|
jrodefeld posted: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. Every time you say this, I remember that Reason loving Magazine was forced to disavow Ron Paul because of how loving racist he is. http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/pauls-apology
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
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 In fact sports in America have much more resemblance to collectivism than free market libertarianism, you know why? Because what is good for one team is good for the league as a whole. Try extrapolating that into the rest of the world, isn't that a nice notion? D_I fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:When everyone disagrees with you, do you never stop and reexamine your position? Given that jrodefeld worships people who pray before the altar of praxeology, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
D_I posted:NBA teams would be worthless without hmm Players to play on them? There is so much money to be made because of the quality of the product(the players). Sterling bought the team for $12 million and is selling it for $2 billion. Why? Because of the players that people want to see. In fact the NBA has a a rather collectivist structure with most teams receiving payments after the season in a rather dastardly communist plot called "Revenue sharing". Plus the draft structure and the salary cap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted: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. It's only a government if it ceases to be voluntary. If a community chooses to contract with a security provider and every member of the community chooses to pay for collective defense, this is not anything close to a State. Of course every person could hire a private security agency to defend only their property but this would be very inefficient. It is much more likely that people will choose to come together in large groups and hire one defense agency to provide security for their neighborhood. A State is defined not just by force but by monopoly. If a private security firm is doing a lousy job at protecting the property in a specific neighborhood, like for example there were multiple robberies in a month, then you could fire that security agency and hire a different agency to defend your property and keep you safe. In a covenant community, all rules are being set by private property owners in a voluntary manner. Acting in a manner counter to the rules of the covenant would therefore be a property rights violation. The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. People will have an endless variety of choices of where to live based on their values and cultural characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Look all I'm saying is that """""""""""""""""""""""""""some people""""""""""""""""""""""""""" are good at making money and """""""""""""""""""""""""""other people""""""""""""""""""""""""""" are good at physical things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Let me level with you jrizzle, if it wasn't for the state I would kill and eat you. That's the bitch of it; there is complete freedom to do whatever you want and a cold calculating arbiter of worth. It is reality, and to survive it mankind established states. I can't believe that this is what you posed while I was writing that: jrodefeld posted:If a private security firm is doing a lousy job at protecting the property in a specific neighborhood, like for example Babylon Astronaut kills and eats you, then you could fire that security agency and hire a different agency to defend your property and keep you safe. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EirA1h3W76w&t=51s
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's only a government if it ceases to be voluntary. If a community chooses to contract with a security provider and every member of the community chooses to pay for collective defense, this is not anything close to a State. Of course every person could hire a private security agency to defend only their property but this would be very inefficient. It is much more likely that people will choose to come together in large groups and hire one defense agency to provide security for their neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Jrod, do you believe there's a difference between being prejudiced, and supporting policies that, as an effect of whatever's being enacted, would give rise to a prejudiced outcome? Why or why not? To give a practical example, would somebody who supports a law which would allow bakeries to refuse service to same sex couples be a bigot, even if they were personally in favor of gay marriage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's only a government if it ceases to be voluntary. If a community chooses to contract with a security provider and every member of the community chooses to pay for collective defense, this is not anything close to a State. What happens if I live in a community and all my neighbors want to ban children? I have children. Do I have to move? Can they force me to move? Moving is non-trivial; will I be compensated or simply forced out? By what right can they make that choice without my consent? If they can't make that choice without my consent, how can the 'community' choose anything? You're describing something that's repugnant to both socialism and libertarianism -- an odd place to end up. quote:The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. People will have an endless variety of choices of where to live based on their values and cultural characteristics. Even Ayn Rand, bless her twisted black soul, saw the fundamental problem with competition between armed private security forces. Your ancap paradise is destined to end up with warring armed camps seizing territory, goods, and personnel from each other. We have a word for the people who rule in situations like these: 'warlords'. You can see them in action in Somalia. That's not hyperbole: that's the actual situation that will result from armed, independently governed enclaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:Having the right, no, the moral imperative, to expel, violently if necessary, black people from the community is not at all racist. You have the right, in this country, and in every nation where any semblance of private property rights, to expel, violently if necessary, black people from your home or private property. Is this racist? If you are expelling them from your home because they are black, then of course it is! But because a racist could not permit a black person, a Jew, or a Mexican to come to his dinner parties, does that mean we should force all home owners to admit anyone into their homes or private gatherings that we, as a society, would like? What about the advocate of free speech rights. You have the right to say or write any number of hateful, racist and supremacist things. Does this make the defender of free speech a racist? Because I recognize the right of someone to free speech (an aspect of self ownership) or of the right to determine the use of scarce resources that they justly acquired, that does not mean I have to approve of every use. And I wouldn't approve of a racist. I would oppose the KKK and white supremacist speech by speaking out against it. I would still affirm their right to speak that hateful language. Does that make me a racist? Of course not. And who said anything about "moral imperative"? You just made that up. I didn't say that, Hoppe didn't say that, Rothbard didn't say that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's only a government if it ceases to be voluntary. If a community chooses to contract with a security provider and every member of the community chooses to pay for collective defense, this is not anything close to a State. Of course every person could hire a private security agency to defend only their property but this would be very inefficient. It is much more likely that people will choose to come together in large groups and hire one defense agency to provide security for their neighborhood. And I'm saying this is precisely the problem. People could have all the benefits of a state until they have to include someone they don't like in those benefits, and I'm opposed to that. jrodefeld posted:A State is defined not just by force but by monopoly. If a private security firm is doing a lousy job at protecting the property in a specific neighborhood, like for example there were multiple robberies in a month, then you could fire that security agency and hire a different agency to defend your property and keep you safe. This sounds like a precarious setup at the best of times. What's to stop a private security firm shaking down its customers? Or sabotaging a rival security firm? Or covering some houses and neighborhoods better than others based on who's paying the most? Some of these problems are those of modern police forces today - but those are accountable to the entire public regardless of whether they buy in. jrodefeld posted:In a covenant community, all rules are being set by private property owners in a voluntary manner. Acting in a manner counter to the rules of the covenant would therefore be a property rights violation. This doesn't follow at all. Hoppe wants homosexuals to be excluded from his covenant community, for example - that has nothing to do with property rights. jrodefeld posted:The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. People will have an endless variety of choices of where to live based on their values and cultural characteristics. Or they won't, because whoever has the most capital will buy them all up. Or someone smart enough to form an actual state will conquer them by force. And moving your home costs money that not everyone has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
What happens when you're born in a community and don't have enough money to leave. Or when community A diverts the river that A through N use for irrigation? Also literally Snow Crash, jfc. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted: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. I tried a thought experiment. jrodefeld posted:I want to speak to the "racist" accusation once more. I... think it worked? As a Statist I request that jrodefeld stop putting words in my mouth, his aggression against my intellectual sovereignty is offensive. I decide what I believe not a self centered pithy religion of mammon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:What happens when you're born in a community and don't have enough money to leave. Bootstraps, my friend, bootstraps. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The anarchist society would become a beautiful tapestry of different experiments in social order and organization. Each community will develop differently based on their values. People will have an endless variety of choices of where to live based on their values and cultural characteristics. Ah yes, because as soon as everyone has to pay for everything that anyone else provides, mobility will massively increase! The homeless will
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Okay. Do you understand that there are boom and bust cycles in England before there was a Bank of England or any state bank in England? And do you understand that, after its nationalization, England had fewer boom-bust cycles than before that time? I know that it's a thing with Libertarians to only look at the US, but if you're talking about central banking you should really be talking about the Bank of England.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Only a racist would say that. What irrefutable logic and piercing intellect you possess. You really got me with that one. Accurately defining the economic concept of time preference, that can be easily confirmed through a five minute Google search, is something only a racist would do. If you know the definition to words, that means you're a racist. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But because a racist could not permit a black person, a Jew, or a Mexican to come to his dinner parties, does that mean we should force all home owners to admit anyone into their homes or private gatherings that we, as a society, would like? So if a homeowner's association the size of Carson City, NV decided not to allow any black people, Jews or Mexicans within it's borders, are you OK with that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What irrefutable logic and piercing intellect you possess. You really got me with that one. Accurately defining the economic concept of time preference, that can be easily confirmed through a five minute Google search, is something only a racist would do. You are literally saying they can't be racist because racism is a byproduct of collectivism. Pot calling the kettle loving black here. We know what Time Preference means, its also being applied in a heavily racist way. Unless you can produce those studies you mentioned earlier. It better not be the loving Bell Curve either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I tried a thought experiment. I'm not sure what your thought experiment was trying to establish but I think I like it. Obdicut posted:Okay. Do you understand that there are boom and bust cycles in England before there was a Bank of England or any state bank in England? And do you understand that, after its nationalization, England had fewer boom-bust cycles than before that time? I seem to recall quite a few panics that didn't take place in those ranges of years, also. Plus the Spanish Empire's rampant inflation despite a gold-backed currency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So if a homeowner's association the size of Carson City, NV decided not to allow any black people, Jews or Mexicans within it's borders, are you OK with that? Having a "Low time preference" just means you were born into a lot of money right? Because otherwise who else doesn't need to be a wage laborer in order to survive? I mean I don't have kids or anything but I also can't quit my job and start a small business when I have no capital to do so even if I want to. D_I fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you know the definition to words, that means you're a racist. Got it. That sarcasm sounds awfully "collectivist," jrodefeld. Are you sure you're a real libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:
It was mainly importing vast amounts of silver that hosed them (and the rest of the world) but yeah, the Spanish Empire is a perfect example of why tying your monetary policy to a particular metal is dumb, it's like the alchemy version of economics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Will you address the blatant hypocrisy in your verbose denunciations of the state when you used to work for the city government?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Will you address the blatant hypocrisy in your verbose denunciations of the state when you used to work for the city government?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I'm honestly shocked jrodefeld didn't suggest following Irwin Schiff's tax advice...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Let me level with you jrizzle, if it wasn't for the state I would kill and eat you. That's the bitch of it; there is complete freedom to do whatever you want and a cold calculating arbiter of worth. It is reality, and to survive it mankind established states. The response to this is passive aggressive whining that you're being mean, and a silent vow that when he becomes a member of the neo-feudal aristocracy, you'll be the first to be sent to the concentration camps for political undesirables
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
You do not have to be consciously and actively racist to be a racist. You know all those people who talk about how if we just ignore racism it will go away? They are racist too since they are actively allowing a system of oppression to continue without doing anything about it (and are usually actual racists even if they deny it). Racism can be subtle but just as harmful to minorities and libertarianism doesn't seem to have any direct way to deal with it. This subtle racism can be easily seen in jrodfeld's arguments that major libertarian philosophers are not racists since they don't explicitly state "gently caress black people" but imply that they as a whole are lazy. Essentially, ignoring or obfuscating racism behind paragraphs of words is racist itself. I guess this leads to the biggest issue with libertarianism which is that they believe their ideology is perfectly rational when in fact it is heavily influenced by their own personal beliefs and biases, since a perfectly rational human dose not exist. It seems like libertariaism is just conservatism obfuscated behind fancy words and sociopathic philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Can we turn this thread into another Libertarian Fiction ("Ronfic") thread if jrodefeld goes away again? It's been too long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Why can't more libertarians be Georgists, who are at least interesting and have an economic philosophy taht's not based on avoiding reality? Hell, they're libertarians that support a guaranteed minimum income.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted: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 From everything that I know about this subject (which is admittedly not much) the answer is [b]no{/b], I don't think there is any inherent biological difference in cognitive abilities. The truth is that any such scientific inquiry into such matters is so justifiably tainted by our history of racism and supremacist motivated fake "research" and pseudoscience that most scientists are afraid to even contemplate any research into differences between the races. Now, suppose you did an exhaustive empirical study of the cognitive ability of 1000 white people living in the United States, 1000 black Africans living in Nigeria, and 1000 Asians living in China, would you notice differences in average IQ? Probably. Would would notice all kinds of differences between these three groups I would suspect. But are these differences related to biology or culture? Or maybe poverty? I think it is disingenuous for you to automatically assume that anyone who even touches upon these questions is motivated by racism, whether it is Hoppe and his suggestion of differences in Time Preference between some cultures or even Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. These questions are not as clear as you seem to think they are. Now, I emphatically believe that no race is superior to any other race. We are all individuals of intrinsic worth who should be judged on the merits of our action and the content of our character. What the "average" statistic for any metric of achievement happens to be for our group has little bearing on what we can achieve as individuals. That is what is most important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You are literally saying they can't be racist because racism is a byproduct of collectivism. icantfindaname posted:Libertarians aren't racist, I am a libertarian, therefore I am not racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:You do not have to be consciously and actively racist to be a racist. I don't agree with that. Now if you'll excuse me I have somewhere I have to be 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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). Do you honestly think printing money is the only thing that leads to inflation? Actually curious here. Second of all, in a previous post you spoke of banks issuing competing currencies. How can they do that and also enforce having currency be backed by precious metals? Honestly guys I'd stop harping on the racism thing. It's clear that his brain shorts out when we mention the r-word. Let's just accept that he's seen that his idols are racist scum and has handily edited it out of his personal reality and get on with actually attacking the gaping holes in his intellectually bankrupt My First Philosophy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
/\ He glossed over the fact that the supply of gold can increase from, you know, digging it out of the ground. What do you think? Pretty much. Social Darwinism is all fun and games until it dawns on you that you aren't the cruelest motherfucker on the block and maybe, just maybe the state was protecting you from the big scary world you're so fond of. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
J-rod I would still like an explanation as to why nonviolent passive resistance is aggressive force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think it is disingenuous for you to automatically assume that anyone who even touches upon these questions is motivated by racism, whether it is Hoppe and his suggestion of differences in Time Preference between some cultures or even Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. These questions are not as clear as you seem to think they are. The Bell Curve is not the hill you want to die on JR. It's social Darwinist pseudoscience at its finest, and I'd hate for you to be mislead about a worthless rag like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:would you notice differences in average IQ Oh okay you're fine with using IQ as the test for intelligence. Shine on you crazy racist diamond. Just admit that you and your heroes are all massive racists and we can move on to dealing with the problems of trying to institute a justice system in a libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:27
|
|