|
Malleum posted:This is literally how you envision your utopian society working. Also 
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Isn't paying taxes just an enforcement of a social contract? Getting restitution isn't aggression - the individual refusing to pay taxes is the one acting aggressively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:These are contradictory positions. These are not contradictory. The libertarian ethic says that people don't have the right to use aggression. Therefore you cannot delegate the right to use aggression on your behalf to someone else. With contracts, BOTH parties are voluntarily agreeing to something. If both parties voluntarily agreed to abide by the decision of a private arbiter should any conflict arise, then the enforcement of the verdict of the arbiter is justified since authority was granted voluntarily. Let me be clear, if you agree to "aggression" it is not aggression in the sense that libertarians mean. It is violence or force maybe, but it is not aggression. Libertarians don't object to violence or force per se. We object to the initiation of force, which means unwanted force or violence used without permission. If there is permission, then force is perfectly fine. If a person violates the non aggression principle against someone else, then force used as punishment to provide restitution is defensive and responsive rather than initiatory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:These are not contradictory. The libertarian ethic says that people don't have the right to use aggression. Therefore you cannot delegate the right to use aggression on your behalf to someone else. With contracts, BOTH parties are voluntarily agreeing to something. If both parties voluntarily agreed to abide by the decision of a private arbiter should any conflict arise, then the enforcement of the verdict of the arbiter is justified since authority was granted voluntarily. Hahahahahahaaaa! So, you can't give anyone the right to aggress against you! ... Except when you can give someone the right to aggress against you.  This is magical. And yet another example of "If you grant my premise and definitions, I am right!" THe problem is, we don't, and you're not. As I've already shown. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you honestly think that two parties would EVER agree to a contract if it was not understood and clear that said contract would be enforced? Yes? Humans are not rational actors. jrodefeld posted:If there is permission, then force is perfectly fine. If a person violates the non aggression principle against someone else, then force used as punishment to provide restitution is defensive and responsive rather than initiatory. So government is okay, because by benefitting from government policy, infrastructure, etc. you have implicitly given permission for the government to tax you. After all, you haven't chosen to move somewhere else (i.e. Somalia).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:One of the only things holding together the modern left Progressive movement is identity politics and victim baiting. If and when the African American community starts to splinter off from the Democratic Party and embrace more diverse ideological views then this tactic will lose all its power. Why hasn't this happened in the African American community already? Other social groups like soccer fans, churches, mosques, theater, etc don't seem to have a problem attracting or retaining black people. What if the reason that black people are so hilariously underrepresented in libertarian or Republican circles is because their life experiences have made them more astute than you at noticing when a movement is built on coded racism and aims at creating an implicit justification for white domination? Or uncoded and explicit in the case of Rothbard, Hoppe, and the pro-Apartheid Reason Magazine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What is your evidence that clearly defined and enforced private property rights creates "an extremely violent and aggressive place"? Because all the evidence points to the exact opposite. Private property is a norm of human civilization that came into being precisely for the purpose of conflict avoidance. If and only if people are made clear about who has jurisdiction over which scarce resource and conflict be avoided and peace be possible. Societies without property rights are incredibly violent, each is fighting over desired scarce resources with no means of avoiding such inevitable conflict. Sorry, this post is nonsense. The whole world is full of people enforcing their property. That's the entire point of states, you have a third party enforcing your ""right"" to ""own"" property. The concept arises from people being selfish and immoral. The reason it exists is because people act immorally by taking what they don't need from others. There's enough food in the world for everyone, there's enough water and shelter in the world for everyone. Resources are only scarce in the sense that we want to own shiny toys we don't need. The second paragraph is an ad hominem and I'm not going to dignify it with a response. You shoudl be above this. Frankly I'm disappointed. Property is immoral, full stop. I'm going from basic principles here, it's not difficult. There's enough of the basics for everyone and everything else can be shared. If we can trust people to act morally, then there wouldn't be any need for states or fighting or war or anything. Again, I'm not going to dignify the ad hominem attack part of this paragraph with a response. The idea of a "right" to property is synonymous with greed. Why you do think you deserve to have complete control over something else? The only reason people are poor is because someone who ""owns"" stuff forced them into that position. If the people who had control over billions of dollars relinquished what was rightfully everyone's, then people wouldn't be poor and we wouldn't need charity. The concept of "saving" is stupid. Something exists. Congratulations. Who cares? What good is something if it isn't being used? If you aren't using something right now, probably someone else could make better use of it. It's extremely foolsih and arrogant to think you know best what to do with something just because you use the threat of violence against others to possess it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
As long as we're going from the basics, here's one that should appeal: Humans act. It follows that collective action is always superior to individual action. Therefore, collective action is superior to individual action as a response to any problem or challenge. Thus, the best solution to any problem or challenge is a collective one. Boom. Four steps to prove Communism to be better than Libertarianism, using Libertarianism's own first principle. Of course, it's also utterly meaningless, because as has been beaten to death "Humans act" is so simple as to be a rhetorical tautology, and not fit to base anything on, but the exercise amused me nonetheless. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I guess you missed that post? Here you go man: I didn't see that post, but not one of those people are racist. I thought more highly of Caros but that post reeks of desperation. I'll go over these one by one. First, Sheldon Richman. Clearly not racist. Saying that since Sheldon Richman contributed to Reason Magazine, who once published an article by someone else who purportedly denied the holocaust, that makes him a racist or somehow he endorses these views is ridiculous. Here is a quote from Sheldon Richman to a smear by a neocon against him: [quote]More seriously, placing me in the company of “the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review” can only have been intended to imply that I am a Holocaust-denier. Re-read her sentence and the title of her article. Since the people at IHR are not known to be libertarians, there was no other purpose in mentioning the organization. In other words, Mercer has smeared me. Since I am a Jew, she was denied the opportunity to accuse me of anti-Semitism and so had to settle for hinting that I deny that millions of Jews were slaughtered by Hitler and the Nazis. As one who lost family in the Shoah, I find this more than a little ironic.[/b] Okay, next is Tom Woods. You say he is an "avowed" member of the League of the South, but that is not true. As a recent college graduate Tom was told that an organization was being formed that was focused on political decentralization. He was invited to chart the mission of this new organization. He advocated that the group ignore the "southern" angle and simply focus on political decentralization as a general principle. He was voted down. The focus on Southern issues and the supposed "neo confederacy" views came later. Tom has not had any active role in that organization since the 1990s. He is not on their staff and has little to nothing to do with them. Furthermore, from his extensive writings, it is abundantly clear that his views are quite different from the LotS on many issues. Furthermore, Tom Woods didn't even become a libertarian until 2000 or 2001. So you've got nothing here. Unless you can produce an actual racist quote from Tom, you are proven wrong in your assertion. I have to remind you that the accusation of racism is not something to be lightly thrown about. You had better have proof or at least real, substantial evidence for such an assertion. Then Walter Block. I find it incredibly amusing that you cite the New York Times interview where the authors obviously distorted what Block had said to make him out to be a defender of slavery. Block spent more than three hours speaking with Times reporters about libertarianism and the editors clearly had an agenda to smear libertarianism. Actually, the context of the article was to smear Rand Paul by associating Walter Block and other libertarians with him. It was a complete set up the entire time. Now you can produce an ACTUAL racist quote from Walter Block or rescind your accusation. Jacob Hornberger. Really? He has "associations" with Ron and Rand, therefore he is probably a racist? Ron and Rand themselves are not racist so how could an "association" with them be racist? And which libertarian can claim to have no association with Ron Paul? Guilt by association is a foolish tactic. He is "friends" with the Southern Avenger. What exactly does that prove? Jack Hunter was a foolish kid who was a shock jock and played a stereotype southern caricature and said outrageous things as part of his schtick. He grew out of that phase and has said on multiple occasions that he regrets what he said, and that he didn't even believe most of those things then, let alone now. What you should have said about Hornberger is that "I have absolutely no evidence that he is racist", not "probably" racist. Scott Horton. Have you ever listened to his radio show and podcast? I listen to it every day. I've never heard him interview a League of the South member. You know who he does interview? He interviews libertarians, paleoconservatives and radical leftists on the topic of foreign policy. He is radically anti war and anti empire and he invites anyone on the show who is critical of US foreign policy, police brutality and military empire. He is not "borderline" anything. I have heard him go on fifteen minute rants about how racist the US police force is. As for Anthony Gregory and Gary Chartier, you acknowledge they are not racist so I don't have to comment. I can point out that you ignored a bunch of names I listed who make up major inspirations who helped shape my world view. It would make sense that you would skip the famous abolitionist Lysander Spooner since you can't even imply that he is a racist. You would have to man up and admit the obvious which is that the VAST majority of libertarian thinkers and commentators are completely non racist. And I don't mean racist in the dictionary sense of the word, because clearly no libertarian I have cited including Hoppe and Rothbard hate all black people because they think they are inferior owing to their skin color. Rather there is not even the hint of racist views and mountains of evidence for being the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 10:56
|
|
on Molyneux not being a misogynist
|
quote:And I don't mean racist in the dictionary sense of the word, because clearly no libertarian I have cited including Hoppe and Rothbard hate all black people because they think they are inferior owing to their skin color. Rather there is not even the hint of racist views and mountains of evidence for being the opposite. Ahahahaha. God, Rothbard only praised Nazi science and championed the belief that black people are racially inferior, but racism is hating black people and only hating black people because they are black, libtard. We libertarians don't hate the negro untermenschen any more than we hate dogs or parakeets when we treat them according to their rightful station of a beloved and obedient pet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It would make sense that you would skip the famous abolitionist Lysander Spooner since you can't even imply that he is a racist. You would have to man up and admit the obvious which is that the VAST majority of libertarian thinkers and commentators are completely non racist. And I don't mean racist in the dictionary sense of the word, because clearly no libertarian I have cited including Hoppe and Rothbard hate all black people because they think they are inferior owing to their skin color. Rather there is not even the hint of racist views and mountains of evidence for being the opposite. Stop trying to claim Lysander Spooner as a Libertarian. He wasn't one. Every time you try to claim him as an adherent of your philosophy, you are either lying, or trying to ignore the inconvenient fact that he was not a Libertarian. Either way, it is not bolstering your argument one bit, and in fact undermining it severely. Kindly knock it off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Fleet of foot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Stop trying to claim Lysander Spooner as a Libertarian. He wasn't one. Every time you try to claim him as an adherent of your philosophy, you are either lying, or trying to ignore the inconvenient fact that he was not a Libertarian. Either way, it is not bolstering your argument one bit, and in fact undermining it severely. He was an individualist anarchist and natural rights proponent. Yes he differed from anarcho capitalists but he certainly fits under the big tent called "libertarianism". He could be considered a left libertarian but there is tremendous overlap between his views and someone like Rothbards. I didn't say he agreed with modern libertarians on everything. What I meant is that he is one of my personal heroes and intellectual mentors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:He was an individualist anarchist and natural rights proponent. Yes he differed from anarcho capitalists but he certainly fits under the big tent called "libertarianism". He could be considered a left libertarian but there is tremendous overlap between his views and someone like Rothbards. Again, for gods only know which time: Words matter, and have actual definitions. Libertarian describes a very different world-view and philosophy than classical Anarchists, especially compared to the Libertarians of today. For gods' sakes, man, Spooner was a member of the First International and an active and ardent supporter of Labor Rights, both of which would earn him sound condemnation from Libertarians of today since it involves setting up Trade and Labor Unions to force the Capitalist class to give a fair wage and working-conditions to their employees. Do you seriously not see the tremendous irony in trying to claim a classical Anarchist for Libertarianism, all the time you go on and on and on about the 'Free Market', the same market that gave rise to the Capitalists Spooner excoriated in the very text you quoted here as ostensible support for your own views? Edit: Sorry, I did miss a rather important point. It's fine for you to consider Spooner a hero and a personal mentor. I won't argue with that. But at the very least, you owe it to yourself to actually get into what classical Anarchy stood for and what their values and goals were before you try to use thinkers of that school to justify current Libertarian thinking. There is a wide, wide philosophical gulf between Spooner and his contemporaries ( Kropotkin, Bakunin, Michel, Proudhon ) and Libertarians like Hoppe, Mises and Rothbard that is, frankly, insurmountable. Not least of which is the belief in direct action as a perfectly legitimate means to effect change, not to mention Proudhon's maxim of "Property is theft". TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one has called JRode out on trotting out the "liberals are the real racists for providing minorities welfare" argument. Cause that's pretty messed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
This is approaching homeschooled creationist levels of cognitive dissonance. No one is a racist or a bigot until they don a white hood, apparently. And even then hey could just be doing it out of overweening love for their heritago, so how DARE you slander their intentions! So Jrod, you didn't answer my earlier question (I didn't really expect you, to), even though it was a softball to try and get you to engage with something real. So here's another one for you to ignore because it messes up your worldview? What would prevent a thousand thousand Congo Free States appearing in an anarchist/libertarian world? Precious little state presence there: a private entrepreneur paying private people to ransack a country and kill people by the millions, with none of that pesky democracy or the Fed to justify its viciousness, a bit of a feat since this was before actual industrial death factories showed up in human history. Explain to us how King Leopold was one of those noble genetic elites HHH loves so much, and why we need more CEOs and DRO managers like him, not less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Congo Free State nothing. How about the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie? A private company that operated its own navy and army and conquered Indonesia for its shareholders. Or, for a more contemporary example, the British East India Company, which took over India, forced opium on China, and annexed Hong Kong as a drug-distribution headquarters and armed camp?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:From what I have read thus far, predictably for leftists you all express great concern for those who you feel would slip through the cracks in a market economy. You are convinced that charity and voluntary organizations could never come close to being sufficient to address the social need that will exist in society. Caros in particular dropped his libertarianism primarily for this reason when his friend was unable to get the help she needed and died as a result. I strongly disagree that charity and the market could not address social problems as well, if not better, than any coercive authority. jrodefeld posted:Also you clearly misunderstood a lot of what I am saying. I was paraphrasing what is called "argumentation ethics", which is one of the more rigorous logical defenses of the libertarian ethic. Look it up. quote:Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics.[1] Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Argumentation ethics draws on ideas from Jürgen Habermas's and Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics, from Misesian praxeology and from the political philosophy of Murray Rothbard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
It really cannot be overstated that rights only exist because we as society allow for them and to an even larger extent because the State enforces them. They are not some ephemeral or invisible force like souls or gravity. They are a concept who's meaning is derived from an implicit agreement among a majority of people. Thats why we can elect to give certain people or organizations more or special rights that the general public do not have. To ignore or deny that this is the case is to show a gross ignorance of what rights actually are, an ignorance that seems to be pervasive in the libertarian and right-wing ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:From what I have read thus far, predictably for leftists you all express great concern for those who you feel would slip through the cracks in a market economy. You are convinced that charity and voluntary organizations could never come close to being sufficient to address the social need that will exist in society. We are convinced of this because that is what history has shown us. Your opinion does not invalidate history. Guilty Spork posted:So I looked up argumentation ethics and it sounds like something incredibly dumb dressed up in fancy words: Argumentation ethics is literally this:  Hoppe argued that regardless of if an argument is backed by evidence and history, it still has validity. We know this is not true. You could almost say that it WAS anti-intellectualism dressed up as intellectualism. Hence why a lot of Libertarians like making pages and pages of what amounts to mixed up words that have no real meaning. Libertarians are literally where we got management jargon from. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:So I looked up argumentation ethics and it sounds like something incredibly dumb dressed up in fancy words: Argumentation Ethics essentially say this: "If nobody aggressed, all conflicts would be solved by argument. So, solving a conflict by argument means you agree that we should not agress against each other. Checkmate!" [analogous to] "If A, then B. So, if B, then A." [analogous to] "Snow is white. So, all white things are snow." ~The Logical Philosophy~ at work, folks! e for formatting, & to say: the thing is, this is also wrapped up in Rational Actor Syndrome. It also presumes that, if you disagreed with the NAP, you'd be exerting violence against somebody you disagree with, because any rational actor recognizes that opposing viewpoints must be crushed by any means possible, and so it is only by the power of Law that we can even abide these unworthy white trash and filthy blacks and insipid women coming up with their own heretical philosophies. e2: should have been about Gold Glittering, not Snow White 
Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Argumentation Ethics essentially say this: Arguing with Jrod nonviolently is also not a demonstrative contradiction or whatever the gently caress he calls it because had I the power I'd smack him upside the head for arguing so blatantly in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:From what I have read thus far, predictably for leftists you all express great concern for those who you feel would slip through the cracks in a market economy. You are convinced that charity and voluntary organizations could never come close to being sufficient to address the social need that will exist in society. Caros in particular dropped his libertarianism primarily for this reason when his friend was unable to get the help she needed and died as a result. I strongly disagree that charity and the market could not address social problems as well, if not better, than any coercive authority. However, I am NOT a utilitarian, but rather I am a deontologist. I believe that actions are right or wrong based on the nature of the action itself. What results from moral actions may or may not be beneficial to a specific individual or group, but I would always consider it wrong to employ immoral action to change social outcomes. So there's no point in arguing about the consequences of your beliefs, because only the actions themselves have morality, rather than the results. So let's talk about the underlying reasoning behind that morality! Oh, wait: jrodefeld posted:Rather than continue to go over the merits of praxeology and the Austrian method of deducing economic laws, based as it is on a logical deductive method from the Action axiom, I would prefer to ask rather about what your view is on the state on modern "mainstream" economics as a discipline. Frankly, I think that the subject of epistemology and the validity of praxeology and the limits of empiricism is far to complex a subject to fully hash out in the limited format of an internet message board. We tried to debate about your moral foundations, but you ran the gently caress away without addressing any of it. What is there left to debate then? Why are you even here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Let's say we go FULL LIBERTARIAN tomorrow! Most people live in houses with other people. Who owns those houses? What if a couple both claim to own the house? What if someone claims to own the house who's never really lived before but broke in last night and now really feels they have a stake? What if a person renting a house now decides they own the house, since they're living there instead of the Slum Lord who owns a whole raft of houses they barely even visit? What happens to Public Areas like parks, Roads and Commons? Does one person get to claim them? What happens to kids in this system since they can't own a house do they just get turfed out at 18 with no real way to buy their own property? If I claim the road outside my house can I now stop all traffic at a whim? Even if that'll mean everyone to the North of my home now has no access to the Main Road and are thus effectively cut off from the rest of the Country? How does a Fire Service work? If I don't pay do they just let my house burn down? What happens to the person's house next to mine who did pay but will also burn? Do they just wait and squirt the fire if it gets too close to their house? What happens to Goverment Pension funds and other cash reserves? Who gets that massive amount of money? Who runs the Currency System? Without a Goverment handling it do we have to all switch to Bitcoin or Company Bucks or what? I mean our entire current system was founded on laws enforced by the Government. There's a lot of Goverment Infrastructure like Roads, Police, Fire that just won't work in a Private Sector without being monstrous. If we ditch ALL of that nevermind how it'd work, who ends up owning it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Fans posted:How does a Fire Service work? If I don't pay do they just let my house burn down? What happens to the person's house next to mine who did pay but will also burn? Do they just wait and squirt the fire if it gets too close to their house? http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../1#.VGYgFPnF9hg
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
The system works!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
I'm going to keep this relatively brief because I have a cramp in my hand and Warlords of Draenor is out so I actually have better things to do than to talk with someone who has proven himself to be entirely devoid of intellectual honesty and willingness to debate in good faith. I'm posting for other people, because you Jrodefeld are so caught up in your own desire to 'win' this conversation that you've frankly given up on even the pretense of honesty.jrodefeld posted:I promised myself I was not going to get baited into a race game, but Caros provided no such thing. All he did was reiterate that he thinks Molyneux is a misogynist, NOT a racist. This is patently false and even if it WERE true, that is an outlier that has nothing to do with your narrative that libertarians are racist. What about the other names I listed? Where were the produced racist and supremacist quotes from them? Crickets. I covered half the list two days ago as others have pointed out. The new expansion for WoW came out yesterday and I prefered that over researching the racist habits of various libertarians so that you could ignore them in a single sentence. Sort of like you did here with Molyneux. I just want to be clear, Molyneux is a misogynist. You saying "This is patently false" is sure as gently caress not a rebuttal in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is a man who refers to women as "Hole Based Parasites" and "Estrogen Based Parasites". This is a man who says that a woman's only job is to say yes or to say no to a marriage proposal, and that a wedding ring is a "downpayment on her pussy". This is a man who believes being a single mother is abusive, and that women will lead to the downfall of the human race because the keep picking "Assholes" instead of "Nice Guys" TM. Mr. Molyneux was a headline speaker at the Voice for Men conference, a group which talks about things like "Bash a Violent Bitch Day", a group which hosts a literal call for domestic terrorism on their website in the suggestion that they should burn down courthouses because of 'unfair' treatment of men during divorce proceedings. A Voice for Men was founded by Paul Elam, a man who is on record saying that he would never vote for the conviction of a rapist even if he was 100% sure the man was guilty. Here is a quote from Paul Elam: quote:I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get poo poo faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes ... these women end up being the "victims" of rape. Now you are absolutely right, this does not prove that Mr. Molyneux is a racist. That wasn't why I posted this however. No, this was posted to prove how intellectually dishonest you are about this whole discussion. You dismissed the idea of Molyneux being misogynistic out of hand in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and in doing so you showed your hand. Lets be clear, Molyneux is a misogynist. You show the quotes that I posted to any outside party and they'd come to that conclusion (along with being sufficiently revolted). Molyneux makes constant demeaning statements about women, going so far as to refer to them as being sub-human 'parasites'. He not only associates with, but was a keynote speaker at a well publicized public event for the largest group of MRA's on the planet. It is also not a mistake of youth, as videos from just the last month include such lovely titles as: Female Laziness: The Story of Male Exploitation Emotional Dumping: Dangers of Taking Empathy Hostages Why Some People Are Attracted to Jerks (Which talks about 'Vaginal Masochism') The Irrational Boner: Estrogen Based Parasite Avoidance Feminism: Unequal Opportunity Nagging Those are just from his last thirty videos and I am literally just picking the ones with offensive titles rather than offensive content. I'd say roughly 1/3 of his videos are about how much he hates women, with another 2-3 talking about race issues. I picked Molyneux's misogyny because it is the perfect example of you ignoring overwhelming evidence in your quest for your libertarian icons to remain pure and viable for worship. If you can honestly look at what I've posted on this subject and still wave it away with a single sentence, as if it is nothing more than an inconsiderate trifle then there is no hope of proving to you that anyone is racist unless they are literally out in public shrieking "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family gently caress I HATE ME SOME NIGGERS! LETS GO HANG SOME NIGGERS BECAUSE I HATE THEM SO loving MUCH" At this point I'm not even sure that would do it. At this point I'm almost convinced that I could find a video of Hans Hermann Hoppe saying that, like literally those exact words and you'd just say "Well clearly he isn't racist, and even if he was...  ". I could find examples of Molyneux being racist, but what is the point? You'd just say "No" and then continue on like that was some sort of rebuttal.Seriously, why should I even try arguing with you when you have an ostrich like ability to jam your head so deep into the ground that daylight is a loving myth to you. I posted the Molyneux thing because it demonstrates to everyone with a functioning brain that you are unwilling to even consider the idea that one of your 'enlightened thinkers' might be a bad person. If you are capable of ignoring a mountain of evidence of wrongdoing, then it is no doubt a simple matter for you to ignore the more clever dog whistle sort of racism employed by others. Not that Hans Hermann Hoppe is being exactly unclear. quote:I understand the term "racist" is designed to assassinate a persons character. It is like an emotional tick you have. But there is no philosophic content or value to such a label. As libertarians and philosophers, we are interested primarily in ideas and in ethics. I understand that by declaring this libertarian or that a racist you have made an attempt to taint the source, but you still haven't said a thing about the argument. This isn't why we bring up the racism thing Jrodefeld. We bring up the racism thing because large swaths of libertarians, including many of your most prominent figures are racist as gently caress. And when someone is racist as gently caress that tends to inform their ideas about what should and should not be policy. Hans Hermann Hoppe wants to be able to discriminate against people, so he has taken great strides to develop an ideology in which it would be okay to discriminate against people. It really isn't that hard, but you cannot admit it because you are afraid everything will fall down around you the moment you admit that one of these guys has done something bad. Edit: I just love your twist around on Walter Block "He said a racist thing in a big three hour talk with the news, but show me one racist thing he's said!" Saying that slavery is "Not so bad" is a racist thing to say. HTH. Caros fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
 gently caress. I knew they were racist and maybe misogynistic, I didn't realize HOW much...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
It really is special, isn't it. Oh and here is a bonus for those of you who have just swallowed poison and desperately need to vomit in order to survive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VyRBVlyBsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG3c8OUOrWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSfzOY0HpjU And just to be clear, Paul Elam is widely considered to be the most publicly known, unabashed Misogynyst on the face of the earth. I've never met anyone who is more famous in MRA circles, and the fact that Molyneux would have him on his show multiple times for cheery conversations about how lovely women are is perhaps the single most telling factor about his own views. Did you know that rape is only committed by a tiny, tiny subsection of men, so small as to be nearly impossible to measure in the general population? Paul Elam certainly knows! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
If we colonized a new planet, how would we divy up the land and resources in the libertarian ideal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:If we colonized a new planet, how would we divy up the land and resources in the libertarian ideal? Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Its one of the deepest ironies about Libertarianism: They claim that a Free Market would make people equal, while ignoring the fact that in a world market, those with the most money would still be the defacto leaders, regardless of their intelligence or abilities and would basically financially oppress everyone below them. Ja'far was a libertarian. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Whoever has the gold makes the rules. It's a newly discovered planet with no sentient life claiming ownership. Who would you pay?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
For real JRod, it's only a small stretch to say HHH is a Nazi in search of a Fuhrer. Incredibly misogynistic, put gays and commies into concentration camps, kick black people out of your neighborhood, authoritarian regimes are preferable to liberal democracies, states today should have restrictive as hell immigration systems, etc. The only appreciable difference is that we won't need to kill all the undesireables, forcing them into camps or maybe Bantustans would suffice.bitterandtwisted posted:If we colonized a new planet, how would we divy up the land and resources in the libertarian ideal? Whoever can find a way to mix their labor with the soil first. While you all try to plant crops to claim the new planet, I'll be running around pissing on as much open land as I can, claiming it through Vlahallah DRO's recognition of pissing as a form of labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Whoever can find a way to mix their labor with the soil first. Okay this has been bugging me for months but does anyone else get a mental image of some dude loving a hole in the ground whenever this stupid phrase comes up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Okay this has been bugging me for months but does anyone else get a mental image of some dude loving a hole in the ground whenever this stupid phrase comes up? I'm almost certain this has been covered before, but the whole "mixing of labor with the soil" thing is based on John Locke's theories on property, where something can be said to be yours when you have improved it somehow ( i.e. fencing in a field, for instance ). Of course, as is usual with Libertarians, they take this relatively simple and straightforward concept and twist it out of all proportion into something it was never meant to be. There's also the fact that John Locke's theories of labor and property were formulated during the 17th loving century, and thus are completely and utterly outmoded and obsolete in the 21st century, but that doesn't seem to stop them at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And I don't mean racist in the dictionary sense of the word, because clearly no libertarian I have cited including Hoppe and Rothbard hate all black people because they think they are inferior owing to their skin color. Rather there is not even the hint of racist views and mountains of evidence for being the opposite. Look man if you're going to go so far down the rabbit-hole that we're at "None of them have ever explicitly hated someone specifically for their skin color, they just associate with Confederate apologists and other white nationalists" than we should stop, because (1)you're either arguing in bad faith knowing that being a racist in public makes you a social pariah, or (2)to actually find fault with the people championing your philosophy might in some way indicate that it's not the be-all end-all, and you are not actually able to handle that after wasting years of life believing in the purity of Free Markets and Non-Aggression. Fans posted:There's a lot of Goverment Infrastructure like Roads, Police, Fire that just won't work in a Private Sector without being monstrous. If we ditch ALL of that nevermind how it'd work, who ends up owning it? This is actually the most interesting question to me and no libertarian has ever actually given a straightforward answer regarding it. It's come up over a dozen times in this thread alone, and I think maybe once there was a kind of "the market would work it out, statist" non-answer. You'd think with how long-winded they are at least one of them would love to go on at length about how wonderful and efficient competing toll roads and police forces would be, but none have really wanted to discuss it for some reason 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I'm almost certain this has been covered before, but the whole "mixing of labor with the soil" thing is based on John Locke's theories on property, where something can be said to be yours when you have improved it somehow ( i.e. fencing in a field, for instance ). Of course, as is usual with Libertarians, they take this relatively simple and straightforward concept and twist it out of all proportion into something it was never meant to be. Wasn't this the excuse they used to basically steal all the land from the Native Americans? Reasoning that since they weren't farming their hunting and foraging grounds then clearly they weren't using it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:This is actually the most interesting question to me and no libertarian has ever actually given a straightforward answer regarding it. It's come up over a dozen times in this thread alone, and I think maybe once there was a kind of "the market would work it out, statist" non-answer. You'd think with how long-winded they are at least one of them would love to go on at length about how wonderful and efficient competing toll roads and police forces would be, but none have really wanted to discuss it for some reason I've had some tell me without a hint of self-awareness that a natural monopoly would just take over the city's roads, there would simply be initial competition for who gets to privatize it but that initial competition would ensure the best company got the job. Later if they are doing a bad job something something the market people would just move to another city so the road company wouldn't have customers and would go bankrupt but no rational actor would drive their business into bankruptcy so the local private road company would always be run at 100% efficiency and quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:I'm almost certain this has been covered before, but the whole "mixing of labor with the soil" thing is based on John Locke's theories on property, where something can be said to be yours when you have improved it somehow ( i.e. fencing in a field, for instance ). Of course, as is usual with Libertarians, they take this relatively simple and straightforward concept and twist it out of all proportion into something it was never meant to be. Could a company claim land and resources through its employees' labour? We've just made planetfall on Eden IV. It's a lush, beautiful world and the first ship to arrive is mine. I'm the great captain of industry, owner and CEO of EvilBastardCorpTM and I'm going to mix my labour with the land by stripmining the whole thing before any scientists, environmentalists or people looking for a better life get here. I take it that's OK, Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Evil mega corporations can only exist via the state. That ship would be full of independent entrepreneurial settlers each arriving in their own personal ships and fairly staking out land that they can personally exploit because everything is, has been, and forever will be a simple pioneer society settling limitless lands. That's how libertarianism always struck me, something that would make total sense to some 1800's pioneer settling in some US territory but the ideology and living off the land with his family but it completely breaks down when a society gets any more complex or interconnected than loving isolated pioneer farmers or gold panners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:46
|
|