|
Nolanar posted:Ahaha, astounding. Thanks for the definition! I feel like I've seen this line of thought before though. Time preference is a concept that is pretty thick in the deeper workings of Austrian Economics dating back to Mises, though he was not the one who originated the concept. It's something you'll see some of the devotees bring up from time to time, but it is deep enough in the economic side that you only see it once the conversation has gone on for a while.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You should at least ask him to answer Caros' HOA question, because I think it's drat good. I tried to get jrodefeld to talk about HOAs, too, but it seems like ancaps are just unaware of how an HOA works or are uncomfortable with the idea that private organizations can become states (because modern states sprang forth fully formed from the bowels of hell and certainly didn't arise from smaller groups of voluntary participants)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
So quick question about Libertopia; who owns what? Like, I have this house and I've got the deed to it that says I own this much land around it. Great, but if I go to court, how do I establish my deed is valid while the other guy's deed that says he owns my house is not? Does the HOA keep track of deeds? Well great but I'm a voluntarist and I don't want to be forced to pay for something I have no interest in so I'm not a member of any HOA. My DRO? Well, we all know what happens if I say I don't want to be a member (HINT: men with guns kill me), so let's say I am a member of a small DRO. Okay, now what? My DRO says my deed is valid, their DRO says their deed is valid, court has no real reason to think either deed is invalid. In today's statist dystopia, we have centralized authorities who can say which deed they recognize as valid, but in the DRO dystopia, my DRO's word is as good as their DRO's word. Also, brings back the problem of arbiters; why would I even bother agreeing to one who isn't going to rule in favor of me? The status quo suits me just fine. Is the guy suing me going to start a twitter campaign to get everyone to shun me? Why would anyone give a poo poo? And even if it did work like that, then let's just flip the example: I am suing someone else because I have a deed to their land. I refuse to pick an arbiter who won't settle in my favor. Everyone shuns the defendant until he agrees to that arbiter. Does everyone just have to closely follow and do intense research on every single case so they know who to shun? There are literally not enough hours in a day for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
The answer is the richest guy wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Valhalla DRO recognizes the self-evident legal principle that land and wealth and women belong to the bravest and strongest jarl. The weak perfumed southern folk and cringing weeping monks holding crosses in palsied hands who cannot defend their treasures deserve no title to them. Coward, you think that piece of paper that you hold in your hand in place of a sword will protect your farms and gardens? The arbiter of combat will find your case without merit. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Valhalla DRO recognizes the self-evident legal principle that land and wealth and women belong to the bravest and strongest jarl. The weak perfumed southern folk and cringing weeping monks holding crosses in palsied hands who cannot defend their treasures deserve no title to them. Now, don't let your lack of strength cause you to lose heart. Valhalla DRO recognizes that what womenfolk lack in strength, they make up for in their ability to birth warriors. That's why our trials by combat have different armaments by gender, otherwise life would be nothing but a battle of the weak against the strong and ha ha ha ha how very absurd that is! He gets a wooden sword and has to stay inside this hole. You, fishwife, get a pillowcase weighted with lead shot and may move freely about the arena.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
this has been probably be posted but here's a smackdown of Austrian economics by some dude from George Mason University, of all loving places. That alone is funny so here http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
I for one envy the weak for they exist in a constant state of euphoria, surrounded by and in constant awe of my magnificence. They have so much opportunity for growth while I, approaching my peak strength as a shrewd business warrior, have only so very little room for improvement. Not to mention many of the weak get to escape the ravages of old age and die in youth, leaving beautiful emaciated corpses. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Now, don't let your lack of strength cause you to lose heart. Valhalla DRO recognizes that what womenfolk lack in strength, they make up for in their ability to birth warriors. That's why our trials by combat have different armaments by gender, otherwise life would be nothing but a battle of the weak against the strong and ha ha ha ha how very absurd that is! Women may take the men's trial by combat, and if victorious reap all the rights of any other true warriorborn. Lord Odin knows many a DRO would rather abandon their treasures and holdings rather than face the legendary Valkyrie Corps. And if a man is so weak and cowardly as to take a woman's test... He may, but only if claimed by a Valkyrie first, of course Valhalla DRO: The most progressive DRO there is, by pain of death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:So quick question about Libertopia; who owns what? Like, I have this house and I've got the deed to it that says I own this much land around it. Great, but if I go to court, how do I establish my deed is valid while the other guy's deed that says he owns my house is not? Does the HOA keep track of deeds? Well great but I'm a voluntarist and I don't want to be forced to pay for something I have no interest in so I'm not a member of any HOA. My DRO? Well, we all know what happens if I say I don't want to be a member (HINT: men with guns kill me), so let's say I am a member of a small DRO. Okay, now what? My DRO says my deed is valid, their DRO says their deed is valid, court has no real reason to think either deed is invalid. In today's statist dystopia, we have centralized authorities who can say which deed they recognize as valid, but in the DRO dystopia, my DRO's word is as good as their DRO's word. Unless you're in AnCap land there are probably courts and land registries and things like that because those are legit things government could be doing according to non crazy people, so establishing who owns your home would probably work about like it does today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Unless you're in AnCap land there are probably courts and land registries and things like that because those are legit things government could be doing according to non crazy people, so establishing who owns your home would probably work about like it does today. Well considering the discussion we've been having is largely about AnCaps I'm not sure this really applies. 'Non-crazy' libertarianism is less about the moral and economic perfection dreamed at by AnCaps and more to do with simple greed and selfishness. "I don't want the government to do X because I don't like it/think it won't work/whatever."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Unless you're in AnCap land there are probably courts and land registries and things like that because those are legit things government could be doing according to non crazy people, so establishing who owns your home would probably work about like it does today. How are we funding these courts and land registries? Don't tell me you're advocating confiscatory taxation like a common scoundrel and thief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well considering the discussion we've been having is largely about AnCaps I'm not sure this really applies. Doesn't it feel a little dirty to do that? The only people who will really take the other side in that discussion are JR and that other guy and that Fin for a bit. You end up just sort of chuckling to yourselves about how silly AnCap is for pages and pages and while the Valhalla DRO stuff is funny I don't understand what you get out of it. Caros posted:'Non-crazy' libertarianism is less about the moral and economic perfection dreamed at by AnCaps and more to do with simple greed and selfishness. "I don't want the government to do X because I don't like it/think it won't work/whatever." "I don't like it/think it won't work/whatever" is not necessarily a bad reason to not want the government to do X, though, is it? Depending on what "whatever" is obviously. VitalSigns posted:How are we funding these courts and land registries? Don't tell me you're advocating confiscatory taxation like a common scoundrel and thief. Taxes are a necessary evil. To the extent stuff has to be funded it'd have to be that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Unless you're in AnCap land there are probably courts and land registries and things like that because those are legit things government could be doing according to non crazy people, so establishing who owns your home would probably work about like it does today. Ok, but by what criteria are these courts making judgements? Who sets these criteria? How?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How are we funding these courts and land registries? I really hope the answer is voluntarism, because that's the only way those are going to work without a tax-equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Doesn't it feel a little dirty to do that? The only people who will really take the other side in that discussion are JR and that other guy and that Fin for a bit. You end up just sort of chuckling to yourselves about how silly AnCap is for pages and pages and while the Valhalla DRO stuff is funny I don't understand what you get out of it. No, if you want to have a conversation about libertarianism we can have that conversation. What I was saying is that the specific situation we were talking about was one dealing with AnCaps. Coming in and smugly saying "Well it'd work like this in a libertarian society!" is really dishonest because that isn't the sort of question we'd pose to a libertarian since we don't have a disagreement on it. quote:"I don't like it/think it won't work/whatever" is not necessarily a bad reason to not want the government to do X, though, is it? Depending on what "whatever" is obviously. True. I guess my point is that I have some small amount of respect... or maybe sympathy for your typical ancap. They are biting deep into a rotten apple of an ideology and there is a lot of things that we disagree with on such a fundamental level that there are many things to actually discuss. My problem with bog standard 'koch' style libertarianism is that, in general, our only big disagreements are on what the government should be funded. And unlike an AnCap it is a relatively mundane argument that far, far too often boils down to 'I don't want to pay for welfare' or 'Social Security is dumb.' That all said, by all means, please give me an example of one or more programs or things that you think the government should not be doing. I'd recommend however, shying away from the things we are both likely to agree on, such as the drug war, or indeed war in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Taxes are a necessary evil. To the extent stuff has to be funded it'd have to be that way. Then you're not a Libertarian, because you don't actually have a philosophical objection to coercion. You are a Conservative, because you're actually just fine with the government coercing others to pay for things, but you just want that restricted to free provision of only things that benefit landowners: property registration, protecting that property from the conversion by the poor, defending your property from invasion, patrolling seas, rivers, and trade routes so you can ship your goods safely, fighting wars to open markets for you, overthrowing foreign governments that nationalize your overseas properties, etc; you just don't want any of that awesome tax-payer funded free poo poo you're getting going to feeding the poor or educating children or any of that nonsense. You are a Tory. Which is fine and all, it's just sort of annoying when Tories dress up their opposition to social services in Libertarian terms about the morality of taxation when you're actually cool with taxes and you only disagree about what they should pay for. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Doesn't it feel a little dirty to do that? The only people who will really take the other side in that discussion are JR and that other guy and that Fin for a bit. You end up just sort of chuckling to yourselves about how silly AnCap is for pages and pages and while the Valhalla DRO stuff is funny I don't understand what you get out of it. When other libertarians come in we will gladly address them on their own positions, but until then we can only discuss what has been presented to us so far. What else can we do? No, seriously, what else do you think we should be doing in this thread? And isn't the fact that we have fun doing Valhalla DRO and mocking AN-CAPs justification in and of itself? Do we need another reason?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:When other libertarians come in we will gladly address them on their own positions, but until then we can only discuss what has been presented to us so far. What else can we do? No, seriously, what else do you think we should be doing in this thread? No, the Jarls will be measured. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:while the Valhalla DRO stuff is funny I don't understand what you get out of it. In a free society, I would have slam dunked a cinderblock on your baby carriage. (Not really. I like you!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:My problem with bog standard 'koch' style libertarianism is that, in general, our only big disagreements are on what the government should be funded. And unlike an AnCap it is a relatively mundane argument that far, far too often boils down to 'I don't want to pay for welfare' or 'Social Security is dumb.' The Kock-style "liberarianism" specifically takes advantage of this by using libertarian framing about moochers and sancrosanct property rights to whip up opposition to food stamps and education, making this the focus of libertarian-rage while they cash in on the tax cuts and divert an ever-larger share of the increasingly deficit-funded national budget to welfare for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Koch-style libertarianism is amazing because it's not even class-based; the Kochs want to eliminate all forms of wealth re-distribution except those that go towards Koch Industries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Did you miss me? You kept trolling me by calling me names, misrepresenting anything/everything I've said, making statements you know are false, and so on.. and it worked for a while because I actually give a gently caress about what's true and what's rational and objective etc. You don't. You just want to keep trolling me. That was roughly what I expected though. I just didn't anticipate that you'd have *no standards whatsoever*. As long as I keep actually addressing the deceitful bullshit you spew while ganging up on me, you keep winning. I could play the bullshit-spewing game right back at you, but *you'd enjoy that too*! So, the only winning move here is not to play. You make unsubstantiated assertions and then pretend to call me out on supposedly making unsubstantiated assertions. You supposedly pride yourselves on being a troll-free forum, but you're all trolls yourselves. After this, you'll accuse me of more things you're actually guilty of yourselves, in an attempt at getting me to keep responding. You say you'd like to have a civilised discussion with me, but that's just a lie. All you want is to troll me. But really, what a sad existence you all live. Here you are, day in, day out.. week after week, year after year.. celebrating your ignorance, waiting for a victim to troll, and circle-jerking about whatever strikes your fancy. You are a truly pitiful bunch of sad, sad losers. I bet most of you are sociopaths too, and the kind of sub-human scum that has no redeeming qualities. Don't feel satisfied by this, by the way. I'm not seething with anger here. In fact, if you weren't the kind of utter scum you are, I'd feel some sympathy for you for being basement-dwelling eternal virgins. Hideous land-whales don't count, by the way. When you're on your deathbeds, how will you view your lives? "I sure as gently caress did my darndest to cause grief to other people! *Yay me*!".. If you think you're fine with that, you've just proven me right. But are you sure? :p .. really, really sure? Will you really be content with never amounting to anything more than a shitstain on the soles of humanity's boots? Oh, and I really did not pay that $10. I would never have paid to post here, exactly because I already knew roughly what to expect. Carry on!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:As long as I keep actually addressing the deceitful bullshit you spew while ganging up on me, you keep winning. I could play the bullshit-spewing game right back at you, but *you'd enjoy that too*! So, the only winning move here is not to play. I have a suggestion - stick around for a while and give it another go, but this time ignore the trolls and try and focus on the substantive points. Here's an interesting hypothetical. Suppose we admit that taxation is a deeply immoral activity and thus government should be disbanded. However, suppose also that government turns out (in practice) to be indispensable and societies without government simply don't work right. In this (hypothetical!) scenario, would you prefer an immoral, government-ruled, functional society or a deeply moral but utterly non-functional one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:DANCE PUPPETS The second coming of Atlas, ladies and gentlemen. Except Atlas actually was a teenager and didn't just post like one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? So I'm guessing that you aren't here to have an honest conversation about your philosophy? Because if you get off your high horse and stop taking the bait of every single person who trolls you, there are many of us who would be happy, in fact who have been happy to post rebuttles to your arguments. I just honestly am not sure, judging by the type of posts you make, whether you are actually interested in engaging with anyone, or whether you are simply logging onto the forums to throw a fit and scream about how we are being mean to you. I mean, seriously dude. You came onto OUR forums, you had someone purchase you an account on our forums, and came into OUR thread about libertarians and we are the ones trolling you? Here is a quote from your opening post: quote:In the first case, you are advocating the initiation of the use of force against me, even though I've never harmed anyone. You are beyond repair and talking to you is pointless. You started this 'discussion' by saying that anyone who disagrees with your worldview is beyond repair and that talking to us is pointless. So why even bother showing up? Why should anyone here engage with you in any meaningful way if you are starting the conversation from the point of view that we are worthless, broken human beings. Judging by your post here, I'm likely wasting my time. But as I said, any time you want to have a discussion, by all means. I can't stop people from making fun of you, but there is a handy little feature where you can simply ignore the people who do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
In the interest of actually giving you someone to talk to who isn't insulting you constantly, here, for the third time, is an in depth rebuttal to your opening post.shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. This is a contradiction in terms. Sorry, I'll try to keep the Ad Hominems down to be fair but I personally believe that there is something wrong with AnCaps in the same way that there is something wrong with cult followers. I say this as a former Ancap. quote:One of your members gifted me a membership, so I figured I might as well make your brains hurt a bit. How nice of them.  quote:I'll try to keep this brief to avoid wasting way too much time. For starters, you'll find that your example is a bad one because most people in this thread or on these forums do not support the sort of foreign interventions you're talking about. Starting from a position of "Hey, what if you really loved that thing you hate" is a weird debating tactic. That said, I am not the one deciding these issues. We are. We as a society decide whether to go to war, or what have you as per the whole 'democracy' thing. quote:(Please refrain from de-railing the conversation with "externalities" etc. That's a separate issue) I'd argue it isn't but fine. quote:Now then, here's the important part: Are *you* willing to let *me*, in turn, decide how to use *my* money? Are you willing to let me *not* support the war in Afghanistan, and refrain from participating in funding it? Or do you want me to be *forced* to support it, even though I don't want to? No, I am not willing to let you decide how to distribute your taxes (or keep them however the case may be.). Apparently talking to me is now pointless, but lets assume for just a moment that we aren't writing off the 70% of the US population that thinks paying taxes is a civic duty. Because that is pretty hosed up. I also wouldn't let you choose to opt out of food stamps, or social security, or heating assistance for the poor. I'm a firm believer in a democratic society, and a democratic society in which everyone has a veto over where their taxes go leads to a stupid situation in which people pay for the things they personally want while essential programs like social security go unfunded. Before I continue, I want to clarify something. What is property to you, and how do you determine what belongs to who? To me (really to everyone) property rights are a societal creation, the same thing as money. Just like the USD is actually just a piece of paper we instill with value via an agreement between people, your property is only your property because of an agreement between people. If you own a house, you have the right to defend that house because society agrees that the house belongs to you. If you, on the other hand, simply declared that something was your property without any basis in social agreement, this would not be the case. This is true even in libertarian property systems. You might be like Jrodefeld and have a big explination as to how property is actually some universal constant because you pissed on the ground and mixed your blood with it in a voodoo ritual. But the defining factor is whether other people honor your property rights, not whatever moral reasoning you come up with to explain them. If your moral reasoning was sufficent cause for something to belong to you, then it would apply in todays situation as well, but it does not, because society does not necessarily agree with it. Since property breaks down to 'what belongs to who', and is totally at the whim of society, then society is also clearly capable of deciding that the money you pay in taxes is not actually money that belongs to you. We can decide that the government (yet another social creation, just like money or property) has a moral right to collect taxation. They might even phrase it like: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So why do you believe that taxation is somehow exempt from this societal agreement? We make all sorts of agreements with one another, and taxation is just one of many. quote:Otherwise, we've just established you're actually an anarchist - you just didn't know it yet. You see, every single tax dollar spent means that we've been *forced* to support whatever the dollar was spent on. If you accept that we all have the right to use our property as we see fit, then you cannot support the state any longer (because the state is based on violating that right). The issue of force is another trixie little libertarian thing where you like to redefine a term to mean something it doesn't in practice. I've mentioned this a bunch in the thread, but I'll bring it up with you here. In your society, you have the right to defend your property with force. If someone steps on your land you can remove them, if they resist you can call someone to force them off. If they get violent you can kill them. Libertarians fully believe in the usage of force to protect what belongs to them. As I mentioned above however, the argument for the state is that what you see as 'theft' only works because you are attempting to redefine what belongs to whom. Under our current moral and legal framework your taxes do not belong to you. You can argue that the framework is wrong, but then the question becomes, why? Why is your moral framework somehow better than the one accepted by the vast majority of Canadians, Americans, British, French and so forth? As for your Mafia comparison. Is my condo association the mafia? They take money from me simply for owning a home inside the condo association, and they can take more or less depending on a democratic agreement between tenants. They can spend it on things I think are stupid, and I only have the say that my vote allows. You might argue that I chose to live there, but that applies to you just as well. If you argue that you were born here and thus don't have a choice, I'll go one further. What if I had a child who inherited my home after my death? They'd have all the same obligations that I have now, the condo board would legally be allowed to take money from them for owning the home. Is that theft? quote:Even sociopaths know that extortion is immoral, they just don't give a gently caress. But if you're not one, it will be clear to you that: Man, like... don't be a sheep! Free your mind! You are making a lot of assertions that are not backed up by anything except a moral view based on a priori assumptions. The problem is that your whole argument only works if we agree with those assumptions. If for example, we don't agree that Taxation is extortion because we believe in a social contract then the above reads like this: -Taxation is legal -Extortion is immoral -Governments are based on taxation (=/= extortion) -Governments are moral. You have to do better than throwing out your warped view of legality. I've told a lot of ancaps over the years that if they want any chance at EVER having their ideology taken seriously, they need to show how it would somehow be better than what we have currently. Because a moral argument based around 'CAPITALISM IS THE BEST!' isn't going anywhere. Please, tell me where I am wrong here. Make an actual argument rather than spewing talking points and telling us how we are all evil and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? poo poo, you're right, I am totally convinced by this articulate rebuttal. I see the light now!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:But really, what a sad existence you all live. Here you are, day in, day out.. week after week, year after year.. celebrating your ignorance, waiting for a victim to troll, and circle-jerking about whatever strikes your fancy. You are a truly pitiful bunch of sad, sad losers. I bet most of you are sociopaths too, and the kind of sub-human scum that has no redeeming qualities. You literally concluded your first post in the thread with the direct implication that none of us were capable of independent thought, then were apparently offended when we decided not to be polite with you! Now you're complaining about our tone in the same post that contains this. You function at the intellectual level of a teenager and are an embarrassment to you country, your education system, and your species. Please, live by your principles, disavail yourself of your nation's commendable social safety network, and die of exposure somewhere unobstructive. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? I missed you! I won't call you names or make false statements, I swear. I just want you to take a little time to answer these questions so that I can better understand ancap libertarianism: Here's a hypothetical: my community full of libertarians gets together and we voluntarily form the "Main Street Committee." We voluntarily pool together some funds and we voluntarily build a road going through the center of our town. We put up a sign at each end saying "committee-members only", non-members have to voluntarily join the committee and pay dues in order to use the road or else they're violating our property rights. The road that we built is awesome, so eventually we get enough membership that we're able to start providing other services, such as police protection, fire coverage, etc. You might not support the use of your funds for fire coverage (you just want to walk/drive on the road), but we say "it's our road, so you either pay dues and get to use the road or you don't get to use the road. Usage of the road without paying dues is a violation of the NAP" 1) If you refuse to become a committee member and pay dues, but you still use the road, would you agree that you're violating our property rights? 2) What if we rename the committee "the United States of America". Is it still a violation of our property rights for you to use the road without paying dues? 3) What if we rename the dues and start calling them "taxes"? 4) What if we use your "taxes" and pay for the invasion of a nearby town? Note that you never consented to your tax dollars being used for war, you just wanted to drive on the road; but you love that road so very much. Of course, you can always leave and go to a different town (just like you could leave this country and go somewhere else), but the road here is so much nicer than the road in Somalia-town, even though it's free to use, and you don't like having to deal with the warlords there, so you'd much rather stay here. What do you do? If you refuse to pay dues (or "taxes") for driving on our road, is it still a violation of the NAP and/or our property rights? Suppose I steal a bunch of money from you. That's a violation of the NAP but I do it anyway. I use that money to buy a car. 5) Is driving the car an ongoing violation of the NAP? 6) Is it immoral for me to continue using the car that I purchased with money that I stole? Instead of the hypothetical above where I steal your money, I stole a bunch of money from someone else and then used that money to buy you a car. 7) Is it immoral for you to use that car that was purchased with money that I stole? Another hypothetical: a company in an ancap libertarian society is dumping toxic waste into the water table, but there are several businesses that could be doing this. 8) How do you know which company to blame/sue/whatever? 9) What if there's only one culprit, but all of the companies that could be responsible for the damage just blame each other? Who sorts out this mess, and how? 10) If you can pinpoint a single culprit, how do you collect compensation and how do you fix the damage? What if their DRO refuses to pay out? 11) Even if you get the company to accept responsibility, what if they just choose to go out of business instead of dealing with the problem? Do you just have to move away now that your water is hosed? 12) What if the scenario in question 11 plays out everywhere, and all of the water is hosed? Where do you go then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? "Don't think I'm mad or that I care about what you guys think of me. *writes seven more paragraphs about how much he doesn't care*" You really are adorable. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
shiranaihito, you appear to make statements without backing them up with evidence or real world examples. Should we assume you are a big fan of HHH's argumentation ethics, aka I'm right, you're wrong because I said so?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I don't know, shiranaihito, it seemed like you and I were having a good discussion about slavery without any namecalling, but then you abruptly dropped the conversation when I and others provided both historical and contemporary examples of slavery being massively profitable with or without state support and indeed even profitable in contemporary times even in states that make positive efforts to suppress it. It's clear that slavery does not require state support or else human trafficking wouldn't be an issue in the first world today. So what's up? How do we enforce the NAP? You could fall back on DROs but it's pretty obvious that a child sex slave or a kidnapped foreigner isn't going to have the means to pay for one, and relying on human charity to abolish slavery has a...less than favorable historical record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know, shiranaihito, it seemed like you and I were having a good discussion about slavery without any namecalling, but then you abruptly dropped the conversation when I and others provided both historical and contemporary examples of slavery being massively profitable with or without state support and indeed even profitable in contemporary times even in states that make positive efforts to suppress it. Oh come the gently caress off it VitalSigns you hideous land-whale, piece of poo poo on humanity's boot! Thomas DiLorenzo clearly covered in his book Lincoln: Mass Murderer of the South, that slavery could have peaceably been done away with using only market forces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? You seem to care quite a bit about not caring. Shall I assume that you're actually upset because your mission here to educate the Philistines failed when you were laughed off the forums? 'Cause you're being quite a bit more insulting than anybody here was, and really just plain adorable. I'd love to see the logic flow-chart here, if you've got some time. "People on a forum disagree with me and are annoying" -> "They're meanies who think that land-faring belugas (if you have one, by the way, medical science would like to know) are capable of iterating numbers" -> "I am correct and justified" -> "I should go insult them". Shine on, you crazy diamond.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
On the bright side, we don't really have to worry about AnCap gaining popular ground if its adherents don't bother with the persuasion part and simply skip to calling people worse than sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:On the bright side, we don't really have to worry about AnCap gaining popular ground if its adherents don't bother with the persuasion part and simply skip to calling people worse than sociopaths. As a former An Cap I don't think we ever have to worry about that. The problem is that what they want is directly opposed to the wellbeing of too many people to ever get off the ground. Imagine the hosed up things that would have to happen to change public opinion enough that ending social security entirely would be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:As a former An Cap I don't think we ever have to worry about that. Unfortunately, "well social security will be gone by the time I'm old enough to retire so who cares about it" is an opinion depressingly common among my peers 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You kept trolling me by calling me names, misrepresenting anything/everything I've said, making statements you know are false, and so on.. and it worked for a while because I actually give a gently caress about what's true and what's rational and objective etc. You don't. shiranaihito posted:I have no idea where you're getting that from, I doubt it's true (without state involvement), and I don't want to bother investigating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 00:21
|
|