|
twodot posted:(I contend such lenders would be better off just enslaving/robbing/murdering people without entrapping them into contracts). They would do this too, of course. The mafia would extort money through protection rackets, would burn down competing businesses, run competitors out of town, etc. But loan-sharking would still happen because putting someone in a position where they feel they have an obligation to you is a pretty good way to induce them to pay up to discharge the obligation. Their family will likely help them raise assets to pay back their loan. And they're less likely to find support from their community because pampered middle-class white men will shrug and say the borrower must be irresponsible or he wouldn't be in debt and that dead-beat should pay (and after all, I would never get into such a situation. Until I do, of course, when I get hit with unexpected medical expenses or something, end up in debt to a loan shark myself...) Capitalist propaganda about the solemn duty of everyone except the elites to pay their debts is so strong that in 2008 when we just handed trillions to crooked, incompetent bankers, the right manufactured a populist backlash against a bailout of loser homeowners that never even happened. People were so angry at even the thought that someone else might get a break on a mortgage that the Tea Party was able to hold protests against imaginary debt relief. It's pretty much a given that if a big enough majority became libertarian such that we could actually establish libertopia, the victims of loan sharks would be universally shunned as disgusting contract-breakers who deserve to have their kneecaps smashed, because that is what libertarians actually believe. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Aug 14, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
twodot posted:I don't follow the logic. I have no assets whatsoever. I have an entity X that claims I owe it Y scrip, which I could only possibly pay by selling myself as a slave. Under an-cap, why don't I just tell entity X to gently caress right the gently caress off? If the answer is "They will murder you", then the problem isn't with predatory lending it's with people who will enforce debts via murder (I contend such lenders would be better off just enslaving/robbing/murdering people without entrapping them into contracts). If the answer is "The community won't like you", then I don't see why we are supposing the community will hate debt-ignorers more than entities that create unreasonable debts. Clearly if we go an-cap and everyone is assholes, then it is a really, really bad situation, but we don't need to examine what lending even means without currency to figure that out. Wait, if your an-cap model has zero way to actually enforce contracts, what makes it -cap at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Wait, if your an-cap model has zero way to actually enforce contracts, what makes it -cap at all? Wishful thinking that there will be food and gasoline and other things ancaps can't be arsed to create for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Wait, if your an-cap model has zero way to actually enforce contracts, what makes it -cap at all? Contracts would be enforced with bad reviews on Yelp.com, duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Wait, if your an-cap model has zero way to actually enforce contracts, what makes it -cap at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hey nerds. Use some lube when you circlejerk so hard that an-cap=libertarian, it'll keep your parts from getting ripped off. jrodefeld posted:I hope, as a paying member, you will permit me one thread where we can discuss the merits of libertarianism and compare and contrast it with various leftist ideologies. jrodefeld posted:I am a libertarian I'm sorry if your dumb philosophy got co-opted by somebody dumber. Really it seems like fair play given that libertarianism was a term that American right wingers appropriated from the anarchist left a few decades ago. Complaining about it makes you sound like one of those Trotskyists who claims that literally anyone outside their five person group isn't a "real socialist".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
I'm going to keep saying an-cap=libertarians if it annoys members of each ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Yeah, it isn't like an-cap deserves anything but derision, whether we've been lumping it in with jrod's nonsense or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not proposing an an-cap model, people are asking how predatory lending would be policed, and I'm asking them why they think lending would exist at all, because I suspect that an an-cap model that somehow does allow lending, can use the solutions that made lending feasible in the first place to police predatory lending. You mean the solutions that rely on a strong, government-controlled, theoretically-publicly-accountable police force, and a strong, government-controlled, theoretically-publicly-accountable court system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Accountant-houdini.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You mean the solutions that rely on a strong, government-controlled, theoretically-publicly-accountable police force, and a strong, government-controlled, theoretically-publicly-accountable court system? The mob lends people money all the time, and if you can't pay up then they resort to private arbitration to recoup their losses. Of course that wouldn't happen in Libertopia because if Vinny the Loan Shark breaks your legs then you might give him a bad rating on yelp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
So I was thinking more about DROs just now, and I'm wondering: 1. What happens if there's some uncertainty as to whether you committed a crime while under the jurisdiction of a DRO? Scenario 1: You come home, kill your wife, and then immediately call up and cancel your DRO protection. They call your wife to warn her, but she's already dead and they come to bring you in for a 'trial'. Scenario 2: You come home. You then call up and cancel your DRO protection, and immediately after the cancellation is confirmed you murder your wife. They call your wife to warn her, but she's already dead and they come to bring you in for a 'trial'. In Scenario 1, you committed the murder while still a subscriber to your DRO, so presumably the contract you signed allows them to come and drag you away. But what if you deny that you were under their protection when the murder happened, like in Scenario 2? Unless they have constant camera surveillance of your private property, the DRO has no method of distinguishing Scenario 1 from Scenario 2. Now there's a second dispute about whether they're authorized to bring you in to 'justice'---who resolves this dispute? 2. What if you're a higher-up executive or something at a DRO, or the friend or family of someone who is? Since the DRO is the only thing enforcing the law in the area, and since obviously whoever's in charge of sentencing isn't going to piss off their boss, aren't you effectively allowed to commit any crime you want with absolutely no repercussions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
One thing I don't get about most Libertarians I know is that they're usually Economy grads and seem to think that economic growth is the entire point of living. It's like gaining wealth is both a means AND an end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Verus posted:who resolves this dispute? Oh, it's all laid out in the twelve-thousand-page contract that you will naturally read all the way through before signing, in which it's revealed that the DRO has a subsidiary wing that covers all DRO-related dispute resolutions, and that particular daisy chain continues until it ends up being inevitably and inescapably circular. Otherwise it's not proper competition, you see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:One thing I don't get about most Libertarians I know is that they're usually Economy grads and seem to think that economic growth is the entire point of living. It's like gaining wealth is both a means AND an end. Yes, this is pretty much it, you are correct, so you get a biscuit. The accumulation of wealth is all that matters in libertopia- as much as you can at all times by any means you can think of, no rules or regulations or things to stop you from the pursuit of wealth and using that wealth to make more wealth. This is the entire focus, crux, and fulcrum of existence for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:they're usually Economy grads Rarely, honestly. They tend more to have maybe done some basic economics or finance and a lot of "self-education" on mises.org.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:25
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
So is it fair to say that Jrod probably isn't coming back at this point? I managed to move across province in a couple of days without more than a post from him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
I'm sure his computer exploded again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:One thing I don't get about most Libertarians I know is that they're usually Economy grads and seem to think that economic growth is the entire point of living. It's like gaining wealth is both a means AND an end. A lot of them are nerds in other fields but stop at econ 101 because advanced econ starts introducing uncertainty and actual challenging math into the field
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Rarely, honestly. They tend more to have maybe done some basic economics or finance and a lot of "self-education" on mises.org. Given what I've seen of them when they start yapping off? It swiftly becomes apparent that only a very small number have actually taken and completed any sort of actual advanced education in any sub-field of economics. Only the ones you see on the teevee are likely to have actually gotten any- and only then so they can find loopholes and rules for exploitation and abuse. The lion's share of these "people" (why yes I do use that term loosely) couldn't account their way out of a wet paper bag if you spotted them an entire HR department.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
So, it basically is only "libertarians I know" then, good to know. I guess all I can take from this is that Libertarianism has no end game, and it's basically a huge treadmill of making as much wealth as you can because making wealth is all that matters. It'd be a lot easier to sell if you had something beyond "making money", like, what that money would go to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm sorry if your dumb philosophy got co-opted by somebody dumber. Really it seems like fair play given that libertarianism was a term that American right wingers appropriated from the anarchist left a few decades ago. Complaining about it makes you sound like one of those Trotskyists who claims that literally anyone outside their five person group isn't a "real socialist". Meh, negative income isn't required to be a libertarian (obviously) but since it really is the least expensive/micromanaging thing I think it's a hypocrisy in American libertarianism. Maybe it's an idea that'll have a chance in the future.  Of course in the meantime we got to replace redlining with DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 04:05
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Caros posted:So is it fair to say that Jrod probably isn't coming back at this point? I managed to move across province in a couple of days without more than a post from him. I'm genuinely curious what he's thinking. Does this all look like self-satisfied masturbation to him? I mean it kind of is but I feel like it compares favorably to the self-satisfied masturbation on the Daily Paul forums. e: OK I just found posts from him on Straight Dope from 2010, I'm not wondering so much anymore. Dude's broken. We're broken. CO-ENABLERS
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm genuinely curious what he's thinking. Does this all look like self-satisfied masturbation to him? I mean it kind of is but I feel like it compares favorably to the self-satisfied masturbation on the Daily Paul forums. Yeah, I looked him up a while back. He's been at this for half a decade and if it is a troll it will make toblerone triangle look like an amateur. I honestly don't know what I even reply when he posts, save for the trainwreck of it all. I had the same thing with an old friend who has gone full MRA and it really does feel pointless. He isn't going to learn anything unless something big happens, but then again even I wasn't as full on wackjob as he is, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hey nerds. Use some lube when you circlejerk so hard that an-cap=libertarian, it'll keep your parts from getting ripped off. I do appreciate the direct answer to my question... is this all? To elaborate, does the libertarian answer to the cost of living associated with disability begin and end with a guaranteed wage floor? The reason why I ask (and you'd get the same response from anyone who has worked with people of various disabilities) is that I don't see how this would even come close to covering the actual cost of living if they were to receive the same financial support as anyone else. I can't speak for the US but in Australia, two revenue streams exist for the disabled; a guaranteed wage floor (like you proposed, which pays for rent, food etc) and discounted/free health care. Being familiar with the numbers attached to these amounts, I can tell you that the cost of the latter item is larger by several orders of magnitude; they're not even comparable. Down's syndrome, for example, is in the "less severe" side of lifetime costs for care associated with the condition; for someone with a "minor" case who has general capacity for independent living and assessed capacity to work, it still costs approximately 1m over the lifetime of the person to provide for their medical care. Deafness, blindness, amputation, profound autism are all much more expensive, some costing into the tens of millions to provide for care. Would more aid be provided to people with more needs or would you honestly suggest that, with this minimum wage floor, that a quadriplegic would be expected to stretch the same income to meet their needs as someone with a slight intellectual impairment? because when you start to provide different incomes to people of different needs you start to toe the line of socialism and then I wonder why bother doing away with government at all if you're just going to provide the same functions as government... I find the notion that a minimum wage floor will provide for all these associated needs to be a little ridiculous. I'm coming to see the point made by other posters who said that there is a segment of the American population that believes that the disabled should simply die and stop inconveniencing people but I don't know if I buy that either... sure, speaking to Americans as a group or at a political rally might get responses like that but I've found, among Americans I've spoken to, when you get an individual to have an honest conversation, this remains one of those points where people can often soften and admit that <maybe> the government has <some> role in caring for <some> vulnerable groups. I'm not talking out of my rear end here; I use Australian examples in my post because I live in Australia but previous to this I lived in Texas and Washington State (admittedly this was over a decade ago) and I've spoken to literally hundreds of people who could "talked around" into admitting that maybe should provide more care to our most vulnerable populations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
From a purely economic standpoint, the most quietly evil aspect of the Hayek/Friedman GMI proposal is that a set, guaranteed minimum income for every citizen in a Gold/Silver Standard libertarian society would, inadvertenly or intentionally, turn the poor into society's #1 anti-inflation watchdogs while perversely inventivizing a higher rate of inflation for higher earners, who would then be responsible for a tax burden that is worth less and less each year. All it would take to slowly chip away at Randburg's have-nots' precarious financial security is large-scale private investment into mining gold & silver. CARL MARK FORCE IV fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Meh, negative income isn't required to be a libertarian (obviously) but since it really is the least expensive/micromanaging thing I think it's a hypocrisy in American libertarianism. Maybe it's an idea that'll have a chance in the future. People across the political spectrum support a minimum income or negative income tax of some kind. I don't think its in any way a distinguishing feature of libertarianism, especially given that many libertarians would be completely against it. quote:Of course in the meantime we got to replace redlining with This is so unspecific and vague that I'm not sure how to respond. I mean, I get that what you're trying to say here is that special interests inevitably capture the state and use it for their own ends, but you're talking in incredibly broad terms. I am curious to know just how high you think this minimum income would be set if you imagine it will replace everything from healthcare to affordable housing. I actually support the idea of a minimum income, but I do so because I think it would give people greater economic independence, not because I think it would allow us to dispense with all other government programs. Anyway, if we want to talk about a specifically American context (I'm not American, by the way) then it's far from clear that a minimum income would be an efficient replacement for the constellation of government programs designed to alleviate poverty or redistribute wealth. quote:The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Doesn't Add Up
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:For the record, I mentally substitute the word "corporation" with the words "fief" or "noble" and suddenly the world makes sense again in Libertopia-land. There is actually a lot of truth to this. It's not by coincidence that Hans Hermann Hoppe wrote an entire book about the superiority of monarchies over democracies. Ultimately, anarcho-capitalism is monarchism in a new set of clothes, and as such is more about a rejection of democracy than it is about any general sense of freedom. The only freedom in this case is that of an upper class of aristocratic property owners being free from the democratic notions of those who have to submit to their will in exchange for the resources necessary for basic survival. While Triple H's dystopian nightmare was brought up earlier, one of my favorite examples of the tyranny inherent in this philosophy actually comes from one of the other crazy racist libertarians, Murray Rothbard. Murray "Free Baby Market" Rothbard posted:Let us say that Ruritania is ruled by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons and the legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized their property. A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania, and comes to persuade the bulk of the populace that this criminal system should be replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the rights of each man to his person and his found and created property are fully respected. The king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a cunning stratagem. He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his kingdom to the “ownership” of himself and his relatives. He then goes to the libertarian rebels and says: “all right, I have granted your wish, and have dissolved my rule; there is now no more violent intervention in private property. However, myself and my eleven relatives now each own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if you disturb us in this ownership in any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity of the very fundamental principle that you profess: the inviolability of private property. Therefore, while we shall no longer be imposing ‘taxes,’ you must grant each of us the right to impose any ‘rents’ that we may wish upon our ‘tenants,’ or to regulate the lives of all the people who presume to live on ‘our’ property as we see fit. In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by ‘private rents’!” Rothbard goes on to argue, of course, that the libertarian rebels should rise up because the property was acquired unjustly... but think about that last paragraph for a minute. Rothbard essentially states that a property owner in Libertopia is rightfully able to be more despotic than a literal king. That on it's own is pretty insane. Then he follows this up explaining that the only argument against this horrible despot is not from the suffering of the populace, or tyrannical laws, or excessive rents, or any of the actual material conditions of the people that live beneath him. It's not anything related to him being a despot, but instead that he didn't acquire the property in a way that allows him to legitimately be a despot. Maybe it's just me, but I don't much care for a political philosophy that says despots are perfectly fine as long as they somehow "legitimately" acquired their kingdoms; whether it be through inheritance, purchase, or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Verus posted:So I was thinking more about DROs just now, and I'm wondering: Haven't you been reading the thread? Everyone in ancap libertopia has 24/7 Literally the only way for the DRO scheme to work is if all crimes are directly observable at all times, such that there is no doubt of guilt or innocence. It also requires assuming that the individuals running these organizations are incorruptible, infallible, and affordable. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Was trading "viewpoints" with a libertarian friend today and he replied this to Jrod's way of DRO operation:Libertarian person posted:Having a DRO setup marketwide that relies on individuals paying and makes a case-by-case basis based on payment and things like that, it's highly ineffcient, impractical, and doesn't work. So alternatives to that, other methods of maying payment happen or even alternative methods of funding the DRO. I can't rightly say what is the best setup of a DRO, only that the market will tend towards an ever-increasing level of efficiency because of the competitive nature of the market. Unhappy customers/unfulfilled needs are opportuities to profit, and if one person can't turn a profit, there are 50 others who want to make that happen. And it's impossible to make money in a free market by pissing people off, exploiting them, and creating what they don't want, creating ways for others to profit. If you don't know how it will work, it's ok! The free market will sort it all out! Yeah I'm sure people are going to line up for the huge level of uncertainty this system brings. You could argue that if the majority wanted it, we'd have it, but since we don't have it then we can just notch this one up as "strange mind experiment".
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:So is it fair to say that Jrod probably isn't coming back at this point? I managed to move across province in a couple of days without more than a post from him. paragon1 posted:I'm sure his computer exploded again. He made a post in the Michael Brown thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:He made a post in the Michael Brown thread. Not just any post, I think this might be my favorite post on all of the forums now. jrodefeld posted:I am outraged about this incident. As Radley Balko explained in "Rise of the Warrior Cop" and authors like John Whitehead and commentators like Will Grigg have covered, we have an epidemic of police misconduct and a rise in the use of SWAT team raids. Furthermore we have seen a systematic militarization of our police forces. I don't think it is an exaggeration to state that we live in an emerging police state. Well off white people and privileged groups might find that statement hyperbolic, but poor blacks have long viewed the police not as the protectors of their rights, but rather as their oppressors and their enemies. It must be a horrific feeling to fear for your life, to know that any day a cop could end your life without you having done a thing wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:He made a post in the Michael Brown thread. Threaten to ban him if he doesn't come back again please. The infection must be contained. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Nope nope nope I refuse to believe that he is not the greatest and most impudent troll in history. Wow. Wow. Wow. Stars and garters bitch. William the conqueror poo poo. Diet coke poo poo, bin Laden poo poo, I can't even function. I wonder how many libertarians he has unconverted through sheer persistence and consistency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nope nope nope I refuse to believe that he is not the greatest and most impudent troll in history. Wow. Wow. Wow. Stars and garters bitch. William the conqueror poo poo. Diet coke poo poo, bin Laden poo poo, I can't even function.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
If JR doesn't come back can I be the new JRod? I feel like I'm ready to move on to the big leagues
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Not just any post, I think this might be my favorite post on all of the forums now. I know it went over well in the Michael Brown thread, but I didn't read it until your recommendation. Worth the effort, even at 2:30 in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Hey Xylo, any chance of a funny mod challenge for Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Can we all agree that libertarianism creates nothing but false dichotomies with no nuance whatsoever? Every issue with libertarians is "You're either this or that". As if gray isn't a shade between black and white or that hues don't exist within the spectrum of society...Once you start tackling the issues on a specific basis, libertarians unravel like a cassette tape you open up and remove the reels from...good luck sorting THAT poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
e: never mind this was neither funny nor interesting
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:18
|
|