|
Bel Shazar posted:This sounds like you're trying to make a counter point, but I think the libertarian response would be "Yes, that's exactly the point" Which is fine as long as we're being honest about who wins and who loses in a libertarian society. But libertarians aren't being honest when they say that a private postal service would be cheaper without explaining how that would be possible.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Riiiiiiight, and this wouldn't have had anything to do with Spooner's postal service not having a last-mile mandate The US Post Office didn't have one back then though, most people had to travel to the local post office to receive mail, even in cities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The US Post Office didn't have one back then though, most people had to travel to the local post office to receive mail, even in cities. Was Sooner's postal service available outside a handful of major metropolitan areas? We're talking about a time before the internal combustion engine. Delivering mail to remote townships would be the equivalent of last-mile delivery today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Was Sooner's postal service available outside a handful of major metropolitan areas? We're talking about a time before the internal combustion engine. Delivering mail to remote townships would be the equivalent of last-mile delivery today. Major metropolitan areas were also barely a thing then... you forget how heavily rural America was in those times. In that time frame, if you lived in a rural area, the post office that served you could be a full day's journey on horseback away, sometimes even 2 or 3. Many people would only even check once a week or once every two weeks for market days , which might involve a man who was paid to collect mail from the nearest post office for further delivery to the closer small town. Remember, the rural population of America constituted 85% of the population back then. There simply wasn't a real universal service mandate. You could send to anyone, sure, but as to whether they'd receive it was entirely on them. It took til the 1850s for to-the-home delivery to start being mandated in the largest cities; it took til the 1890s for to-the-home delivery to be mandated in large swathes of rural towns and outlying areas it took til the late 1990s and early 2000s for to-the-home delivery to be mandatory in all rural areas! Lysander Spooner's mail service ran from 1844 to 1851. This was before the post office itself had any true last mile obligation, even in the largest cities of the time. You can't get all pissy that he wasn't doing something that the post office also didn't yet do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Can anyone explain Stefan Molyneux to me? Like, I try to watch his videos, but it's literally just a man babbling for at least 30 minutes at a time. It's literally the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. I was just scanning through his video on Robin Williams, and somehow, we get to "Men are primed to have sex with fertile women, and women are primed to get stuff from men as resources to raise their children." Which makes no loving sense in the context of the video. And then he starts talking about how divorce is terrible because, hey women, you've been fired from your job as wife, or you quit your job... Wait. Did this chucklefuck just say that being a wife was a job? And he's married? God. That's a healthy dynamic. Can someone explain the Molyneux FDR worldview to me? I've Googled some resources, but I'm more confused than I've ever been.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
I had an old college buddy who was really in to that poo poo, it feels like a borderline cult. I kinda broke contact with him after being blown away by a combination of Molyneux's misogyny, having the 'gun in the room' gag used on me, and being told I was a 'a loving pig' for making GBS threads on the NAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
It's a real cult not a borderline one. Look up "defoo"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:'gun in the room' gag used on me, and being told I was a 'a loving pig' for making GBS threads on the NAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:I had an old college buddy who was really in to that poo poo, it feels like a borderline cult. I kinda broke contact with him after being blown away by a combination of Molyneux's misogyny, having the 'gun in the room' gag used on me, and being told I was a 'a loving pig' for making GBS threads on the NAP. Dear god, at the whole gun in the room thing. It's only true if you let it escalate that far. Yes, if I actively resist all attempts to enforce the law, then yes, I run the risk of being shot for not paying my taxes, but it's a long way to getting shot (assuming society functions properly). Otherwise, we could say that about anything! The gun is always in the room. I go to work because if I don't go to work, I won't get paid. If I don't get paid, I can't pay my rent. If I don't pay my rent, my landlord will evict me. If I don't willingly leave the apartment, my landlord will contact the local authorities to have me removed from the apartment. If I resist arrest, they will use force against me. If I barricade myself against the oppressors and start shooting at them, they will attempt to kill me. Ergo, I go to work only because I don't want to get shot. Molyneux is just incredibly superficially smart. He talks a lot about things and is able to construct in-depth metaphors to try and prove his point, but the problem is that there's nothing beneath the surface. It's just a guy talking like a smart person hoping that he too will sound intelligent. edit: Hell, you could use that for anything. Like, I used to be a manager in a store. I would try to stop shoftlifters. By Molyneux's view, I was willing to shoot a 13-year-old over a candy bar he tried to shoplift. I'm a loving bad-rear end! Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Providing public education: putting a gun to his head. gently caress it, let them starve: true freedom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This was before the post office itself had any true last mile obligation, even in the largest cities of the time. You can't get all pissy that he wasn't doing something that the post office also didn't yet do. Even if that specific detail in the argument is incorrect, the gist is correct. The USPS wasn't doing home delivery but it was required to maintain offices in isolated locations throughout the country, and make deliveries to the same. Spooner's American Letter Mail Company also transported mail from one office to another, but it only had locations in four cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. That is to say, he operated only in the four largest cities in America, all of which were relatively nearby one another and well-connected by sea and rail. Quibbling aside, Spooner's company served only the cities where delivery was absolutely cheapest, and was useless to 96% of the country's population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Dear god, at the whole gun in the room thing. It's only true if you let it escalate that far. Yes, if I actively resist all attempts to enforce the law, then yes, I run the risk of being shot for not paying my taxes, but it's a long way to getting shot (assuming society functions properly). Otherwise, we could say that about anything! The gun is always in the room. I go to work because if I don't go to work, I won't get paid. If I don't get paid, I can't pay my rent. If I don't pay my rent, my landlord will evict me. If I don't willingly leave the apartment, my landlord will contact the local authorities to have me removed from the apartment. If I resist arrest, they will use force against me. If I barricade myself against the oppressors and start shooting at them, they will attempt to kill me. Ergo, I go to work only because I don't want to get shot. Yeah, advocates of the Non Aggression Principle are ignoring that all political communities ultimately rely on violence. It's not a matter of being for or against violence, just disagreements over when it should be used, by whom, and to what ends. Of course this argument can't rebut the consequentialists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Can anyone explain Stefan Molyneux to me? Like, I try to watch his videos, but it's literally just a man babbling for at least 30 minutes at a time. It's literally the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. I was just scanning through his video on Robin Williams, and somehow, we get to "Men are primed to have sex with fertile women, and women are primed to get stuff from men as resources to raise their children." Which makes no loving sense in the context of the video. Other posters have sort of run down on this, and I covered it a little in the OP but I can explain the Molyneux world view. Molyneux and the FDR crew are 'Voluntarists' which are more or less Anarcho-Capitalists. There are some small differences between the two groups, but I think the differentiation is largely just an attempt to jerk off about how they are the real believers in freedom. Voluntarists follow the Non-Aggression principle, which boils down to 'Don't initiate force'. This isn't to say they don't believe in using force, its just that it has to be 'defensive' force. Such as 'defensively' having your privately hired thugs beat the poo poo out of the homeless guy who refuses to leave your property. They get their name because they believe that "Voluntary transactions without the use of force will lead to the greatest prosperity." Note that the Voluntarism followed by many of the real FDR (That belongs to Franklin D. Roosevelt, you give that back!  ) doesn't necessarily related to voluntarism as discussed in earlier centuries.Past all of that however... its a cult. Free Domain Radio holds all of the traditional hallmarks you'd find in a destructive cult. It has a 'charismatic' leader. It has an insular atmosphere. It has its own words and meaning of words... things like the word force take on meanings for FDR adherents that they don't for other people. They have their own made up words for cult like behavior. Beyond all of that it has the creepy brainwashing and disconnection from family that makes it truly dangerous. Stefan Molyneux actively advocates the idea that all parents are abusive. Much like a carnival psychic or the cult leader that he is, Stefan will twist the words and minds of people who call into his show until they actively admit that their parents abused them, which feeds into his bizarre ideas about parenting and how you should DeFoo (Depart Family of Origin) because you can never have a sane relationship with your abuser. Also while you do this you should become a funding member of Free Domain Radio and Stefan will help you on the path to learning the truth about our society. He believes that we would end violence forever if all parents decided not to ever 'abuse' their children. Creeped the gently caress out yet? The outright misogyny is actually a pretty new thing. It's always been there mind you, he's always had people like Warren Farrell or Paul Elam on his show as part of the men's right's movements, but it has ramped up substantially in the last year. My guess? There is money in it. Molyneux is a failed actor. He couldn't make money doing his acting, so he turned to become a guru, and I personally believe that he wasn't getting enough from the Voluntarist cult crowd and is now pivoting to the creepy MRA violence against estrogen based parasite crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Dear god, at the whole gun in the room thing. It's only true if you let it escalate that far. Yes, if I actively resist all attempts to enforce the law, then yes, I run the risk of being shot for not paying my taxes, but it's a long way to getting shot (assuming society functions properly). Otherwise, we could say that about anything! The gun is always in the room. I go to work because if I don't go to work, I won't get paid. If I don't get paid, I can't pay my rent. If I don't pay my rent, my landlord will evict me. If I don't willingly leave the apartment, my landlord will contact the local authorities to have me removed from the apartment. If I resist arrest, they will use force against me. If I barricade myself against the oppressors and start shooting at them, they will attempt to kill me. Ergo, I go to work only because I don't want to get shot. It's not a principle, exactly, but the appeal of libertarianism relies on conjuring up this image at every turn. Anything that the state does is always framed in terms of jackbooted thugs robbing hardworking people at gunpoint, turning the fruits of their labour over to scheming apparatchiks and a grasping, grubby subhuman mob. (And it's not a coincidence that it sounds like I'm narrating an A. Wyatt Mann comic, and that libertarianism appeals mainly to angry white people.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
I am more than 900 posts behind in JRod's new thread. Is it worth the slog? I mean, it's hilarious that he is basically advocating revolutionary socialism (the workers seizing the means of production and the destitute expropriating unused real-estate) as the only way out of the inhuman bind that the non-aggression* principle put him, but is there any punchline I should be looking forward to? NO SPOILERS!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am more than 900 posts behind in JRod's new thread. Is it worth the slog? I mean, it's hilarious that he is basically advocating revolutionary socialism (the workers seizing the means of production and the destitute expropriating unused real-estate) as the only way out of the inhuman bind that the non-aggression* principle put him, but is there any punchline I should be looking forward to? NO SPOILERS! Nah he just stops posting and then a new guy comes in but he isn't as fun. I don't think that is a spoiler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am more than 900 posts behind in JRod's new thread. Is it worth the slog? I mean, it's hilarious that he is basically advocating revolutionary socialism (the workers seizing the means of production and the destitute expropriating unused real-estate) as the only way out of the inhuman bind that the non-aggression* principle put him, but is there any punchline I should be looking forward to? NO SPOILERS! Sadly, it appears he's lacking his usual obstinate stamina, so I wouldn't bother reading everything after he drops out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Caros posted:Molyneux is a failed actor. He couldn't make money doing his acting, so he turned to become a guru, and I personally believe that he wasn't getting enough from the Voluntarist cult crowd and is now pivoting to the creepy MRA violence against estrogen based parasite crowd. I'm not sure how new it is really. I remember Molyneux ranting about how single moms were parasites in like 2012/13~ blugu64 fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Sadly, it appears he's lacking his usual obstinate stamina, so I wouldn't bother reading everything after he drops out. I'm pretty confident that jrodefeld is a Markov text generator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Sadly, it appears he's lacking his usual obstinate stamina, so I wouldn't bother reading everything after he drops out. I guess you could say that... he has high time preference. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Oh ya I forgot, Molyneux apostles will identify themselves as ~'students of philosophy'~ edit: Did I mention he's a french canadian!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Treating the monopoly on violence as some sort of huge secret is funny. It's the first thing you'll learn in any intro Poli Sci course. Also, you don't really need literal force to seize someone's assets for not paying taxes these days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:I'm not sure how new it is really. I remember Molyneux ranting about how single moms were parasites in like 2012/13~ While it isn't completely new, the scale of it is. Prior to the last year or so MRA issues were really vauge background issues for most of his videos. They came up but only occasionally and they were rarely the focus of whole videos. Since the beginning of this year in particular he has been hammering away at this particular garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Molyneux is also the father of the DRO, the Libertarian version of courts and police force. Basically, according to his own paper, any dispute is handled by the plaintiff and defendant's DROs both trying whatever case is being brought forward to them, and if there is a dispute in the two DRO-Court's rulings, the two DROs come together, pick out a third party, and that third party tries the case again. If you quit your DRO and don't sign up for a new one, every DRO will send a letter out to every member of their DRO telling their clients to never allow you onto their property and to not associate with the former member (like say a husband being sent a letter demanding he divorce his wife because she quit the DRO) thereby providing a mechanism by which everyone will make sure they are a member of a DRO and they can provide law and justice to all of society. Your statist mind might wonder "But in a truly voluntary society, shouldn't I have the freedom to say that I don't want to be a client of any DRO? Surly insisting I must maintain membership with at least 1 DRO or else I can't even buy food because every food merchant will refuse to let me into their store because the DRO blacklisted me is at least as much a use of force against me as insisting I pay my taxes so that the society I live in has schools?" I honestly don't know what the answer to that is.
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Molyneux is also the father of the DRO, the Libertarian version of courts and police force. Basically, according to his own paper, any dispute is handled by the plaintiff and defendant's DROs both trying whatever case is being brought forward to them, and if there is a dispute in the two DRO-Court's rulings, the two DROs come together, pick out a third party, and that third party tries the case again. If you quit your DRO and don't sign up for a new one, every DRO will send a letter out to every member of their DRO telling their clients to never allow you onto their property and to not associate with the former member (like say a husband being sent a letter demanding he divorce his wife because she quit the DRO) thereby providing a mechanism by which everyone will make sure they are a member of a DRO and they can provide law and justice to all of society. Your statist mind might wonder "But in a truly voluntary society, shouldn't I have the freedom to say that I don't want to be a client of any DRO? Surly insisting I must maintain membership with at least 1 DRO or else I can't even buy food because every food merchant will refuse to let me into their store because the DRO blacklisted me is at least as much a use of force against me as insisting I pay my taxes so that the society I live in has schools?" I honestly don't know what the answer to that is. Molyneux is in no way the father of this idea. This is old hat, private defense/court agencies and all that. He has his own spin on it of course, but it's not "his" idea in any sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Tripling the number of legal proceedings for every event sounds like a totally worthwhile way to get rid of that damned statist inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
What guarantee will we have that these DROs will enforce libertarian style Non-Agression Principle laws, instead of whatever laws they want?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
What happens if the DROs cant agree to a third party DRO? Cause I can think of a bunch of reasons that two DROs wouldnt be able to agree to a third one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I'm starting a DRO which has a policy of never, ever agreeing to find our clients guilty. To do otherwise would be a breach of our duty to our customers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm starting a DRO which has a policy of never, ever agreeing to find our clients guilty. To do otherwise would be a breach of our duty to our customers. I thought that was the unstated rule of DROs? Next to getting the most money from our customers, even if it would mean sacrificing some small ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I thought that was the unstated rule of DROs? Next to getting the most money from our customers, even if it would mean sacrificing some small ones. We would never do business with guilty people, therefore our clients are all innocent. QED.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm starting a DRO which has a policy of never, ever agreeing to find our clients guilty. To do otherwise would be a breach of our duty to our customers. You could try that, but who would do business with you? Presumably contracts or terms of service in an AnCap society would specify which DRO would be used. If a company uses a well-known DRO with a reputation for impartiality, people will be more likely to work with them. That DRO has an interest in being fair and impartial, because they want to be used by everyone. If you use a DRO with a strong bias toward its own clients, others will be hesitant to interact with you because they know they can be cheated. In effect, you'd be boycotted (or sanctioned) for using an untrustworthy DRO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You could try that, but who would do business with you? Presumably contracts or terms of service in an AnCap society would specify which DRO would be used. If a company uses a well-known DRO with a reputation for impartiality, people will be more likely to work with them. That DRO has an interest in being fair and impartial, because they want to be used by everyone. If you use a DRO with a strong bias toward its own clients, others will be hesitant to interact with you because they know they can be cheated. In effect, you'd be boycotted (or sanctioned) for using an untrustworthy DRO. However as a DRO customer, wouldn't my rational self-interest be to choose the DRO that rules/acts in my favor as often as possible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:However as a DRO customer, wouldn't my rational self-interest be to choose the DRO that rules/acts in my favor as often as possible? As a DRO customer in a vacuum, yes. As a human being who has a rational self interest in being able to buy and sell things, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:However as a DRO customer, wouldn't my rational self-interest be to choose the DRO that rules/acts in my favor as often as possible? Actually, you'll get whatever DRO you can afford, because they are providing an extremely inelastic service, with zero oversight or regulation. It's in your rational self interest to beg any DRO to accept you because they hold all of the power and you hold none. Don't think about starting your own DRO, because people will only deal with you if you use an established, well known DRO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Molyneux is in no way the father of this idea. This is old hat, private defense/court agencies and all that. He has his own spin on it of course, but it's not "his" idea in any sense. Gah, you're right; he did not create the idea, he just gave the private defense/court agencies the name "Dispute Resolution Organization"  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
I know jrod just ignores the consequences of turning security over to for-profit private armies, but really what response do libertarians have when you bring up the nightmare society of DROs? Is there anything more than LESS GOVERNMENT = BETTER THAN?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would a DRO that is in the business of keeping subscribers ever rule against its own customers? God loving drat that is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I know jrod just ignores the consequences of turning security over to for-profit private armies, but really what response do libertarians have when you bring up the nightmare society of DROs? Is there anything more than LESS GOVERNMENT = BETTER THAN? You have to remember that their whole philosophy is based around the concept that 'voluntary' interaction in the form of the free market is morally preferable to government based coercion through 'force'. It really doesn't matter if DRO's suck to many of them. I poo poo you not, I had a libertarian defend the idea that DRO's would have access to nuclear weapons. I've had one defend he idea that contract killings were morally okay so long as you pay someone to do them, since the person who does the actual killing is the only one morally responsible. Many an-caps are not utilitarian, they don't care if it results in a freakish totalitarian state, so long as it is a 'free' totalitarian state. The few that do care fall back on the idea that because the voluntary options are morally preferable, they clearly must also produce preferable outcomes. This is the wing that says that government can't ever reduce poverty (despite social security) or provide healthcare (despite recorded history) better than the private market, even when evidence flies in the face of that assertion. Typical Pubbie posted:Why the gently caress would a DRO that is in the business of keeping subscribers ever rule against its own customers? God loving drat that is stupid. The idea is supposed to be that either both victim and villain are under the auspices of one DRO, or under an umbrella of DRO's who agree to impartial third party negotiators whenever there is an issue. Now if this scares the crap out of you, because of the lack of any unified justice system or because the DRO's by the nature of needing to have agreements with one another have massive incentive to collude, well it should! DRO's are the stupidest thing on the face of the world because either you live in a society where everyone agrees to have a series of them cover every aspect of their lives in a way that is far more intrusive, or the coverage is spotty at best and justice is up to the person with the bigger DRO. Caros fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Why the gently caress would a DRO that is in the business of keeping subscribers ever rule against its own customers? God loving drat that is stupid. By being the 'cheap' DRO that will take any all customers, including those barred from other DROS, with this captive customer base they can do anything so long as the customers can afford it because its still better than being barred from everything and anything. And this is separate to any cartel or oligarchy deals DROs conduct amongst themselves!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 07:48
|
|