|
Even hunter gatherer societies had enforced social customs and laws. The atomized nature of libertarian society isn't really something that I think people could conceive of as beneficial outside of the privilege bubble of the modern world.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Even hunter gatherer societies had enforced social customs and laws. The atomized nature of libertarian society isn't really something that I think people could conceive of as beneficial outside of the privilege bubble of the modern world. It's basically the sort of thing that can only work if you have an army of expendable yet completely non-human slave laborers/warriors who can do all of your work for you while you sit on the porch sipping mint juleps (or other forms of alcohol). The entire notion relies upon the idea that there is an inexhaustible supply of labor that is always willing and happy to do whatever you require or desire of it. Sadly, Japan has yet to develop cheap easily replaced robot workers/soldiers/sex dolls as of yet. Maybe someday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Christmas Present posted:The ancap hugboxers go on to say-- hahaha--- that a hands-off anarchic free market is-- hehe I can't even I can't ok-- that the free market is the most democratic form of society because the consumer gets to vote with their dollars Finding out about DRO (the lovely kind) has made me change my stance on J to the Rizzle: I will not kill and eat him, I will get him to pay me not to kill and eat him, then kill and eat him. There is a famous private security company known to lock women in shipping containers and rape them for days on end, so with even less regulation and accountability I can't imagine killing and eating jrock oboring would even make the nightly news in libertaria. On a more personal note: you don't learn about economics by trolling people on web forums, you read books. Please read a book, and not some quack get slaves quick manual, a real honest-to-god book. The problems you seek to reintroduce by devolving into savagery have been solved. You should find out how we solved them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Dyz posted: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! This is clearly aggression! You can't just declare yourself to be the head of the government, General! There's not even supposed to be a government! This isn't in your contract! Hey hey hey what are you doing! Your bayonet is committing aggression against the boundaries of my wolf shirt! Hey! Are you listening to me!? Now it's inside of me
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is clearly aggression! You can't just declare yourself to be the head of the government, General! There's not even supposed to be a government! This isn't in your contract! Hey hey hey what are you doing! Your bayonet is committing aggression against the boundaries of my wolf shirt! Hey! Are you listening to me!? Now it's inside of me I brought up Rome as a negative earlier today but this is literally how Rome beat Carthage in the Second Punic War. Carthage's mercenary army decided it wasn't getting paid enough for this poo poo and went back home while the Roman Army was willing to fight and die for no other reason than the protection of the state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is clearly aggression! You can't just declare yourself to be the head of the government, General! There's not even supposed to be a government! This isn't in your contract! Hey hey hey what are you doing! Your bayonet is committing aggression against the boundaries of my wolf shirt! Hey! Are you listening to me!? Now it's inside of me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJKqCn5Du0 Basically the same thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Dyz posted: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! I imagine an ancap society
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:By pretending that we can start over. That's the answer for everything by the way. Don't immanentize the somethingerother!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJKqCn5Du0 This brought a smile to my face, I thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also, please respond to Also please explain why my assessment of DRO stuff is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Also please explain why my assessment of DRO stuff is wrong. I agree. I'm actually more interested in how he manages to justify DRO stuff. I mean, he can just deny the existence of medical statistics he doesn't agree with, but I'm genially curious how the gently caress every DRO proposal isn't straight out of 1984.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:I agree. I'm actually more interested in how he manages to justify DRO stuff. I mean, he can just deny the existence of medical statistics he doesn't agree with, but I'm genially curious how the gently caress every DRO proposal isn't straight out of 1984. You must be new to Jrod threads. He's notorious for not addressing, well, anything that seriously challenges his feverish delusions. At most you'll get a one-two line handwave about how it either doesn't matter or never would happen in the best of all possible worlds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been addressed but I was curious as to Libertarian thought on the idea of defence of personal property. The idea seems to be that if your property or rights are infringed upon, or something you produced is used then you have a "right to violence" in order to repatriate that use to a fair and reasonable recompense for what is being used. From that principle what is the consideration that every Libertarian born is exercising violence against the state by trespassing upon its public land, using its roads, benefiting from the clean water, clean air, medical and food regulations and law and enforcement it provides. The state then responds to the violence in a fair and proportionate manner with financial penalties (aka taxes) for each Libertarian using all its stuff. I mean since the only thing that keeps you owning land is a police force (otherwise someone could just come in and kill you) you owning land is "violence" against the state since you're using a state service, same with buying anything, or having a job. I guess I want to know what the argument Libertarians use that says that taxes aren't justified violence against them for their trespasses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
So, Jrode, I have a question. By your logic, regulating businesses are dumb and stupid, correct? So whats to stop a business from just dumping poisons wherever? You say that you could just boycott the company, but without regulatory bodies and inspectors there's pretty much no chance of it ever being discovered, and being able to boycott a company after its toxic runoff has caused your teeth to fall out and your balls to shrivel up seems sort of moot. The damage is done, and it can never be undone. That area will be toxic for generations to come, depending on the generations it could basically make it so it's impossible to do anything with. Or are you saying we'd have private inspectors we hired? Which the companies would *TOTALLY* not just pay say, a small bribe to ensure an 'all clear'? Several times people have asked if since trespassing is such a *horrible* aggressive crime, what if someone bought all the land around your house and said you couldn't walk on his land? You're either trapped in your house, or you're going to be trapped outside of your house. Given enough time he could even claim you've abandoned it and take it over, after all if you're not mixing your labor with it, it's free to any rational actor to take. What about the water? It's something that we need to survive, but as its a 'resource' it can be bought and sold. What if someone bought up all the rights to the water, and told everyone "You can come and drink. If you bend down and suck my dick." We can't say 'that's something we need to survive, you have to let us access it' without trampling upon his private property rights. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Jrod, you never answered my question about what stops me and my friends from creating a State and annexing everyone in Libertopia. But that's okay, I have another question. Since the use of force in response to property rights violations is not aggression, what stops me from purchasing all the property surrounding your own and then charging you to cross mine? Or worse, keeping you trapped forever until you die so I can grab your land, too? I would be completely within my rights to defend my property from your aggression, violently if necessary in proportion to your persistence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Jrod, you never answered my question about what stops me and my friends from creating a State and annexing everyone in Libertopia. But that's okay, I have another question. 
Tezzor fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Since the use of force in response to property rights violations is not aggression, what stops me from purchasing all the property surrounding your own and then charging you to cross mine? Or worse, keeping you trapped forever until you die so I can grab your land, too? I would be completely within my rights to defend my property from your aggression, violently if necessary in proportion to your persistence. Are you joking? You would obviously be justified. By the plot-holder's unwillingness to outbid you for the land, he or she has implicitly authorized all the actions you might subsequently take in line with your natural rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You must be new to Jrod threads. He's notorious for not addressing, well, anything that seriously challenges his feverish delusions. At most you'll get a one-two line handwave about how it either doesn't matter or never would happen in the best of all possible worlds. That's because jrod is correct. His postulates are correct, so his program must work, even when it demonstrably doesn't. Any foolish attempts to prove he is wrong, such as by asserting facts about the world, cannot be met with anything but derision and denial. If and when he is irretrievably proven wrong, as with the NHS analysis, he simply becomes more defiant. This is essentially how all arguments with libertarians work. My libertarian cousin once told me that we don't need new banking regulations in the wake of the Great Recession, because people will simply stop getting their mortgages from the banks who were guilty of fraud. I informed him that this was 2013, and several banks had been fined or settled with the DOJ for fraudulent activity, that BOA was currently being sued, and that in spite of this the 5 largest banks in America own 44% of the industry. He told me I was wrong, and that the government was clearly interfering with people totally shutting the big banks down through boycott and magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Whenever people are making fun of libertarians it's always about crud like monopolies and selfish businessmen. What about left libertarians aka anarchists who don't believe in that either?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
xtal posted:Whenever people are making fun of libertarians it's always about crud like monopolies and selfish businessmen. What about left libertarians aka anarchists who don't believe in that either? Depends on what critique of libertarianism you're using, but essentially any criticism of libertarianism that revolves around "without the state, XYZ will happen" pretty much also applies to anarchism. I have some anarchist leanings, myself, but only in the sense of "this is a fantastic ideal, how can we best set up the state so that it operates with distributed power." Anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, left-libertarianism, whatever you call it, isn't practical as a system of governance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:15
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
It's going to take me a long time to catch up on this thread, has anyone posted the Non-libertarian FAQ yet? Anyway, jrodefeld, I don't know why, but I have an amazing tolerance for your style of big long armchair philosophy posts. At least when it comes to libertarianism, cause I just love arguing against it. So I was all ready to post how I'd love to indulge you, and maybe you should get PMs or post an alternate contact or something so I can discuss my super rabid lefty views with you outside the thread and give it the attention it deserves instead of getting derailed in this thread with tons of people all replying all over the place. But then I had a personal revelation. Even if you're for real and not a troll, what's the endgame here? Even if I was successful beyond my wildest dreams and, through the power of empathy and understanding I fully converted you to philosophically accept the principles of a more socialist society... would you then keep doing the same thing you are now? Except now instead of starting big threads on libertarianism, you went around arguing obnoxiously for basic income or an end to capitalism?! It is clearly not to our cause's benefit to invest any more personal time into changing your mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Depends on what critique of libertarianism you're using, but essentially any criticism of libertarianism that revolves around "without the state, XYZ will happen" pretty much also applies to anarchism. I have some anarchist leanings, myself, but only in the sense of "this is a fantastic ideal, how can we best set up the state so that it operates with distributed power." Anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, left-libertarianism, whatever you call it, isn't practical as a system of governance. A lot of problems in a hypothetical right libertarian society wouldn't exist in a hypothetical left libertarian society because the former believes in private property and capitalism and the latter doesn't. Like 99% of the ones described in this thread. But the 1% is pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
I like that jrod complains about people using ad hom then turns around and accuses posters of not being literate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
xtal posted:Whenever people are making fun of libertarians it's always about crud like monopolies and selfish businessmen. What about left libertarians aka anarchists who don't believe in that either? Anarchists throw in "and then we'll magically develop full communism world wide overnight and thus none of these issues matter".
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I like that jrod complains about people using ad hom then turns around and accuses posters of not being literate. If you were literate, you'd turn into a libertarian. QED
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If you were literate, you'd turn into a libertarian. QED If you were literate, you'd read what jrodfeld posts and realise he's a moron. We continue debate with him as if he was reading what we were writing. Therefore, we must not be able to read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Somfin posted:If you were literate, you'd read what jrodfeld posts and realise he's a moron. We continue debate with him as if he was reading what we were writing. Therefore, we must not be able to read. It does appear at this point we're pretty much just bantering with ourselves without the slightest care as to jrod's opinion, doesn't it? ...Does this mean we let the thread peter out, or gas it, or..? I'm not sure of the protocol here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
xtal posted:A lot of problems in a hypothetical right libertarian society wouldn't exist in a hypothetical left libertarian society because the former believes in private property and capitalism and the latter doesn't. Like 99% of the ones described in this thread. But the 1% is pretty serious. So basically a similar problem of 'if everyone was the same as this hypothetical perfect human I made up it'll all be fine' but with a less heinous end goal. It's just as much a fantasy, but maybe a less awful one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:It does appear at this point we're pretty much just bantering with ourselves without the slightest care as to jrod's opinion, doesn't it? We could always discuss my proposed Road Warrior Economy. I think it has some merit provided you can maintain a 24/7 state of alertness for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
I mean, my ideas are at least as well thought out and considered as libertarianism surely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:It does appear at this point we're pretty much just bantering with ourselves without the slightest care as to jrod's opinion, doesn't it? I say its time for some liberdystopia fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Jrod, what's to stop me from using the river my plot of land is on as a toilet, dumping all my human waste into its waters. Then I decide, screw paying my monthly dumping fees to the local garbage disposal company, I'll just dump it into the river. How does libertarian society deal with this? Do I just get black listed and made a non-person by a DRO (it's not a State, really, it isn't!)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We could always discuss my proposed Road Warrior Economy. I think it has some merit provided you can maintain a 24/7 state of alertness for the rest of your life. AstheWorldWorlds posted:I say its time for some liberdystopia fan fiction. You guys ever read Market Forces by Richard Morgan? I really liked it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:It does appear at this point we're pretty much just bantering with ourselves without the slightest care as to jrod's opinion, doesn't it? We just kinda keep posting whatever until it's been 24 hours since the last Libertarian posted. Then we all just kinda go away until it all starts again. Honestly, we haven't really gotten that much out of jrod this time outside of the racism stuff, and we exhausted that pretty well. Like I'm not trying to do some smug "Aw man, Jrod's been so pwned that he doesn't even have anything let to say" thing, but law enforcement in any society is pretty huge, especially one that is based entirely around property rights, but I'm not clear how it's supposed to not basically be a state in all but name only. You have to be a member, pay their fees and follow all their laws or you will be eternally punished, they are the only recognized law enforcement in town, and if I don't like the local DRO my only choice is basically to move somewhere with a better DRO. Why not just cut out the middle man and have a state at that point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Doesn't this make sense? It makes sense to me if I interpret it as 'it is never ever ever okay to kill someone for taking or attempting to take mere possessions of mine', but I was curious about how you feel about the Castle Doctrine. All of your posts read to me like this 'case by case basis' is handwaving the responsibility of the really hard decisions to some sort of collective body or bureaucracy yet to be determined. And this sort of thing is the mistake devout Marxists make, believing so hardcore in the inevitability and goodness of their doctrine that of course it will work and fall into place. Rothbard/Marx says that the outcome we desire is inevitable, it must be so! Libertarianism/Communism cannot fail, it can only be failed! The historical inevitability of socialism that pervades Marx's theory was one of the first cracks in the wall when I transitioned from hardcore Marx-flavored commie to generalized socialist. I felt like following Marx down that line of logic required magical thinking- not because workable socialism is particularly inconceivable, but because the idea of ANYTHING regarding a system as complex and misunderstood as social science being inevitable is absurd. A-horse-pooped-the-bed absurd. Poking around on Google, I'm seeing a lot of the historical inevitability of capitalism being touted by Rothbard and I roll my eyes. Not because the idea of mutually beneficial capitalism is particularly inconceivable, but because it's the same poo poo, different color. Blacker. Less red, though, so no blood in the stool, so that's a plus. I don't wish you any harm, jrod- I hope you live long enough to grow past applying beep-boop logic to hella fuzzy human systems and feel a sense of bashful embarrassment when you remember that all of this ancap stuff you've put on the internet is there forever. I feel that way whenever I suspect someone's dug up a Dunning-Krugerrific Marxist treatise of mine from back in the day. It's not a bad feeling. It means you've grown without ossifying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I mean, my ideas are at least as well thought out and considered as libertarianism surely? Its all funder dome and games right up until you run into some road communists. Those rear end in a top hat cheat and do things like taking turns keeping watch so the rest can sleep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We could always discuss my proposed Road Warrior Economy. I think it has some merit provided you can maintain a 24/7 state of alertness for the rest of your life. Was Master a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:We could always discuss my proposed Road Warrior Economy. I think it has some merit provided you can maintain a 24/7 state of alertness for the rest of your life. I propose an economy based on emptyquotes and apologetic D&D not-quite emptyquote accessories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Was Master a libertarian? No, he was left anarchist. Thunderdome allowed viewers to climb onto the dome and watch for free - even if the viewers were themselves part of the entertainment no exchange of goods appeared to occur in either direction, making it a communal resource. Master would be closer to the elected head of the local energy federation coupled with the "big man" pitfall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:You guys ever read Market Forces by Richard Morgan? I really liked it! No I haven't! Please tell us all about it, in this, the Not Talking About J-Rod or His Ideas thread! Vorpal Cat posted:Its all funder dome and games right up until you run into some road communists. Those rear end in a top hat cheat and do things like taking turns keeping watch so the rest can sleep. I propose we fix this through Dispute Inducement Organizations, who will seek to help people homicidally hate each other for a nominal fee. They'll do things like drug the water supply and play bad music really loudly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:25
|
|