major mismatch between what tugs at people's heartstrings and what society needs. In addition, when economic times are hard, people give less to charity - which is precisely when it's most needed. Or that's what I've often read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's suppose that tomorrow all the owners, all the promoters and executives disappeared from the face of the Earth. Now, explain to me how the NBA players are going to get paid the same salaries they do now? Who is going to sign their checks? Who is going to handle the business side of professional sports, the promotion, the advertising etc? Literally anyone???
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is this just a direct lie on your part or were you really ignorant of that? Said every critic of libertarianism ever. Seriously, it's as though the whole school of thought only retains extreme idiots or pathological liars. Other absurd lies spread by libertarians: 1) Wars only happen because of fiat currency 2) Boom/bust cycles only happen because of government intervention 3) Miscellaneous racist statements 4) Intentional redefinition of terms whenever it suits their purpose, "it's violent for you to walk across my lawn without my permission, but it's not violent for me to shoot you for doing so" 5) Holocaust denial and other attempts at revising hostory
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:I actually didn't know that I knew he was wealthy before. Thank you for the correction. What if nobody offered to buy the team? If no one had bought the Clippers, the team would have been dissolved and the league would have had one less team. Do you think the NBA players would have been better off? One less team means that fewer players could be drafted into the league and fewer could become wealthy. Also, your assertion that Sterling just bought them team then did nothing is absolutely ridiculous. When Sterling bought the team, they were dead last. I mean literally the worst team in the league, a laughing stock. This past year they were one of the best teams in the league, their popularity had risen exponentially, the team was much more profitable than it had been. This means that he could afford to pay higher salaries. He could pay for Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, and hire Doc Rivers. I believe the case is still in court with Sterling fighting to the bitter end, but when the team was sold earlier this year, it set an all time record for a basketball team. Steve Ballmer agreed to purchase the team for $2 billion dollars. This is the second highest amount paid for a sports franchise ever. How much do you think the Philadelphia 76ers would sell for? Not half that price. The fact that Sterling made good decisions and made the franchise profitable, means that they can afford to pay players more. It is ridiculous to say that NBA owners do nothing but sit there and rake in profits off the labor of the players. Without the advertising, the profits and the huge sports economy that owners, executives and sports media outlets have created, these players would have to settle for either making a couple hundred thousand dollars tops for their talents playing in some small scale local basketball league or, more likely, find another line of work altogether.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Said every critic of libertarianism ever. Seriously, it's as though the whole school of thought only retains extreme idiots or pathological liars. Well, to be fair they quite explicitly deny reality by relying on praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The reason we're still harping on this, jrodefeld, is that through all of the threads you've started you've yet to demonstrate why and how a libertarian society would shun racism. Sure, "the state did it," but one reason that blacks in the south and in the inner cities have remained poor, is that plenty of private citizens have been racist too, in their hiring, renting, and selling practices. In fact I think we've suggested convincingly (see I'm arguing just like you now!) that in the absence of the state, racism would gain a whole variety of avenues through which it could be expressed. You don't get it, slavery only existed because the state mandated that everyone should own slaves. There are no examples of stateless societies owning slaves. And racism only exists because of the state, too, which is why it's impossible for real libertarians to be racists
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:NBA owners have nothing to do with the salaries that professional basketball players make? Sure it is the players who have to play but it is not the physical effort that makes them worth the money they earn. It is the fact that owners, executives, television channels and the combined sports economy advertise the sport, get people to pay for tickets in the arenas, get people to pay for cable and satellite sports packages like NBA League Pass and so on. I insult you because you are humorous and support an economic and philosophical system that I believe would cause untold human suffering. I insult you because when I told you why I stopped being a libertarian due to a painful story involving the death of a personal friend you talked down to me like I was a child. I have very little respect for you because you consistantly come onto the forums that I consider my community and declare your support for libertarian thought in an incredibly disingenuous fashion and you are unwilling to rexamine your ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
As to time preference, is the claim that capital owners are forgoing things like food and shelter for investment? If not, where do they get the income required for these? The majority of wage labour is basically subsistence, so it would seem that capital owners start with some unaccounted surplus that renders any attempt to draw comparisons between the two positions fallacious. Where does the initial seed capital come from? Homesteading? This sort of mythic construction of the first acquisition of capital really pulls from the colonization of the new world and the dispossession of its indigenous inhabitants. That's what Locke was pulling from when he came up with his labour mixing metaphor at any rate. By the time he came around there really wasn't any land anywhere on the Eurasian landmass that wasn't claimed by someone. Except even you accept the premise of labour entitling permanent ownership of land, which is really the starting point of all this, it's still a straight up lie. The British and later Americans weren't above torching settlements and burning fields to move the peoples of the north east off their land, and then handing the land out to other people. There's always violent dispossession somewhere in the history of enclosed territory, the noble pioneer cutting a swath out of the wilderness to live in is a total myth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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 works for capitalist because the capitalist owns the means of production. According to you here, the only thing stopping minimum wage earners from becoming the bourgeois is their unwillingness to save the  left over after paying bills.quote: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. This probably has to do with relative prosperity? Well geez you think so? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Libertarian racism comes from the same place as the rest of the stupid poo poo in libertarianism: a shallow and simplistic understanding of how human society operates. See, there's nothing biological that makes black people dumb. It's just that they choose to be dumb! You can observe this by looking at black communities and black culture, which are dumb. Nothing is stopping smart black people from choosing to turn their backs on black communities and black culture; I can prove this by reference to Sowell and Thomas and any number of other 'conservative' black people. The above makes sense to a libertarian because they are, by and large, privileged whites, and the nature of privilege is that it's invisible to the people who have it. They simply cannot imagine reasons why black people would not choose to abandon black culture and black communities. They cannot imagine any prevailing conditions that would make it difficult or impossible for a black person to make the same choices as a white person (not to mention conditions that would make them not desire to make those choices). When the world is the simple world of white male privilege, these issues are also simple, and have simple answers. Black people who don't bootstrap themselves out of poverty are consciously choosing to be poor. Only a stupid person would do that; ergo, black people are stupid. (No libertarian would frame it that way, and would vigorously deny that's what they're thinking, but it is precisely what they're thinking; it's the subtext behind all libertarian racism, when it's not the actual text). Look at the responses Neil DeGrasse Tyson generated when he talked about how much more difficult it was for him to succeed in his chosen career, how it was basically 'hard mode' to defy expectations set for young black men. White dudes were infuriated, because Tyson exposed the ugly truth that being smart is insufficient for black people. It challenges the whole basis of libertarianism: that society is a simple thing, with simple rules, and those rules are universal for everyone. eta: this is how libertarians are able to claim they're not racist. They don't think black people are stupid; they just think that for some reason, black people choose not to pursue the obvious opportunities everyone has available to them. And their point of calibration for 'obvious opportunities everyone has available' is 'white straight cis male.' isildur fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:NBA owners have nothing to do with the salaries that professional basketball players make? Sure it is the players who have to play but it is not the physical effort that makes them worth the money they earn. It is the fact that owners, executives, television channels and the combined sports economy advertise the sport, get people to pay for tickets in the arenas, get people to pay for cable and satellite sports packages like NBA League Pass and so on... Wait. How can the players' physical play not make them money, yet make them money? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
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? You forget that the Federal Reserve was really the third central bank in US history. The First Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and The Second Bank of the United States (1816–1836) contributed to the early "panics" in the 19th century. Furthermore, Lincoln took us off the Gold Standard and issued Greenbacks to finance the Civil War which caused subsequent economic crises. A central bank isn't required for there to be business cycles according to the Austrian theory. The crucial ingredient to a business cycle, central bank or no, is inflation of the money supply (i.e. the printing of paper money that isn't backed by gold or silver). The way to do this with or without the help of a central bank is through fractional reserve banking. Under a fractional reserve system, a bank will loan out gold that was deposited in the bank as demand deposits. The problem with this system is that because the original depositors have claims to their deposited gold on demand, as do the receivers of the loans, there is an increase in the money supply, though no increase in the gold specie. The reason central banks came into existence is because inflation of the money supply by a single bank is self-limiting. As Rothbard explains in "What Has the Government Done to Our Money", the money loaned out in the form of paper money will make its way into the hands of people who have accounts in separate banks, and they will deposit the paper money into their banks. Their banks will quickly call on the original bank to redeem gold, and the original bank will quickly find its vaults running out of gold. A good example of this happening is the Panic of 1819. In order to fund the War of 1812, the US government turned to banks to lend them money, but unfortunately the New England banks, which were normally the government's go-to banks for loans, were against the war and refused to loan to the government. Therefore the government got loans from less established banks from out of the region, and these smaller banks heavily inflated the money supply way beyond what they could back in gold. Soon the bank money made its way to New England to pay for military equipment, and just as in the previous example, the money was deposited into the more well-established New England banks, and just as expected, they called on the smaller banks to redeem their gold. Had it not been for government intervention in the form of suspension of specie payment, these banks would have gone under in a second, but they were allowed to continue business though they were entirely bankrupt. It is this shaky foundation, aggravated by government intervention, that is responsible for the Panic of 1819, all achieved with no help from a central bank. For more information on panics before the Fed, take a look at this resource: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/panics/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Libertarianism is funny since it heavily focuses on individualism but would require everyone to have the exact same principles, believes, and life experiences for it to work, essentially eliminating individualism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Repeat after me, Time Preference has nothing to do with laziness! Time preference has nothing to do with laziness. Time preference has everything to do with perceptions of intelligence. Saving for the future is considered smarter than spending money now. Why do you insist on using "African culture" and "Negroid" as if those are useful terms? Do you really know that little about Africa? It's a loving continent you goddamned racist dolt. It'd be like me saying that I hate North America because everyone talks in that stupid slow drawl. Or saying that I hate Asia because everyone eats kimchi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Wait, so the more money you make for black people, the less racist you become? Africans packed for transport to increased material prosperity and higher standards of living, courtesy of anti-racist freedom traders
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:"Discrimination is no big deal"-a white man I didn't say there are no "racial undertones" to any part of the libertarian movement. I didn't even say that some libertarians aren't racist, though the concept of individualism is contradictory to this view. What I did say is that the libertarians cited here, Hans Hoppe, Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul are not racist. Rothbard, for example wrote an incredible number of books, articles, essays and published commentaries from the 1940s through the 1990s. His published work documents the Civil Rights Era, the Vietnam War, and he aligned himself with both the New Left, the libertarians and the paleo conservatives at different points in time. He had principles but was pragmatic enough to find workable coalitions to advance the ideas of liberty. If you take a snippet of his vast published works, you could probably paint him as a racist. But I could equally take dozens of paragraphs that show him to be very supportive of the Civil Rights movement at large and extremely complimentary towards many black leaders and revolutionaries. His writings on slavery and the inhumanity of Jim Crow Laws, the injustice of permitting slave owners to keep their property after emancipation and many others clearly illustrate that he was no racist but rather was a defender of the dignity, Natural Rights and self ownership of all humans regardless of race. I know that I am no racist. In fact, my support for libertarianism is informed and motivated in part by my concern for what I consider to be racist policies towards minorities. The State has done far too much damage to the black community. It is time for real reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Jrode, I think you're confused as to why people care so much about how discrimination will be handled in libertarian society. jrodefeld posted: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? Like right here it tell us pretty much all we need to know. African-American Civil rights, the women's liberation movement, and the grape strikes were all about people's feelings getting hurt apparently. Really what's clear is that as a person who's never experienced discrimination, you're unable to acknowledge the fact that for a lot of minority groups, racial or otherwise, the government is one of the few institutions that can enforce their equal rights. I don't think you can really understand why people give such a poo poo about racism without recognizing that there is more to discrimination than just mean looks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Sorry J-rod but I have to inform you that although it is nonviolent and passive I have personally defined libertarian posting as "force." Please refrain or you will be guilty of Aggression with Choice-Theft Intent in the 8th Degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Tell me, jrodefeld, what is "African culture?" You're not a racist, you should be able to tell me that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Your motivations don't mean poo poo. You're like "if muscled black throw ball in hoop, this is an impressive feat of strength. But who can harness this brute strength and turn it into money? Only Donald Sterling. And how does he harness that strength? By forbidding his concubine to be seen with blacks in public."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Good to see jrodefeld basically making remarks reminiscent of turn of the 20th century US sportswriter (and hell, even writers/figures like Jack London) about Jack Johnson. Maybe he'll go down and pay his respects to Nathan Bedford Forrest and won't come back for another 5 days...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
It should be mentioned that for all most all his tenure, the Clips where a horribly run organization, and only made cash because in that market you are going to make cash. The only reason the clips have been reasonably successful is because the current commissioner vetoed a trade that he feared would hurt competitive balance that would have sent Chris Paul to the Lakers. Paul instead was traded to the Clips. Combined with a high draft pick the clips used to acquire Blake Griffin, a pick they were only given because they were bad. Truly the players needed Sterling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I know that I am no racist. My parents say the exact same thing before launching into racist tirades. Everyone in this thread agrees on one thing, and that is the people you are quoting and holding up as thought leaders in the Libertarian community are all racist. This agreement is based on evidence. Do you just think we are all just stupid assholes? When everyone disagrees with you, do you never stop and reexamine your position?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:50
|
|