|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's got to be a photo of himself, let's be serious here. Close but not quite.  Its probably the painting of him arguing in front of the supreme court while multiple other people also paint him. Gotta get Maximum Cruz.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
How many people self-identifying as, and working with, and supported by, Libertarians do we need to have espousing "non-Libertarian" views before the meaning of Libertarian changes, though? Our current definition of "Libertarian" is not the first one, and it changed in the first place because everyone started using it differently. Now it's Republicans for Weed, IMO, since everyone identifying as Libertarian is about 98% for property rights, 1% for guns, and 1% for weed. Gays only come up when they need a political tagline, though that doesn't stop them from vehemently opposing gay marriage under the guise of "States' Rights" or "let's get the govt. out of ALL marriage" positions. They hate black people, they hate women, and they're "divided" over abortion (i.e., about half of them hate it and the other half don't care enough to see it as an issue worth talking about). Every time a property rights issue comes up libertarians are firm and united. When social issues come up they start hemming and hawing and dodging the question. So how do we know that Cruz or the Pauls are not just particularly vocal, but modern, libertarians? Why do we need to pretend that libertarians always have and always will be the same, and that all the "Libertarians" being championed by other libertarians are just fakes? Are all the people out there with Ron/Rand Paul stickers on their cars just lying to themselves, or are they what libertarians are in 2010s America?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Funny, I thought neo-confederacy and libertarianism in the south was one and the same. Am I wrong? American-style libertarianism is a totally marginal political movement that is only seriously subscribed to by fringe weirdos like Ron Paul or Ayn Rand plus a relative handful of their dork fans on the internet. China Mieville's awesome critique of seasteading said it way better than I can, but libertarianism is basically an ideology of losers who cling to a fantasy of being winners, whereas the real elite loves the government because it works for them. Libertarianism sometimes appears to have an actual political significance, but it's a scam: where they overlap with the conservative program (cutting taxes and eliminating services that help the bottom 90% of the population) libertarian ideas get a lot of play, but wherever they clash with the conservative program (police state, war on drugs, militarism, corporate subsidies) they get zero play. At most Ted Cruz might appear to be a libertarian if pretending suited his purposes at any given moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Because those right-wingers don't adhere to the core tenets of Libertarian philosophy such as the Non-Aggression Principle and prefer to use coercion to achieve their ends. Of course from another perspective that actually makes them good Libertarians since Libertarian philosophy is just a smokescreen for using coercion to achieve the ends of the ruling class by defining what they do as non-coercive. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:Now I'm just getting an image of some sort of twisted Bas-Relief. Where we're going, you won't need eyes to Tea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
So I've met something that I never believed existed, my new friend at the museum who has a job I've been trying to apply for tells me he is a libertarian. Now this guy is kind of cool, share a lot of interests though disagree on stuff. I was expecting the worst, but then again I was a Penn & Teller Libertarian for a few years that I wish had back so we started shooting the poo poo. I told him that I was a libertarian until I realized I didn't want to be a selfish rear end in a top hat and I hate big businesses. He agrees with me  He thinks that corporations are not only worse than the government, but the main reason why our government is so bad. I mean isn't loving corporations and capitalism basically what being a libertarian is all about? What subsect could he belong to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Left Libertarianism is a thing, and was the original term before anarcho-capitalists co-opted it. Of course, he could just be jrodefeld style, hate corporations because they corrupt the government and receive benefits from the state (like limited liability), and naively think that if we got rid of the state that powerful groups of people would magically play fair through a combination of intrinsic goodness and his own savvy ability to vote with his feet and only do business with fair people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Left Libertarianism is a thing, and was the original term before anarcho-capitalists co-opted it. Or when people ask, since we recognize the role governments play in strengthening and maintaining corporate power, if we should redistribute wealth to at the very least reset the economic playing field prior to the implementation of a True Free Market, dismantle corporations as they were co-conspirators with the state in their robbing the working class, or at the very least some sort of arrangement so that if you are today poor and in debt we should use state resources to pull you out of it and give you a fighting chance in Libertopia through taxation on those who have forced the taxpayers to subsidize their sub-living wages they pay their employees, we suddenly get a lot of hand wringing and "Ooh well see that would be complicated, and Not All Corporations, and that happened in the past so we really can't get all hot and bothered over who stole from who..." Not saying your friend is a shithead for sure mind you, just that right libertarians sometimes also complain about corporations, but are totally unwilling to deal with them because there always seems to be something that makes it too tricky, a problem they never find when it comes to their complaints about the government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I know I'm a bit late to the party on debating Molyneux, but what if instead of trying to directly oppose his beliefs and prove him wrong since that's not really tenable on a radio show where he has utter control over the tone of the debate, try to shape arguments that will bait him into elaborating on principles that he legitimately believes are good but that would be utterly horrific to anyone listening who isn't already two-fisting the koolaid. You can't convince him that DROs don't represent true freedom, but getting him to cheerfully prattle on about his Orwellian Dystopia dream world where children are born as property and sexual
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:American-style libertarianism is a totally marginal political movement that is only seriously subscribed to by fringe weirdos like Ron Paul or Ayn Rand plus a relative handful of their dork fans on the internet. China Mieville's awesome critique of seasteading said it way better than I can, but libertarianism is basically an ideology of losers who cling to a fantasy of being winners, whereas the real elite loves the government because it works for them. Libertarianism sometimes appears to have an actual political significance, but it's a scam: where they overlap with the conservative program (cutting taxes and eliminating services that help the bottom 90% of the population) libertarian ideas get a lot of play, but wherever they clash with the conservative program (police state, war on drugs, militarism, corporate subsidies) they get zero play. I thank you for your thoughtful insight. It was very revealing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I know I'm a bit late to the party on debating Molyneux, but what if instead of trying to directly oppose his beliefs and prove him wrong since that's not really tenable on a radio show where he has utter control over the tone of the debate, try to shape arguments that will bait him into elaborating on principles that he legitimately believes are good but that would be utterly horrific to anyone listening who isn't already two-fisting the koolaid. You can't convince him that DROs don't represent true freedom, but getting him to cheerfully prattle on about his Orwellian Dystopia dream world where children are born as property and sexual I was thinking of something like this. I might be willing to call in and ask if it is a violation of the NAP to drive on the left side of the road. I don't know what his schedule is like, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:I was thinking of something like this. I might be willing to call in and ask if it is a violation of the NAP to drive on the left side of the road. I don't know what his schedule is like, though. I'll save you the trouble. It would be, because the roads are privately owned so if the owner doesn't permit that then you are aggregating against his property and he is entitled to defend it with reasonable and proportional artillery fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'll save you the trouble. It would be, because the roads are privately owned so if the owner doesn't permit that then you are aggregating against his property and he is entitled to defend it with reasonable and proportional artillery fire. Yeah but I'm just talking about in the United States as it is right now. If he wants to argue that the NAP has no practical application in our daily lives until the moment of full-libertarianism, then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'll save you the trouble. It would be, because the roads are privately owned so if the owner doesn't permit that then you are aggregating against his property and he is entitled to defend it with reasonable and proportional artillery fire. Okay, what about passing on the left side at sea? Or flying east at an even altitude?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
The US government owns the roads. Sure it came by them via coercion but that's in the past so it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Okay, what about passing on the left side at sea? Or flying east at an even altitude? Uh. Your Piracy Resolution Organization would specify who has right-of-way at sea and have interlocking contracts with other PROs. If you violate their seamanship standards, they will not defend you if a lawsuit arises from damages you caused thereby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:I was thinking of something like this. I might be willing to call in and ask if it is a violation of the NAP to drive on the left side of the road. I don't know what his schedule is like, though. He'd probably just answer something like "So let me get this straight, you're trying to kill people with your car by driving opposite the traffic flow? Dude WTF why would you do that?" and the point would never get made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:American-style libertarianism is a totally marginal political movement that is only seriously subscribed to by fringe weirdos like Ron Paul or Ayn Rand plus a relative handful of their dork fans on the internet. Except for those pesky Koch brothers who fund all those think tanks, and organize all those rich donors, and are all dumping all that money into the current election cycle? http://www.kochind.com/Newsroom/EconomicFreedom.aspx Want to Learn More? Followed by straight up link to Mises. That's as libertarian as it gets (and I can go into way more detail if you'd like). All those Freedom or Liberty PACs pushing GOP candidates are marginal? There are different wings/denominations of Libertarianism and only identifying the Paulites or internet types as libertarian is a dangerous mistake. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I know I'm a bit late to the party on debating Molyneux, but what if instead of trying to directly oppose his beliefs and prove him wrong since that's not really tenable on a radio show where he has utter control over the tone of the debate, try to shape arguments that will bait him into elaborating on principles that he legitimately believes are good but that would be utterly horrific to anyone listening who isn't already two-fisting the koolaid. You can't convince him that DROs don't represent true freedom, but getting him to cheerfully prattle on about his Orwellian Dystopia dream world where children are born as property and sexual Honestly, this is the best way to handle demagogues. If you attack their beliefs they have plausible deniability, and people will be sympathetic to the person being attacked. If you provide a willing ear, and allow them to say what they feel, with gentle leading you can get them to horrify everyone with their true beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Honestly, this is the best way to handle demagogues. If you attack their beliefs they have plausible deniability, and people will be sympathetic to the person being attacked. If you provide a willing ear, and allow them to say what they feel, with gentle leading you can get them to horrify everyone with their true beliefs. I think the major problem is that what we find horrifying might be entirely different to libertarians. When I was a "libertarian" I was OK with some particularly awful poo poo because I believed a magical solution would emerge once the free market was unshackled. And we have quoted Molyneux and his contemporaries in this very thread doing the exact same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Except for those pesky Koch brothers who fund all those think tanks, and organize all those rich donors, and are all dumping all that money into the current election cycle? When one considers the Kochs fight for their subsidies, I think their libertarianism is largely only when it comes to taxes on their business, not whether they get government welfare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Hypocrisy generally does not remove one from being identified with a particular group. Most (All?) people are hypocrites about something related to the group/ideology they belong to / identify with. Edit: Is it really viable to suggest D. Koch, actual libertarian candidate for president at one point, is not within Libertarianism? It's like fundamentalists arguing that Catholics are not Christians. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
It's actually extremely common among mainstream libertarians (and some hardcores) to ignore the ideology when it becomes slightly detrimental.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:I think the major problem is that what we find horrifying might be entirely different to libertarians. When I was a "libertarian" I was OK with some particularly awful poo poo because I believed a magical solution would emerge once the free market was unshackled. And we have quoted Molyneux and his contemporaries in this very thread doing the exact same. Sure, but there's no way you're going to do anything about the diehard believers by getting shouted down on the man's own radio show. Those people are too far gone already. Instead, the idea would be to expose the depths of his beliefs to the less devout or merely curious and possibly provide material for later criticisms. Also the Koch's basically just don't want to pay taxes or deal with government regulations, I seriously doubt they care about anything other than letting themselves become even more enormously rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Charles Koch has an raging boner for Libertarianism and there is a mountain, just reams and reams, of evidence for this publicly available. "don't want to pay taxes" and don't want to "deal with government regulations" "doubt they care about anything other than letting themselves become even more enormously rich" that's your argument that they aren't Libertarians. I think the whole "Kochs aren't Libertarians" line is a consequence of the Rothbard / Hayek split within Libertarian groups. http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/a-tale-of-two-libertarianisms
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Another way to say it, how effective are evangelicals when they go to a random place (say a amusement park) and randomly just corner people and talk about Jesus. They aren't very effective (and they (the evangelicals doing it) actually keep stats on that type of stuff too* more below), they put people off, they come off as assholes. So that's the risk of not having common ground. You end up looking like shiranaihito, or an evangelical and it's just not effective. Should we continue recruiting isolated Libertarians and subject them to rigorously recorded interrogation sessions, scrubbing the thread between subjects? Is it possible to have a control group, and what would it be? I guess what you're trying to say is that artisanal arguments are inefficient, that we need to produce proficient propaganda practices? Doesn't that run the risk of rendering the truth of any proposed statement or set of beliefs irrelevant? BrandorKP posted:Yes that is a very real danger. The alternative is only throwing stones at heads, kerygma. Proclaiming at them, preaching at them. They do a lot of that too. It ends up looking like Jrodenfeld or when it's really terrible it can look like this: It's discouraging enough to make think Argumentum ad Baculum isn't so much a logical fallacy as it is a realistic goal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:I was thinking of something like this. I might be willing to call in and ask if it is a violation of the NAP to drive on the left side of the road. I don't know what his schedule is like, though. His call in show is every wednesday night and every saturday night at 8 pm SedanChair posted:It seems like a broad series of insults about Molyneux's hosed up worldview whenever you have a moment to speak, followed by an abrupt disclosure of his wife's professional issues would be the best approach. Just make him look foolish to the unconverted. It's possible, it's been done to Rush and Molyneux's a scrub tier host compared to Rush. I don't think this will work, he's studied Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and is very good at shutting down ridicule as a weapon and even turning it around on the person trying to use it against him, especially when they bring up his whole wife/defooing scandal. He's too prepared for it. Plus resorting to personal attacks is just a lovely tactic in general and almost always reflects poorly on the mudslinger. It may score points with the people already on your side of the fence, but even if it's a good zinger rarely wins over fence sitters, unless they're idiots just looking to watch a wrestling match. No, I'm convinced the only way to really win a debate with him would be to overwhelm him with logic and evidence. Global Warming may be an angle easier to get him on, but I'm no climate scientist. achillesforever6 posted:So I've met something that I never believed existed, my new friend at the museum who has a job I've been trying to apply for tells me he is a libertarian. Now this guy is kind of cool, share a lot of interests though disagree on stuff. I was expecting the worst, but then again I was a Penn & Teller Libertarian for a few years that I wish had back so we started shooting the poo poo. I told him that I was a libertarian until I realized I didn't want to be a selfish rear end in a top hat and I hate big businesses. He agrees with me Libertarians are against big corporations that rely on government lobbies and corrupt crony tactics to gain their wealth. They see crony capitalism as closer to socialism than as any sort of true free market capitalism. Libertarianism isn't all about loving corporations and capitalism, it's about the non aggression principle, which is what the debate with Molyneux was all about. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Sure, but there's no way you're going to do anything about the diehard believers by getting shouted down on the man's own radio show. Those people are too far gone already. Instead, the idea would be to expose the depths of his beliefs to the less devout or merely curious and possibly provide material for later criticisms. Right, which is why I would not engage them within their own hugbox, I would engage them in a neutral territory under moderated debate. Doing so does not require apology or pushing them down the path to revealing insane beliefs. In such a setting, reasonable observers would be fully engaged with empiricism over praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Honestly, this is the best way to handle demagogues. If you attack their beliefs they have plausible deniability, and people will be sympathetic to the person being attacked. If you provide a willing ear, and allow them to say what they feel, with gentle leading you can get them to horrify everyone with their true beliefs. Ron Paul, at a national presidential candidate debate, stated that sick people without health insurance coverage for their illness deserve to die. He was met with thunderous applause. Those who didn't approve of this monstrous message didn't seem to really care I think that the way that you combat conservative ideologies like libertarianism is to shift public opinion. Education on major issues can be one of many steps. If the populace was made to realize that conservative and libertarian policies are loving over most voters, then conservative ideologies lose steam
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:His call in show is ever wednesday night and every saturday night at 8 pm Oh well poo poo he's read the tome of power, better just give up while ahead.  The entire concept of debating this shithead is ridiculous and I don't know why D&D is so easily conned into debating the merits of it. Not all ideas of equal value, and the intense irony that libertarians use the implication that we should hear everyone out just because they're saying something and then proceed to try to rhetorically dismantle the very thing that allows them to exist by endlessly insisting their bullshit has some divine humanist insight that others are just ignorant of should cause their heads to explode through sheer anti-thought particles bouncing off each other. There is no authority walking this earth that can justify or make libertarianism as a philosophy ok. Least of all some gremlin who uses the structure of ssociety to set up a virtual hugbox for himself that he can never truly be challenged in, a god drat PODCAST on the INTERNET. Everyday someone new will muse about how Rush Limbaugh or Stephen Molynux or some other damned blight on humanity is just too clever or too practiced to be taken down. No poo poo but it has nothing to do with the validity of their ideas or philosophy. They are privileged, they through money and technology respectively have set up roman gladitorial arenas of thought that there is no way the house can lose, the house exists and that we tolerate and even at times backhandedly praise them for maintaining or doing it the first place for "being successful" is doing a disservice to the rest of humanity. He and they, doesn't deserve our time or thought outside of how he should be laid low and obliterated any time he steps out of his curated nest of acceptable threat to himself. So no, we will not debate Stephen Molynux. Apathy is my gift for the malicious of thought. They will not have a seat at my table, ever. However being a statist I will make sure there is always a table for them despite my utter contempt for them, because they are still human, they have a right to exist, just not to tear the world down with them. Bread and circuses for all, forever. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:
I didn't know you were the spokesman for D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
He is, actually, we held primaries and a general vote and everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:So no, we will not debate Stephen Molynux. Apathy is my gift for the malicious of thought. They will not have a seat at my table, ever. However being a statist I will make sure there is always a table for them despite my utter contempt for them, because they are still human, they have a right to exist, just not to tear the world down with them. Wow, you wrote that whole post. Molyneux et al will be so relieved at your magnanimity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:I didn't know you were the spokesman for D&D. Are you sure your a libertarian? You're showing an uncharacteristic awareness that other people exist and are capable of thought not prescribed by a famous libertarian or authority figure. I formally apologise to any goons who feel I have exhibited aggression to their individual thought process. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Are you sure your a libertarian? You're showing an uncharacteristic awareness that other people exist and are capable of thought not prescribed by a famous libertarian or authority figure. No one was seriously considering debating Molyneux. Calm down, Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I might debate him again, I sent an email to FDR so we'll see. I want to go deeper into the discussion about generational cycles and how patterns in history repeat themselves as people try to make up for the mistakes of the prior generations.
Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Please don't touch the Molyneux poop. He's a total loving idiot, and spending too much time trying to talk to someone who as dense, both in terms of verbosity and in terms of intelligence, as Molyneux is just a waste of your precious life. He can speak for 30 minutes on anything, but he that's because he's really good at stringing random facts together regardless of the point he's making. Like, watch his video on white privilege, in which he may or may not be an anti-Semite. Completely missing the point, he says "Because it took Jews 4.5 years to reach the same income levels as white, white privilege doesn't exist." Please, watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJMLWx6og He has zero historical perspective on Antisemitism in Europe as well as the historical treatments of the blacks. This is who you're trying to argue with. You're trying to argue with a man who can't loving understand how the world works and yet wants to spend his time discussing how the world should work. And he's given the game away many times. He's said many terrible things in his videos. If you honestly think that you're going to be the one to make him show how terrible he is to his listeners, you're wasting your time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Please don't touch the Molyneux poop. He's a total loving idiot, and spending too much time trying to talk to someone who as dense, both in terms of verbosity and in terms of intelligence, as Molyneux is just a waste of your precious life. He can speak for 30 minutes on anything, but he that's because he's really good at stringing random facts together regardless of the point he's making. Ugh. I've been talking to someone on and off for the last few days about this video. I pointed out that as just one example of white privilege, whites get called back for interviews 1.5 times as much solely based on their names compared to black people. If you change the name from Jemal to Adam you get 1.5x as many call backs. His reply? Well blacks should just change their names. They should just change their names, whites down't have privileged, blacks can be named Adam too, they just have to get their names changed. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
It just gets boring when everyone withdraws into their echo chambers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:It just gets boring when everyone withdraws into their echo chambers. This is true. This thread is way better when a libertarian is in here saying poo poo, for example. That doesn't mean that just anyone should act as a spokesperson in any situation, however. Even if it would be less boring, sending in an easy mark who's unprepared or otherwise unsuitable may only strengthen the opposition. We needn't provide our own straw men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:45
|
|