|
How do libertarians deal with the fact that civilization and government are synonymous and don't really exist without the other? Like I can see how this might work if we were a group of hunter gatherers with little tangible property and abundant resources but there really doesn't seem to be a concrete way to deal with basic problems in libertopia.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Psykmoe posted:He's bitten into the racism issue like an angry dog and is just shaking his head back and forth ignoring any other questions posters have posed. To be fair, he does have a lot to respond too, I think missing a chunk is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair, he does have a lot to respond too, I think missing a chunk is understandable. Not really, no. If he honestly didn't want to talk about the racism inherent in libertarianism there were plenty of other posts he could have responded ton instead. He doesn't get to complain that he has no posts that aren't about racism to respond to when there clearly are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:How do libertarians deal with the fact that civilization and government are synonymous and don't really exist without the other? Like I can see how this might work if we were a group of hunter gatherers with little tangible property and abundant resources but there really doesn't seem to be a concrete way to deal with basic problems in libertopia. By pretending that we can start over. That's the answer for everything by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair, he does have a lot to respond too, I think missing a chunk is understandable. It would be understandable if the thread wasn't DEBATE ME, JRODFELD, AND ME ALONE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
The Libertarian Thread is about "the libertarian".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I want to bring back the healthcare stuff because it is completely ridiculous that he should be able to get off without a response. I asked him about company towns twice and didn't get any answer either. On the other hand, I never expected one, remembering his previous threads. It's also useless to ask a libertarian about real-life examples. Austrian economics has an answer to this - praxeology. It is basically a series of deductions around the axiom that human behavior is always purposeful. They will always insist it has precedence over empiricism, which lets them ignore or explain away real life examples. Free market solutions are absolutely correct because praxeology proves they reflect human will the best - so if one of them seems to be failing, it's obviously the fault of the state. Or it appears to be failing, but will prove more beneficial any moment now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:I asked him about company towns twice and didn't get any answer either. On the other hand, I never expected one, remembering his previous threads. To be fair, socialists have to go through the same cognitive dissonance when dealing with the philosophy's track record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:How do libertarians deal with the fact that civilization and government are synonymous and don't really exist without the other? Like I can see how this might work if we were a group of hunter gatherers with little tangible property and abundant resources but there really doesn't seem to be a concrete way to deal with basic problems in libertopia. Even in a tribe of hunter-gatherers someone needs to be an authority figure that is absolute or near-absolute in times of crises, such as drought, famine, floods, plague, etc. That authority figure might be a chieftain, or a tribal council, or a wise old matriarch, or maybe it's the village witch doctor. SOMEONE is the authority that EVERYONE listens to when the poo poo hits the fan. Someone MUST be, otherwise all disparate families break off into separate sub-tribal units that have even less chance of survival. And then in THOSE units you STILL have an authority figure, the eldest parent or child who is most fit for leadership depending on the family's values and immediate needs. There can never not be an authority that would be governing a unit, otherwise fuckall gets done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:To be fair, socialists have to go through the same cognitive dissonance when dealing with the philosophy's track record. I'm pretty happy with the socialized medical system that my country implemented thanks to the track record of the only explicitly socialist government to ever win a state or provincial election in Canada and the USA. According to national polls most people in my country consider this to be our greatest accomplishment and at least one poll shows a majority of citizens calling Tommy Douglas (leader of the socialist CCF) our greatest citizen. As far as I'm concerned the track record of socialism in a rich and politically stable country was a pretty great one. The track record of socialism in economically backward and politically divided countries is, unsurprisingly, more varied. The same can be said for capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I'd kill for an NHS-type system here in the US. Between my health problems, my mother's health problems, my father's, my grandmother's, my stepfather's, my basically every loving person in my family has at least one serious medical problem and we can barely afford to take care of them.. God our lives would be so much easier were it not for those colossal medical bills and our miserable poverty. Which is of course our own drat fault since nobody will hire me because I'm too inexperienced to get a job to get experience to get work and oh gently caress it circles ranting stopping now before rage tangent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:To be fair, socialists have to go through the same cognitive dissonance when dealing with the philosophy's track record. No, that's asinine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair, he does have a lot to respond too, I think missing a chunk is understandable. Socialists never tried to invent a new form of logic, so no, no they don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:I'd kill for an NHS-type system here in the US. Cheers to this. I can go to a means-adjusted clinic to take care of minor-to-moderate physical poo poo, but since our governor (shittiest in the country right now imo, but that's what I get for not bootstrapping my way out of Kochistan) slashed funding I can't afford a therapist for my sleep disorder or depression anymore. And mental health issues turn 'two steps forward, one step back' into 'help I am falling down the stairs ow help ow my legs are broken now'. Affordable dental care is also scarce to nonexistant so I wonder every day if this is the day this cavity of mine will become an easily repairable abscess that will kill me. I'm usually pretty blase about whoever ends up being governor, but the next election could decide whether or not we start taking federal medicaid money- lives are literally on the line here and I'm anxious as hell about it. curious about jrodefeld's opinion: "People who are poor are in that situation because of their own irresponsibility" Strongly Agree, Agree, Don't Know/No Opinion, Disagree, Strongly Disagree? Peanut Butler fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, that's asinine. Under a broad interpretation of socialism, even the DPRK's weird Juche philosophy is socialist, both explicitly and by heritage. There's also things like Maoism which ranges from legitimate political analysis to Cultural-Revolution-era Chinese propaganda. Also, postmodernism (broadly speaking) is sometimes associated with socialism for a lot of reasons, sometimes correctly and sometimes no. Also, there's a lot of demographic overlap between libertarians and people who believe the Sokal Hoax was some sort of silver bullet argument against postmodernism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Under a broad interpretation of socialism, even the DPRK's weird Juche philosophy is socialist, both explicitly and by heritage. Yeah, and the people who always trot out that zinger are conservatives and liberals, but somehow they are not culpable for the excesses of their respective ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I kidnap someone and leave them on your land. They didn't initiate force against you in trespassing, so you can't kick them off, as that'd be initiating force. Therefore, they can drink your milkshake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Under a broad interpretation of socialism, even the DPRK's weird Juche philosophy is socialist, both explicitly and by heritage. Kind of a loaded statement, given how vague it is. Depending on how "broad" we want to go at some point we start burning Churches to the ground for being filthy communist sympathizers and spitting on effigies of Jesus because he was a dirty hippie who said give all your wealth to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Kind of a loaded statement, given how vague it is. Depending on how "broad" we want to go at some point we start burning Churches to the ground for being filthy communist sympathizers and spitting on effigies of Jesus because he was a dirty hippie who said give all your wealth to the poor. Well, in the terms we're discussing, socialism has its roots in Christianity. That such a major figure in it's development as Marx was an atheist who wrote at a time when logical positivism was ascendent has tended to mask the degree to which the values Marx was attempting to fulfill are inherently Christian. Of course, Ayn Rand's thoughts on Christianity never seem to come up in the same manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Of course, Ayn Rand's thoughts on Christianity never seem to come up in the same manner. I think that's because her thoughts on Christianity basically amount to "make them suffer and die because they're filthy and worthless altruists who should all suck off a shotgun." Or thereabouts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:I think that's because her thoughts on Christianity basically amount to "make them suffer and die because they're filthy and worthless altruists who should all suck off a shotgun." Or thereabouts. That's more or less her thoughts on anyone/thing that doesn't fall within the rather narrow bounds of "admirable
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I kidnap someone and leave them on your land. They didn't initiate force against you in trespassing, so you can't kick them off, as that'd be initiating force. Therefore, they can drink your milkshake. Interestingly, if we're going by the "escalation" theory and the "it's still force even if it's nonviolent and passive" theory, if you dump me against my will in someone else's land, they can't even ask me to leave, as that would be the initiation of force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
As a few have mentioned before, under libertarianism, what stops the RF range from becoming a totally useless mish mash of interference? How can you claim spectrum as "private property" or are we all at the mercy of anyone who wants to transmit on any frequency range? What's then to stop me from making a device that prevents you using that range because I'm a total dick who gets off on that (people do this)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:As a few have mentioned before, under libertarianism, what stops the RF range from becoming a totally useless mish mash of interference? How can you claim spectrum as "private property" or are we all at the mercy of anyone who wants to transmit on any frequency range? What's then to stop me from making a device that prevents you using that range because I'm a total dick who gets off on that (people do this)? Since I don't expect a coherent response from Jrod before your post gets buried, it might help to use the sophomore ancap reference manual that is mises.org: http://archive.mises.org/10433/why-airwaves-electromagnetic-spectra-are-arguably-property/ Basically, take the most reductionist interpretation of how radio works, and then apply homesteading rules to it. "I claimed this frequency in this area first, therefore gently caress off" If you can build a powerful enough transmitter to cover a large enough distance (stick a few kilowatts on the top of a hill or mountain) then you get an automatic monopoly on those frequencies over your broadcast range. This doesn't have the potential for abuse at all. ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:As soon as healthcare moved towards "on the other hand, recorded history" phase of arguing with liberarians, jrodefeld elected to then ignore the topic and whined about political correctness instead. Yeah it's shameful that jrodefeld didn't have a prepared response because that's one of the classic "oh poo poo" examples that libertarians will either give you a pass on or will actually convert them out of it. When I had my brief affair with libertarianism back in the old days, healthcare was one of the things where I was like "wait, no, that's stupid as hell".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Interestingly, if we're going by the "escalation" theory and the "it's still force even if it's nonviolent and passive" theory, if you dump me against my will in someone else's land, they can't even ask me to leave, as that would be the initiation of force. As much as I enjoy Tezzor's posts, I'm hard-pressed to believe I'm actually seeing anything remotely resembling some kind of serious discussion about this sort of scenario because it is so bugfuck insane that it causes my head to actually start hurting. The very notion of such events taking place and people actually having to deal with them is crazier than a shithouse rat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Christmas Present posted:a couple hours later I've answered this question several times actually. The answer is that defensive force has to be proportional to the act of aggression or else the property owner is himself committing aggression. This is not an issue that I can give a definitive answer to because each individual case would have to be judged on its merits. But the principle of "proportionality" would be the standard to judge what action is legitimately defensive and which becomes aggression. I court or private arbitration agency would have to make that determination. Doesn't this make sense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Doesn't this make sense? Only in the world of Make Believe, Jrod, that's what we're trying to get across to you. The entirety of your philosophy cannot stand upon its own two feet when subjected to "actual reality where facts are true". It can only exist as a hypothetical on paper where everything remains perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
How is Libertopia not a videogame yet? Or is it Minecraft?Helsing posted:Who are "you" to make decisions for the nucleus accumbens? The Libertarian Thread: Who are you to make decisions for the nucleus accumbens? Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:How is Libertopia not a videogame yet? Or is it Minecraft? It hasn't been that long since Bioshock came out, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've answered this question several times actually. The answer is that defensive force has to be proportional to the act of aggression or else the property owner is himself committing aggression. This is not an issue that I can give a definitive answer to because each individual case would have to be judged on its merits. But the principle of "proportionality" would be the standard to judge what action is legitimately defensive and which becomes aggression. I court or private arbitration agency would have to make that determination. Would you say my assessment of proportional defensive violence is accurate or not? Why? Also, please respond to  this post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
I have two questions, who knows how they will get responded to but here we go 1) When American tinkered with no bank control and pegging the economy to gold, there were extreme boom bust cycles that nearly lead to economic collapse of the United States. There were also numerous bank panics because banks didn't have the capital to pay off all the money they said they had. Isn't this an inherent failure of the libertarian philosophy? To break it down: a) How do you explain while under the Articles of Confederation when each state was allowed to print it's own money and do whatever, why there was rampant inflation and why were states unable to trade well? Why was trade easier under a "fiat" currency when the state was allowed to print money? b) How do you explain the 20 year recession/depression after the civil war? Read here. Remember, there was no central bank at this time and very little (practically none) business regulation. c) how come there are less drastic periods of economic depression and recession after the Federal Reserve banking system was instituted? 2) Looking at your own philosophy do you believe to be perfect? Is there no room for improvement for the philosophy? Do you question your own believes in your system? When do you do so?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Well, in the terms we're discussing, socialism has its roots in Christianity. That such a major figure in it's development as Marx was an atheist who wrote at a time when logical positivism was ascendent has tended to mask the degree to which the values Marx was attempting to fulfill are inherently Christian. This might be slightly off topic, but I don't know how one can say any set of values is inherently Christian (except, I suppose, valuing belief in Jesus as the son of the Judeo-Christian God). That isn't to say socialism doesn't have roots (not all roots) in Christianity, but it seems a little odd to say that the values of socialism are inherently Christian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've answered this question several times actually. The answer is that defensive force has to be proportional to the act of aggression or else the property owner is himself committing aggression. This is not an issue that I can give a definitive answer to because each individual case would have to be judged on its merits. But the principle of "proportionality" would be the standard to judge what action is legitimately defensive and which becomes aggression. I court or private arbitration agency would have to make that determination. I know you can't acknowledge me because I'm a statist and that would give me power but as part of my participation in the libertarian utopia I have elected to research mechanical non aggression golems on your property that appeared last night and are known hibernate for 1000 years. Incidently they have advanced technology that makes it so your DRO cannot independantly verify their existence. Can or can I not use my bazooka which I have a 30% accuracy rate with to assist you or will the DRO violate my personal sovereignty and fine me for trying to altustically remove said golems that consume all light and hope from your premises?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've answered this question several times actually. The answer is that defensive force has to be proportional to the act of aggression or else the property owner is himself committing aggression. This is not an issue that I can give a definitive answer to because each individual case would have to be judged on its merits. But the principle of "proportionality" would be the standard to judge what action is legitimately defensive and which becomes aggression. I court or private arbitration agency would have to make that determination. Why are those courts any better than the ones we have now? Because Free Market? And before you go nattering on about how in an ancap society everyone will have an incentive to do the right thing, remember that I can make up just-so stories about how our system works perfectly as well. The difference is that I have a lot of examples of it working, and a lot of examples of it not working. You have nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:This might be slightly off topic, but I don't know how one can say any set of values is inherently Christian (except, I suppose, valuing belief in Jesus as the son of the Judeo-Christian God). That isn't to say socialism doesn't have roots in Christianity, but it seems a little odd to say that the values of socialism are inherently Christian. Yeah, socialism isn't Christian. It's closer to Christianity than Libertarianism, sure, but Christianity is about charity and asceticism and the reward in the afterlife, while socialism is a materialist philosophy centered around the ownership of the means of production by laborers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
It's more that the sort of ecumenical humanism that a lot of progressive philosophies (at least those generated in Europe) pull from are rooted in Christian intellectual tradition. Universal human worth is a pretty common ideal now, but it emerges from a specific socio-cultural context. Of course similar values come up in different forms in many places, but western philosophy is inescapably linked to Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Would you say my assessment of proportional defensive violence is accurate or not? Why? Doubling down that I'd like to see your answer to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:How is Libertopia not a videogame yet? Or is it Minecraft? It doesn't even work in Minecraft, after all, the server ops/admin are evil statists who decide who's right in situations such as when some bastard mines the diamonds under your home. Most MC servers usually have some kind of control method for who can do what in what plots of land or people usually build big gently caress-off fortresses and shun the rest of the world. It might work with some groups though, but it's pretty telling when it's hard for the most "logical way to organise society" to even work in a computer game that has near endless resources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:By pretending that we can start over. That's the answer for everything by the way. The first thing that would happen is people would organize into groups. Gotta have rules in order to organize those groups. Well poo poo, now we're back where we started! EDIT: Oh, and the best militaries are usually the ones that require strict obedience and clear authority. Good luck defending yourselves from other nations without having a power hungry military coup occur immediately after your victory! Dyz fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:10
|
|