|
Am I being uncharitable to libertarians by thinking that these are two of their underlying principles? -Any action that does not (or cannot be proven to) effect the interests of living persons is permissible. -It is irrational to restrict actions when it cannot be demonstrated that a subject is harmed. What I have in mind is the arsenic embalming scenario from a few pages ago. While we may arguably have an interest in the lives of our own children or grandchildren, there is no clear subject who is harmed by a casket degrading in 150 years and releasing arsenic into the groundwater. Not only is it permissible to use such embalming methods but it would be irrational for a DRO to try to prevent the use of such methods. In essence, FYGM future generations
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Dude, they don't care about truth. They don't want to figure things out. They keep misrepresenting what you said, making claims they know are false, calling you names and annoying you. They're doing this because they get their psychopathic kicks from making you waste effort and time in trying to help them see how the world actually works. You want to help them, and they just want to abuse you. Look at everything they've said to you, and you'll see it matches what I'm suggesting here. They're inhuman scum, but they're not that dumb. We're not going anywhere. We are the monster under your bed. We are the men and women who vote to tax you to feed and shelter other "subhumans". Your neo-nazi idols such as Hoppe will not avail you of us, or of our tax-men. We will dash the heads of your children against the stones at the end of days and feast upon their addled brains.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:We're not going anywhere. We are the monster under your bed. We are the men and women who vote to tax you to feed and shelter other "subhumans". Your neo-nazi idols such as Hoppe will not avail you of us, or of our tax-men. We will dash the heads of your children against the stones at the end of days and feast upon their addled brains. Oh, that reminds me of a question I had, Hey, jrodefeld, what's it feel like knowing that you will never accomplish anything to change the political climate? Knowing that no matter what you do it will always be for nought and that the State is going to tax you whether you like it or not until the day you die?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
CSPAN Caller posted:Am I being uncharitable to libertarians by thinking that these are two of their underlying principles? What is the level of artificial estrogen in the water-table (a byproduct of metabolized birth-control) that we all agree is necessary for civilization? Can't trace it to any one person, and without a state to regulate water filtration and ensure that infrastructure is maintained it won't be removed from the water supply of major cities like it is now. Alternatively, who does a person with estrogen induced breast-cancer sue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
I think shiranaihito is a clever sockpuppet account that has been posting streams of deadpan ancap garbage for a while, waiting for just the right moment to try to coax Jrod off the internet with an impassioned speech where he seems to take Jrod's side. Very cunning. Also there is no way in hell that a libertopia, perhaps the definition of a chaotic anarchy, will be stable enough to produce a body of researchers, scientists and surveyors with enough funding, equipment, and knowedge to actually measure for pollution and wastage in their nightmare dystopia. poo poo will be pumped into the water table the live long day and anyone who approaches the spewing sludge pipes with what looks even remotely like measurement equipment will be shot on sight. When stillbirths, deaths and disease in the town starts to skyrocket it will be blamed on poor moral character, and this explanation will be believed, because the education system will also have crumbled. A purge on parasites will be announced, and the town ritually cleanses itself of undesirables for the 3rd time in a decade...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if we're just too alien  to ever really understand each other. Like, we've got similar information and draw wildly different conclusions.I hadn't heard that anecdote before, caros, thanks. But like, if it were enough to change you that drastically, then what effect does it have on someone like jrodefeld or shiranaito? It's confusing for me because I have absolutely no idea why I'm not still a...probably more neoconservative than libertarian, but still. I can't point to any event that explains why I was one way once, and am the other way now, why some things stopped making sense, and others started making sense. Who What Now posted:Oh, that reminds me of a question I had,   Even taking into account Sheeple talk, I'm just most irritated that I haven't even gotten an acknowledgment of my questions. Even an insult is better than being treated like you don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:It's confusing for me because I have absolutely no idea why I'm not still a...probably more neoconservative than libertarian, but still. I can't point to any event that explains why I was one way once, and am the other way now, why some things stopped making sense, and others started making sense. For me (onetime libertarian, now pretty much socialist) it was moving from an extremely affluent town to an ordinary college town, where I made friends with 70-year-old parents still working 40-hour weeks, who needed food stamps to survive, only able to afford college because of federal gransts, etc. It's easy to think "The government should protect the borders and deliver the mail and that's it" when you hatched in the nest of privilege. Hopefully a person with critical thinking and a little introspection realizes how important government assistance is when (and if) they head out into the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Here is an article for you to start with, authored by Stephan Kinsella. Kinsella has done far more work on IP than almost any other libertarian author and his arguments must be confronted before you think about dismissing the anti-IP position. First off, ip and copyright is something I studied in college. So if I'm dismissive, it's because I'm actually talking about something I understand. Secondly, I read the article and found the arguments so off the wall and completely missing the point. I'll ask you a simple question. Why would I put forth millions of dollars and hire skilled people to produce a film if my investment would not be protected? If anyone can make a copy of my work, then why bother? A creative endeavor takes a lot of work and effort. So why is it given less protection than the work and effort that I put into building a house or farming the land?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:First off, ip and copyright is something I studied in college. So if I'm dismissive, it's because I'm actually talking about something I understand. The answer is simple; libertarians are uncreative parasites that wish to endlessly steal ideas from people much more intelligent and creative than they are and churn out a cheaper, inferior product to make a quick buck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld, are you really not going to respond to our revelation that Mr. Hoppe believes humanity should be divided into fiefdoms ruled by hereditarily superior god-kings?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
zeal posted:jrodefeld, are you really not going to respond to our revelation that Mr. Hoppe believes humanity should be divided into fiefdoms ruled by hereditarily superior god-kings? "I don't agree with everything Mr.Hoppe does or says. Most of his points are important, and a few fringe beliefs should not detract from that." or "You are taking the quote about hereditary god kings out of context."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
 -Ancap Shrugged
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Have y'all ever considered the argument that a benevolent fascist dictatorship would be better than democracy? Really makes ya think
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Have y'all ever considered the argument that a benevolent fascist dictatorship would be better than democracy? I'm personally a big fan of benevolent cannibalistic psychopaths personally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:First off, ip and copyright is something I studied in college. So if I'm dismissive, it's because I'm actually talking about something I understand. Given that Jrod is a true believer, and that there are presumably enough people out there dumb enough to buy into his ancap chat, why doesn't some enterprising Goon copy and paste (maybe some editing would be required) his greatest hits and publish it as a for profit book, ebook or pamphlet series? He can hardly sue as it'd be against ancap beliefs, the most important thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Have y'all ever considered the argument that a benevolent fascist dictatorship would be better than democracy? I prefer a mob run dictatorship where the collective has through contract decided to remove all fascist, libertarians, theocrats, neoliberals, advocates of traditional relationships and make them available for enslavement as not being suitable for life decisions in the collective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Have y'all ever considered the argument that a benevolent fascist dictatorship would be better than democracy? You're a brilliant thinker, I don't agree with everything you say of course. Libertarians have different opinions. This is me distancing myself from you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
In reading about libertarian views on IP, stumbled across this gem:Stephan Kinsella posted:One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP rights are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires both a legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect of IP. Good to have a reminder that libertarians really do feel that those unable to work are unworthy of life 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Incumbency rates are too high; bring back hereditary aristocracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:In reading about libertarian views on IP, stumbled across this gem: I think you mean this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Dude, they don't care about truth. They don't want to figure things out. They keep misrepresenting what you said, making claims they know are false, calling you names and annoying you. They're doing this because they get their psychopathic kicks from making you waste effort and time in trying to help them see how the world actually works. You want to help them, and they just want to abuse you. Look at everything they've said to you, and you'll see it matches what I'm suggesting here. They're inhuman scum, but they're not that dumb. Shiranaihito. Do you believe that there is any internally consistent set of values for which libertarianism is not the most fulfilling form of governance? If not, then you're not even providing us a chance to have an actual debate and discussion, because we're talking about completely different things. I accept that libertarianism is a valid ideology in order to fulfill a specific set of ideals about the world, I just happen to disagree with those morals and think that the consequences of your system would vastly outweigh its benefits. I am fully willing to admit that both my values and the system I think will maximize them could be wrong, and that I should revise them if they can be shown to be incorrect. However, you're coming from the position that libertarianism is the only valid system that anyone can believe in, and you do not accept that we could possibly be coming at this from different value sets. Part of honest debate is the recognition that you might be wrong. You have failed to acknowledge this. Until you stop treating this like a lecture rather than a discussion, there is no possible way an honest debate could occur. As such, I will continue to laugh at you until you get off your high horse and put some skin in the game. TLDR: you're loving adorable, please tell me more about how I'm statist scum using ad hominem attacks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I agree with Shinji that we, being ordinary people, are highly irrational.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Karia posted:I accept that libertarianism is a valid ideology in order to fulfill a specific set of ideals about the world, Uh, well let's not be hasty. I accept that libertarianism is a valid ideology in order to fulfill a specific set of ideas about a world, but an epistemology that rejects empiricism can't really be said to have ideas that relate in any way to the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh, well let's not be hasty. I accept that libertarianism is a valid ideology in order to fulfill a specific set of ideas about a world, but an epistemology that rejects empiricism can't really be said to have ideas that relate in any way to the world. You beat me to it. There's a reason why libertarians always resort to hypothetical worlds that are vastly different from reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You beat me to it. There's a reason why libertarians always resort to hypothetical worlds that are vastly different from reality. Such as one containing benevolent monarchs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Incumbency rates are too high; bring back hereditary aristocracy. Well obviously incumbency wouldn't be the terrible scourge it is under the tyranny of the mob if the 100% incumbency rate is due to the prowess of the Natural Social Elites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:
Did you seriously suggest that anybody follow Larken Rose's example? The guy is an idiot who did time for tax evasion. Also, complaining that we're using big words and complicated ideas to argue with you is stupid. That's like saying, yah, avoid dealing with people who actually know things and you too can win arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
"Are people rational actors"? A completely nonsense ephemeral academic question about a philosophy that depends on assuming people are rational actors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Are people rational actors"? Because he's to busy explaining the truth about the way the world actually works if you're an adult who has the worldview of a five year old! He had no time for your book learning!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Have y'all ever considered the argument that a benevolent fascist dictatorship would be better than democracy? That part was amusing. "Benevolent monarchy would be better than democracy" is the sort of bullshit I'd throw around with friends in high school, under the impression that monarchy is somehow more efficient than democracy. It is, I suppose, if you want to distribute favours to your friends at everyone else's expense more efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:That part was amusing. "Benevolent monarchy would be better than democracy" is the sort of bullshit I'd throw around with friends in high school, under the impression that monarchy is somehow more efficient than democracy. It is, I suppose, if you want to distribute favours to your friends at everyone else's expense more efficiently. The real question, I think, is whether a benevolent monarchy would be better or worse than a benevolent democracy? What about a state of benevolent nature? What if we were all beings composed of pure energy? Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The real question, I think, is whether a benevolent monarchy would be better or worse than a benevolent democracy? What about a state of benevolent nature? What if we were all beings composed of pure energy? Makes you think. Benevolent Malacracy. Sure, it's a government that's out to harm you by nature. But it does so benevolently!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If I was seeking to cite some statistic or fact to back up a point I was making I could link to some non-political independent resource for such facts. Jrodefeld, while these are all very well I have three questions for you: 1. There is a dog that can lift four hundred thousand pounds and fly through the air at supersonic speeds. How does this impact modern police work? (The dog is somewhat mean, but not necessarily evil) 2. What if every Thursday the laws of physics and biology altered themselves, radically, to a point where humans could eat through sheet steel using their (Thursday only) ultra-sharp teeth and acid-breath. What would you build ships out of were this true? 3. If there were a machine that could eradicate certain (unpleasant or otherwise) memories, can I gently caress your wife?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:That part was amusing. "Benevolent monarchy would be better than democracy" is the sort of bullshit I'd throw around with friends in high school, under the impression that monarchy is somehow more efficient than democracy. It is, I suppose, if you want to distribute favours to your friends at everyone else's expense more efficiently. What amused me most was the way, for threads and threads pver years and years, jrodefeld dismisses every example of deregulation failing abysmally by retreating into unfalsifiability because "well that was No True Libertarianism" and "well there was still a State so we can assume everything bad is its fault" But then he just goes and throws out "oh yeah, monarchy is totally the best state if you're going to have one". You know, that system literally from the dark ages that was so consistently warlike and so universally guilty of atrocities to humam rights, so reviled that the minute people in the 17th century started accepting the idea that humans have rights, commoners started executing kings for crimes against humanity. Yep let's just pick one of the most demonstrably horrible systems in history...oh but those weren't benevolent monarchies so you see No True Benevolent Monarchy has ever been tried. If your king or his kid starts killing people, sorry slugger guess he wasn't the True Natural Elite, better luck next time. A benevolent monarchy is the best government because if it's not then it wasn't benevolent 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
take a drink for every libertarian that wins an election tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:take a drink for every libertarian that wins an election tonight. Is it possible to die of sobriety poisoning?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh, well let's not be hasty. I accept that libertarianism is a valid ideology in order to fulfill a specific set of ideas about a world, but an epistemology that rejects empiricism can't really be said to have ideas that relate in any way to the world. HHH's feudalism, anyone? For people who think that would be the best system, libertarianism is amazing. I'm not trying to say that any of these ideals are good, just that it's possible to arrive at libertarianism from a consistent set of moral values. I disagree with those moral values, and you'd need to be at a very low information level, but it could happen. Jumping to libertarianism because freedom is an internally consistent ideal, it's just stupid and it's the externalities that cause problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If I was seeking to cite some statistic or fact to back up a point I was making I could link to some non-political independent resource for such facts. There's two points to consider: First off, when your posts come solely from Mises.org, it makes you look like you aren't well read, like you don't have a wide base of knowledge, like your understanding of the arguments you're putting forward is weak. It shows a narrow world view. I often feel like you want to be an expert on everything, and instead of saying "Hey look, I don't understand intellectual property enough to really have a good view on it," you instead start espousing nonsensical arguments that are put down with barely any work. I don't even need to do any real research to explain why your arguments are wrong. Do you realize how bad your arguments are if that's the case? Yes. I know more about IP than the average person, but I shouldn't be able to just say "Hey, Aliens costed millions of dollars to make" and use that obvious bit of trivia as an argument against your philosophy. Your reliance on Mises.org makes it sound like you don't know when you can't argue, so you look something up, read it, and just spit it back out at us hoping that maybe you won't come off as ignorant. Like, I'm not going to talk too much about economics because I know very little about economics except some super high level stuff. Secondly, philosophy IS about how we deal with the real world. Our philosophy should be based on the facts, not based on what we want to believe. The fact that you can't come up with independent sources and statistics to defend your arguments and can only present a poorly written article from Mises.org means to me that you don't have the facts to defend your assertions. Your arguments rely entirely on a logical construction, and they start to fall apart pretty quickly because it's pretty hard to argue with the facts. You can say what you want about universal health care, but if I show you that it works really well in Australia, Canada, and the UK, it doesn't matter if my arguments are constructed in the most logically sound manner. Facts speak louder than logic. But if you understood logic, you'd know that. jrodefeld posted:Here is an article for you to start with, authored by Stephan Kinsella. Kinsella has done far more work on IP than almost any other libertarian author and his arguments must be confronted before you think about dismissing the anti-IP position. Why? Just because someone talks a lot doesn't mean that's it is worth anything. His argument is the one that's against the norm. You should be able to tell me why his argument is compelling beyond "he talks a lot." Otherwise, you would have won every one in this thread over. Now, to confront it directly: his claim that intellectual property grants person A, the creator, power over person B's property is absurd and idiotic that it is laughable on it's face. Like Frank Zappa said - the best argument against something is the argument for it. In short - it ignores a few basic point. One is that creative work is hard work. Just because the results aren't strictly tangible doesn't mean that someone else can reap the benefits of someone else's labor. If I write a great novel, you shouldn't be able to just print it out and sell it because you own a printer and paper, and how dare I tell you what to do with your printer. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the value in a book, record, CD, blu-ray, canvas, or any tangible media is the content it contains. The cost of paper is much cheaper than the cost of a book. We pay more for the book because the value is in the words printed to the page. So it can be said that you're increasing the value of your property by taking my words and using them for your benefit. Your paper wouldn't be worth as much if it was just blank. So why am I not entitled to a cut of the money you make? After all, could you produce a great novel? One paragraph to completely dismiss Kinsella's entire body of work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:There's two points to consider: Considering he wanted to talk about epistemology without knowing the first thing about it, that may well be the case. Kant, recently voted the most important (Western) philosopher of all time by people who work in the field, literally got into writing major works of philosophy to defend rationalism (the idea that logic alone can teach us some things) against Hume's hardline empiricism, and wrote his most important work on it (the Critique of Pure Reason), and yet didn't take a hundredth as strong a position on it as JRod did (I don't think anyone has defended pure rationalism since before Plato). It's really funny. I think JRod would make a good Philosophy major though. A pity the only use for it is law school, and that's glutted right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Considering he wanted to talk about epistemology without knowing the first thing about it, that may well be the case. Pfft, not its only use. Philosophy majors can go on to become philosophy teachers, as proven by Eripsa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:04
|
|