|
Political Whores posted:Sorry, if you think that talking about the innate superiority of western cultures of freedom while ignoring the racist, hypocritical colonial legacy that created them, then you are a racist. You, jrodfeld, are a reprehensible racist and your ideas are morally bankrupt. That is c clear by your defense of plainly biased and racist readings of history. It's very very important to keep in mind that racists never know or believe that they are racist. That's what so insidious about it, it pervades and permeates into every single thought a person has to such a degree that it becomes normal. It's like trying to see Paris from the center of the town. To racist people they believe that their thoughts are normal, self-evident observations that everyone has. And racist thoughts would be abnormal, and because they don't believe they are having abnormal thoughts then they can't be racist! I know for a fact that HHH is a racist, it's undeniable. I don't know if jrod is racist, but he's falling into a similar fallacy of thinking. What Hoppe says is libertarian and is thus normal, and because it is not abnormal it therefore cannot be racist. That's why jrod doesn't/cant admit or see what's wrong with what he says. Libertarian = good, racist = bad, good != bad, so libertarian != racist. That's his whole thought process. Now if jrod would actually think for himself and critically analyze his beliefs he'd realize the error in this thinking. But doing so is intellectually difficult and makes him very uncomfortable. So he instead waves it away or ignores it because that is much easier.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:I know for a fact that HHH is a racist, it's undeniable. I don't know if jrod is racist, but he's falling into a similar fallacy of thinking. What Hoppe says is libertarian and is thus normal, and because it is not abnormal it therefore cannot be racist. That's why jrod doesn't/cant admit or see what's wrong with what he says. Libertarian = good, racist = bad, good != bad, so libertarian != racist. That's his whole thought process. Now if jrod would actually think for himself and critically analyze his beliefs he'd realize the error in this thinking. But doing so is intellectually difficult and makes him very uncomfortable. So he instead waves it away or ignores it because that is much easier. How dare you suggest he question the faith!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
JRod, do you believe it is possible for a white man and a black man to open up hot dog stands that are in all ways completely identical other than the color of the owners' skin, and for white patrons to prefer to eat at the stand owned by the white man? If you deny that this is a thing that could happen, then it would explain quite a lot about your understanding of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's very very important to keep in mind that racists never
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
And in those rare moments that they do, it's loud and proud. And among like minded idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Edit: Whoops! Sorry, I missed Muscle Tracer also pointing out the stupidity in trying to claim Spooner for Libertarianism. Don't worry: shitposting, unlike healthcare or purestrain gold, isn't a finite resource 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
That's true. I really shouldn't have said all racists think like that because some do understand that they are in fact racist. But others don't and they're resistant to the idea that they are because of the reasons I outlined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
This needs to be emphasized, to be honest. Not only did 'The Market' fail in de-segregating the South or break down racist attitudes and views ( in fact, it could be argued that it actually made it worse ), but worse than that, the whole situation was created by 'The Market' to begin with the moment importing slave-labor from Africa became a profitable venture. Don't forget that these were in the main privately owned companies, traded on stock-exchanges throughout Europe, obeying the will of their stockholders and directors. Slavery was a respectable, regular business and 'The Market' encouraged it rather than stop it... Right up until governments decided that it really wasn't quite on trading other humans as if they were cargo. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Wait a second, did jrodefeld really say "slavery is immoral and violent intervention would be justified" like one post after "slavery was totally on the outs anyway and people should have just let it peter out on it's own" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Wait a second, did jrodefeld really say "slavery is immoral and violent intervention would be justified" like one post after "slavery was totally on the outs anyway and people should have just let it peter out on it's own" "So what if I contradict myself, I contain multitudes" - someone way smarter than jrodefeld. It's like I said - he supports every means of ending slavery except for the one that actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Libertarians are literally dangerous and should be put down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Libertarians are literally dangerous and should be put down. According to actual Libertarian literature posted by actual Libertarians, this is a perfectly valid position to hold as a voluntary association may forcibly expel anyone they choose; and they should aggressively seek to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:This needs to be emphasized, to be honest. Not only did 'The Market' fail in de-segregating the South or break down racist attitudes and views ( in fact, it could be argued that it actually made it worse ), but worse than that, the whole situation was created by 'The Market' to begin with the moment importing slave-labor from Africa became a profitable venture. Don't forget that these were in the main privately owned companies, traded on stock-exchanges throughout Europe, obeying the will of their stockholders and directors. Seriously, its like Neo-Confederates and Jrod don't realize that Antebellum South profited immensely off slavery, it was a PRO-market device. Ironically, slavery also screwed poor whites in the South as it only really benefited the middle to upper class farming families and ensured that poor families could not readily enter the farming industry with ease.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Why can't libertarians just look at countries as huge plots of private land owned by voting shareholders (citizens) who then enact rules and policies on that land? Like in libertopia I'd be 100% within my rights to buy up a few thousand acres of land, sell people "certificates of citizenship" that entitle them to 1 equal vote, set up a system of rules and shareholder meetings that exactly mirror of contemporary democracy, set up rules about getting a percentage of all business carried out on the land (taxes) and make it clear anyone on the property automatically consents to the laws and punishments of the land. That would be ok because we're all private citizens, not a "government" ? Even after we buy up an entire continent? Still not a state, just a huge private property?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why can't libertarians just look at countries as huge plots of private land owned by voting shareholders (citizens) who then enact rules and policies on that land? This is actually how Hans Hermann Hoppe's private covenants work. The single difference is that in Hoppe's view every single bit of land needs to be owned by someone before you can start up a covenant, rather than being held in a public trust 'owned' by everyone. Because democracy is evil and destroys the natural social elites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That would be ok because we're all private citizens, not a "government" ? Even after we buy up an entire continent? Still not a state, just a huge private property? It would cease to be ok the minute it impacted Jrod's walle-err, freedom. I meant to say freedom. Honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Seriously, its like Neo-Confederates and Jrod don't realize that Antebellum South profited immensely off slavery, it was a PRO-market device. Well that's fine, the great divisions in the antebellum south was not rich people vs. poor people, but white vs. black. Yeomen and planters were equals, above the black man! Break down slavery, and you break down the great equalizer :cryingjeffersondavisflag:
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Caros posted:This is actually how Hans Hermann Hoppe's private covenants work. The single difference is that in Hoppe's view every single bit of land needs to be owned by someone before you can start up a covenant, rather than being held in a public trust 'owned' by everyone. Because democracy is evil and destroys the natural social elites. If my husband and I decide to create a contract giving each otehr equal ownership of the property that was heretofore exclusively one or the other's, who is going to tell us "no"? And if a married couple can do it, why couldn't a village, county, state, etc.? I'm sure there's some "conflict avoidance" justification, but I'm curious as to how he formulates the rule against two consenting parties entering into mutual ownership of their private property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:If my husband and I decide to create a contract giving each otehr equal ownership of the property that was heretofore exclusively one or the other's, who is going to tell us "no"? And if a married couple can do it, why couldn't a village, county, state, etc.? I'm sure there's some "conflict avoidance" justification, but I'm curious as to how he formulates the rule against two consenting parties entering into mutual ownership of their private property. Because gently caress you, that is why. The short version is that Hoppe, like many libertarians gets off on the idea of private property and the right of refusal (of black people) to keep people off of his land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:If my husband and I decide to create a contract giving each otehr equal ownership of the property that was heretofore exclusively one or the other's, who is going to tell us "no"? And if a married couple can do it, why couldn't a village, county, state, etc.? I'm sure there's some "conflict avoidance" justification, but I'm curious as to how he formulates the rule against two consenting parties entering into mutual ownership of their private property. It depends. If you are a woman, Molyneux would say that you are a parasite extorting money from your husband in exchange for access to the succubus-like powers of your vagina. Hoppe would probably agree if you bought him enough drinks and kept redirecting him from raging against Jurgen Habermas. If you are a man, Hoppe would say that your very claim to having a "husband" would place you at odds with living in a libertarian society, and that the Jarl can declare you out-law so that anyone finding you may kill you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It depends. If you are a woman, Molyneux would say that you are a parasite extorting money from your husband in exchange for access to the succubus-like powers of your vagina. Hoppe would probably agree if you bought him enough drinks and kept redirecting him from raging against Jurgen Habermas. If you are a man, Hoppe would say that your very claim to having a "husband" would place you at odds with living in a libertarian society, and that the Jarl can declare you out-law so that anyone finding you may kill you. This is a good post. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Murray Rothbard may have said some racist things like praising Nazi science and claiming their good work has been suppressed by Communists to hide the obvious fact that blacks are stupid inferior savages, but I know he is not a racist because he did not end his article with "And I believe this because I am a racist, and I Murray Rothbard, avowed racist, approve this message". Accusing someone of being a racist just because he says outrageously racist things even though he never actually says "I am racist" is just a disgusting tactic to silence opposing views about the inferiority of the black man, and you liberals should be ashamed of yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
So correct me if I'm super wrong, but it sounds like Libertarians boil down to "I should be in charge, me me me and anyone who disagrees with me is banished."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Fans posted:So correct me if I'm super wrong, but it sounds like Libertarians boil down to "I should be in charge, me me me and anyone who disagrees with me is banished." "I'm right, your wrong, I require no actual evidence to support my claims. Quit asking questions." See: Religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:See: Religion. Religion at least has been responsible for some genuine good works over the years. When's the last time anyone did something good for libertarian reasons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Religion at least has been responsible for some genuine good works over the years. When's the last time anyone did something good for libertarian reasons? Not all religions! And to be honest, the Libertarians HONESTLY believe their self-interest is a GOOD thing and that it will help people. Just like some in the Tea Party legitimately think 'Boostrapping' is a valid way to help the destitute. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
In redefining-words-to-mean-whatever-you-want news, The Economist seems to have mistaken capitalism for libertarianism.The Economist, defining 'Capitalism' posted:But there is cognitive dissonance at work. Ask people what they think about a system that gives them the right to own property and the result would be overwhelmingly favourable. Similarly, consumers have no problem appreciating the benefits of competition, eagerly seeking out the best restaurant or the latest gadget. Those options are the product of capitalism. Bonus quesiton: who do you think is the "we" in that last sentence? Definitely the average Joe, who totally stands to benefit from robber baronism 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
You seem to love roads and bacon, yet are not in favor of removing all corporate regulations? I don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why can't libertarians just look at countries as huge plots of private land owned by voting shareholders (citizens) who then enact rules and policies on that land? Some of them, when they're being honest, admit that they don't have a problem with force, just the government monopoly on force (aka MEN WITH GUNS). So long as you have some sort of free market in armed psychopaths everything's great. Well at least if everyone pays lip service to the NAP, I guess. (Just shout "Help I'm being agressed upon!" before firing artillery like some Monty Python sketch. Or was that South Park?) In short the US devolving into a bunch of feuding warlords would be an improvement as long as you can be said to have some "choice" in the matter. Which I guess doesn't really answer the question since libertarians aren't emigrating en masse to Afghanistan or Somalia. But then if you've read more than two pages of this thread you shouldn't be expecting sense out of libertarians. (Less snarky answer: There's this idea, not unique to libertarians, that local control is better. Just how local isn't a solved problem. It starts with "States' Rights" then goes on to "what if some city or township disagrees with the state" and then "me and my neighbors want to build a fence more than six feet high". As the saying goes, Democracy is society's attempt at a solution and is the worst except for everything else that's been tried.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:In short the US devolving into a bunch of feuding warlords would be an improvement as long as you can be said to have some "choice" in the matter. The Libertarian idea of having a "choice" in practice is the same thing as having "choice" of employer. Libertarians phrase it so that it sounds like you can just leave your job if you don't like it and find a new one. In real life what happens if you start a new job and decide you don't like it, and search for a new one? Your prospective employers would see you wanting to leave the job too quickly as a bad sign and pass over you. Or what if you leave immediately, with no notice or too short of notice? Then other prospective employers will hold that against you, too. Meanwhile your employer can fire you at any time, for any reason, and have no repercussions. If you do the same, it's marked against your character as a worker and you will have harder time finding future work. Not to mention the fact that you leaving your employer is at most a minor inconvenience for them, yet for you it's the same thing as getting fired because either way you're out money, benefits, you know, the things you need to survive when there's no social welfare. The only time these things don't apply is if you're a C-level executive, then you can literally do whatever you want, go wherever you want, and face no repercussions with your golden parachute. Which perspective do you think the Libertarian is advocating from? The worker or the golden parachute freeloader? In the Libertarian world, having a "choice" means having absolutely no choice at all. It's flat-out coercion, no if's, and's, or but's about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We are not talking about slavery, which is a categorically different sort of thing than a person excluding you from their private property. Slavery was a violent act of subjugation and denial of peoples humanity and property right in their own bodies. Violent action against the perpetrators of such injustice was not only warranted but is morally required. Wow, way to follow the NAP. What gives you the right to initiate violence against me, and send MEN WITH GUNS to KILL ME for MY PROPERTY? What gives you the right to come and take what is mine like a thief in the night? First I find out you aren't an anarchist, now you're not even a free market capitalist. So what are you JRod?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have absolutely no problem going back to speaking about healthcare or discussing economics or any other topic. But the whole "racism" thing is not productive. We have gone around that circle many times now. But let's take a summary of libertarian thinkers. Because the assertion is not merely that Hoppe and Rothbard said some potentially racist things at one time or another but that libertarianism itself is fundamentally racist and supremacist. That is what many of you have been arguing. I want to list a few of my biggest intellectual teachers and I want you to tell me which ones you think are racist. Surely most of them must be racist, right? Surely they are all closeted KKK members and white supremacists? It's not productive, so let's keep going on with it? You keep biting the apple and then you're upset when people don't stop with the whole racism thing. You know why you engage in this argument though? Maybe you don't know when to stop. Maybe you don't know when you can't win (because it's hard to convince someone that another person isn't racist). Maybe you rather keep going on these minor things because when we press your "philosophy" against the wall, it starts to falter and squirm. It's funny how you spend a lot of time dealing with the "unproductive" stuff like this, and yet ignore serious arguments against your views on healthcare. Why? Is it because you're so dedicated to winning that you won't lose an argument. Here's the point though. Your whole philosophy is based on this idea that people will suddenly act rationally if it wasn't for the state. And that's the most ridiculously absurd thing anyone has said in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Religion at least has been responsible for some genuine good works over the years. When's the last time anyone did something good for libertarian reasons? Wikipedia. Though Jimmy Wales would probably not be considered a real libertarian by Jrod and those that get cited by Jrod because he ultimately believes in the necessity of the state, just wishes it would be smaller.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Whatever happened to that other Libertarian guy that conspicuously never posted at the same times jrod did?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Whatever happened to that other Libertarian guy that conspicuously never posted at the same times jrod did? 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. It's why I'm now a libertarian, looking at the world again with new eyes, and trying to find out why JRod is posing as a libertarian and spouting utter nonsense. Every libertarian knows aggression against innocent people is never justified, so it makes no sense that he'd call himself a Libertarian and then argue that violence against me is totally justified because he personally doesn't like that I have something. GUESS WHAT JROD, DON'T LIKE SLAVES? DON'T BUY 'EM!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:He pwned us so hard we're all just trying to pretend it never happened. No, he is talking about the other guy Socrates16. Only posted in the thread about three or four times after Jrod did always agreeing with him. SedanChair laid a sick burn on him and he never showed up again. SedanChair posted:*man with fake nose and glasses comes into room*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:No, he is talking about the other guy Socrates16. Only posted in the thread about three or four times after Jrod did always agreeing with him. SedanChair laid a sick burn on him and he never showed up again. Oh yeah, I think I remember him now. Yeah I miss him, he was way cooler than the guy I quoted  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:No, he is talking about the other guy Socrates16. Only posted in the thread about three or four times after Jrod did always agreeing with him. SedanChair laid a sick burn on him and he never showed up again. Eh, I remembered he went full retard after having his arguments shot down repeatedly and got probated for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Can't believe I read the whole thread. Caros, guys, you all deserve props for the endurance and the patience to deal with Jrod. I'd have given up after maybe the 60th time he completely neglected to answer why the brisitsh and canadian healthcare system deliver better overall resultas than the (far more private) US model. Since trying to pin him down to one point does not really help and he'd just equivotace of spew some lunacy as if it was divine revelation he just translated using a magical stone an angel totally gave him, I have a real-world question: Jrod, what country (or countries) in the world do you think is closer to your libertarian model, and why? What are they doing right and what could they improve? Enough talking about your make-believe assumptions of aid societies and charities that would bloom across the land to take care of everything that is worth addressing, if only the State wasn't around to actually insist that antibiotics contain, you know, antibiotics. People here have been arguing based on real examples they think deliver good results: Canada, Denmark, the UK. So who is prospering right now, on planet loving Earth, using ideas you approve and subscribe to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Sephyr posted:Jrod, what country (or countries) in the world do you think is closer to your libertarian model, and why? What are they doing right and what could they improve? No need to ask, Mises answered for him: Somalia 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:40
|
|