|
Fans posted: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. It was Ayn Rand's reasoning, yes. The Indian man was too stupid to use the land properly, so his ownership of it didn't count. Because Ayn Rand was a literal sociopath. quote: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. I maintain that JRodefeld could probably be shown a video of Hans Hermann Hoppe literally calling black people subhuman and he'd try and explain it away. He certainly didn't bat an eyelash in saying Stefan Molyneux isn't misogynistic despite referring to women as Estrogen Based Parasites. That one is especially egregious, because if you look at it historically, one of the telling factors the points to hate speech and typically precedes things like genocides is a tendency to refer to the 'other' as somehow non-human. Hitler frequently referred to Jews as parasites for example, because it is easier to crack down on a group once you've convinced others that they aren't really people.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted: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. Who are they competing with? I mean we dissolved the Government so no one owns the road anymore. There's no one to pay to buy the roads. Who'd judge who's best to run them and why wouldn't anyone apply for what is basically a massive country wide monopoly vital to everyday life that'd that they'd receive completely free? Jesus actually forget the roads, what happens to the Army? I guess we'd have to stop all foreign peace keeping operations and ongoing wars for a start, but that's still a hell of a lot of planes, tanks and weaponry floating about with no real owners. Fans fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Fans posted:Who are they competing with? I mean we dissolved the Government so no one owns the road anymore. There's no one to pay to buy the roads. Who'd judge who's best to run them and why wouldn't anyone apply for what is basically a massive country wide monopoly vital to everyday life that'd that they'd receive completely free? Leaving aside the astoundingly vast and destructive federal armory (who gets the nukes, for instance? the carrier fleets? who even decommissions them without a government? a libertopian private company?), even piddly-rear end county National Guard armories stock tanks, armored vehicles, and enough small arms and ammunition to supply a nice little warband for whatever covenant or DRO sets up shop in the area. I know I'd feel a lot more day to day security if I knew all those machine guns and APCs were now in the trustworthy hands of the local Valhalla DRO thane's favored housecarls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Clearly control would simply fall to the natural elites? With every natural elite having their own army and nuclear weapons no single natural elite could aggress against the other and we'd have peace through an armed society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
zeal posted:Leaving aside the astoundingly vast and destructive federal armory (who gets the nukes, for instance? the carrier fleets? who even decommissions them without a government? a libertopian private company?), even piddly-rear end county National Guard armories stock tanks, armored vehicles, and enough small arms and ammunition to supply a nice little warband for whatever covenant or DRO sets up shop in the area. I know I'd feel a lot more day to day security if I knew all those machine guns and APCs were now in the trustworthy hands of the local Valhalla DRO thane's favored housecarls. All government property will be auctioned off to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to pay the State's debts. After debts are paid any remaining money will be refunded to the bidders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Mixing the labor with the land to create ownership actually comes from theories of Eddie Izzard. "Do you have a flag? Sorry! No flag no country, these are the rules I just made up!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I've met honest-to-god Stalinists with more self-awareness than Jrodfeld has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
say what you will about the tenets of Stalinist Communism, at least it's an ethos
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Fans posted:Who are they competing with? I mean we dissolved the Government so no one owns the road anymore. There's no one to pay to buy the roads. Who'd judge who's best to run them and why wouldn't anyone apply for what is basically a massive country wide monopoly vital to everyday life that'd that they'd receive completely free? Well, in Snow Crash, there are competing highway systems (because God knows the one thing we need more of in the US is pavement), with toll booths at every on- and off-ramp, connectd to small covenants that hire their own more small-scale road-builders. I'd assume that yes, they'd go to the highest bidder, but this is The Free Market, so surely a competitor will lay billions of dollars worth of asphalt and provide lower prices...? This is also the universe with hypersonic pizza delivery and QR codes that melt your brain, so. Even if it could hypothetically work, what kind of rear end in a top hat sits down and thinks "Hmm, I think our traffic system would be most improved by... millions of additional toll booths!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Even if it could hypothetically work, what kind of rear end in a top hat sits down and thinks "Hmm, I think our traffic system would be most improved by... millions of additional toll booths!!" The kind who says "Don't talk to me about practicality or smooth traffic flow when a state monopoly on roads is immoral on its face!" Speaking of, Hey Jrod, I'm still interested in this question from earlier, if you get a chance: VitalSigns posted:Beginning from the axiom Humans Act, von Mises concluded that the proper way to arrange society is with a night-watchman State that uses its geographical monopoly on force only to police crime, enforce contracts, and for national defense. Yet you, starting from the same premise conclude that minarchism is immoral on its face, an irredeemable coercive burden upon the brow of the noble industrialist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I want to do something a little bit different for a minute. I just listened to an interview Tom Woods did with the economist George Reisman and an article he wrote was brought up that contended that "Western civilization is objectively superior". This is VERY similar to what Hoppe has said, but of course you all chose to categorize that statement as a reflection of racism and white supremacist attitudes. I think you would be hard pressed to consider Reisman a racist of any sort, but I want you to take a listen to this clip of him speaking about this view. This clip is less than 6 minutes long. https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3uissyx5wo4cly/Reisman_Interview.wav?dl=0 I think this is very clarifying in terms of what libertarian thinkers are talking about when they speak of "Western civilization" and the superiority of a culture over another. Surely, you must concede that this view is hardly racist in light of the clarification made by Reisman?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld, why are the public health care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom better at controlling costs than the mostly private US system? You've maintained that the state is to blame for the increase in prices in the US healthcare market. Why doesn't the data outside the United States support you? How do you reconcile the mountain of evidence outside of the United States with your assertion?
sudo rm -rf fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to do something a little bit different for a minute. I just listened to an interview Tom Woods did with the economist George Reisman and an article he wrote was brought up that contended that "Western civilization is objectively superior". This is VERY similar to what Hoppe has said, but of course you all chose to categorize that statement as a reflection of racism and white supremacist attitudes. I don't have any proof that George Reisman is a racist, but after reading this exerpt, I am convinced that he is woefully ignorant of race relations and the intersection of economy and sociology. Edit: I mean, the entire premise hinges on this normative statement: quote:It is doubtful that there are many employers so bigoted as to be willing to
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:It was Ayn Rand's reasoning, yes. The Indian man was too stupid to use the land properly, so his ownership of it didn't count. Because Ayn Rand was a literal sociopath. I think the most amazing thing to me about 20th century American libertarianism is how consistently awful nearly everyone is. Like it's just this bizarre coterie of Holocaust revisionists, inexplicable homophobes, misogynists, racists, and people who genuinely, personally loathe the poor or homeless. Things you wouldn't even associate with libertarianism or economics crop up, in a way that is surreal. Like Rothbard advocated for incredible levels of police brutality, including the torture of suspects. Or Ayn Rand's open contempt for the Native Americans and, weirdly, their property rights. Or the truly baffling neo-monarchists. Or praxeology (spell check suggests proctology). It's like American Libertarianism created this weird culture of bold intellectual transgression, combined it with a rejection of historical example and observation, combined with European chauvinism, and denigration of traditional moral values, that just attracts heinous people. It's like Libertarianism is this framework from which you can intellectualize hatred or contempt for other classes, and people just show up and cram their utterly bizarre ideas in. On the page, MRA's or followers of The Bell Curve or advocates for police brutality or virulent foes of modern art or genocide revisionists or anti-immigration activisists don't seem like they have anything to do with personal freedom and libertarianism, and in some cases actively oppose it, and yet these guys all seem to find their homes under the umbrella of Modern American Libertarianism. It's weird. And it's all there, bubbling below the surface. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Even if I conceded your argument that claims of mere cultural superiority aren't bigoted or racist (I don't), that's a pretty different thing from claiming Western culture as "white male heterosexual" as if it owes nothing to the contributions of women, or non-heteros, or to say massive scientific and cultural debts to Indian, Arabic, Egyptian, and Greek mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists. Edit: and how do you explain away Hoppe's homophobia? He says in a libertarian society, enemies of traditional values like homosexuals and other sexualities will be rounded up and put in camps. That's some straight-up Nazi poo poo. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Also, please stop confusing left anarchism with Libertarianism. Wasn't it Rothbard himself who praised the victory of successful stealing the name Libertarian to brand his personal beliefs away from left anarchists? Your own sources and hand-chosen heroes do not agree with your usage of the term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
I'm finally caught up on this thread which means it's time to ask Jrodefeld a question: What do you think about the fact the Swiss are voting on Nov. 30 to readopted the gold standard (you can read about it here: http://qz.com/291591/it-seems-nuts-but-the-swiss-may-go-back-to-a-gold-standard/ and if you have a Wall Street Journal account I can link that too) but basically if it was adopted it's going to bankrupt Switzerland for no real reason. Also the amount of currently purchaseable gold is more then the US national debt, so in a hypothetical how would the United States switch to the gold standard in libertarian land?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Edit: and how do you explain away Hoppe's homophobia? He says in a libertarian society, enemies of traditional values like homosexuals and other sexualities will be rounded up and put in camps. That's some straight-up Nazi poo poo. Well, Keynes was bisexual, soooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to do something a little bit different for a minute. I just listened to an interview Tom Woods did with the economist George Reisman and an article he wrote was brought up that contended that "Western civilization is objectively superior". This is VERY similar to what Hoppe has said, but of course you all chose to categorize that statement as a reflection of racism and white supremacist attitudes. Feel like actually trying to express this in your own words rather than expecting us to listen to a multi minute long clip of some dry rear end libertarian telling us how great "Western Civilization" is? Because I suspect almost no one will actually bother listening to it. But here, let me take a quote from it: quote:And by that perspective, if an american indian were educated and made western civilization his own, because he understood mathematics, science and the laws of logic and all of the other essentials of western civilization, and when he was asked who discovered america, he would say columbus. Because he would understand that columbus was the one who brought to the western hemisphere his ideas and values, what were now his ideas and values. That, in and of itself is pretty hosed up, but he drops the name of his book at the end of it, and I did some googling and came up with some gems. quote:The racism of these newer racists, which is now being imposed on the educational system, implies a radical devaluation of civilization, knowledge, and education. The new racists do not want students to study non-Western civilizations and the conditions of primitive peoples from the perspective of seeing how they lag behind Western civilization and what they might do to catch up. Study from that perspective would be denounced as seeing the world through a "Western lens." It would be considered offensive to people of non-West European origin. Not only is western culture better than 'savage' culture, but apparently George Reisman has solved the age old question of what 'art' is. Apparently he believes that he can quantify whether one form of art is better than another form of art. Oh and shockingly it is the western form of art that is better. Duh. quote:Education in the United States has been in obvious decline for decades, and, in some ways that are critical but not obvious, perhaps for generations. The decline has become visible in such phenomena as the rewriting of college textbooks to conform with the more limited vocabularies of present-day students. It is visible in the functional illiteracy of large numbers of high school and even college graduates, in their inability to articulate their thoughts or to solve relatively simple problems in mathematics or even plain arithmetic, and in their profound lack of elementary knowledge of science and history. We're dumbing down our textbooks, and because students are closer to primitive man (somehow) they are turning to drugs. Also most of those who are doing so are black, but lets just imply that instead of stating it outright. Are you loving kidding me? quote:Major changes are taking place in the philosophy of American education, changes which are potentially capable of having enormous impact on all aspects of American life. The changes are inspired by what The New York Times refers to as the "Eurocentrism critique." According to the Times, "Eurocentrism" is a pejorative term supposed to describe "a provincial outlook that focuses overwhelmingly on European and Western culture while giving short shrift to Asia, Africa, and Latin America." Frankly the whole thing is worth a read since this guy is hilariously racist and intent on his belief in the superiority of white culture over others. I honestly cannot see how anyone would write an article that talks about the objective superiority of western culture with a straight face. Because that is some hosed up poo poo. You won't care about this Jrodefeld, because he isn't screaming friend of the family and thus cannot be a racist. Actually, one question. Did you think that Cliven Bundy was racist when he talked about the one thing he knew about the Negro? Caros fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Well, Keynes was bisexual, soooooooooo That's impossible, computer science is the exclusive desmesnes of white heterosexual male Western civilization. Blacks and queers could never hope to understand it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:
I want to focus on this Walter Block thing because it simply proves how intellectually dishonest you are being. Walter Block NEVER said slavery was "not so bad". In the course of a LONG conversation where he was explaining the libertarian argument to New York Times reporters, he used the example of slavery as an illustration of what libertarians object to. Rhetorically he posed the question "what is morally wrong about slavery?" It is not the fact that slaves worked hard, or lived on a plantation or whatever. The morally wrong thing, of course, was that slavery was compulsory. The enslaved blacks had no choice but to associate with their "masters" and violence was used against them to get them to comply. If, on the other hand, black workers were hired voluntarily and thus compensated for their labor, there would be little to object to. In the context of what Walter Block was saying, he said that if all the violence, the compulsion, and all other negatives of slavery were removed then it would be "no so bad", because it would cease to be slavery at all. If you are NOT intellectually dishonest, you should own up to your gross mischaracterization of what Walter Blcok had said. I will concede that ever saying the words "not so bad" was a mistake in that dishonest editors could twist around the language and make you out to say things that you clearly did not say. He was usually slavery as an illustration of the gross immorality of aggression. He was explaining the non aggression principle. Listen, it is not that I am not willing to denounce and strongly disagree with a libertarian who truly says something bigoted. I am more than willing to do this. The problem is that I have seen so many lies and blatant distortions by people on the left in their attempts to prove that a person is "racist" that I am naturally entirely skeptical of such allegations. I constantly read the work of these commentators and I genuinely try to evaluate their character and values in the proper context. Any serious intellectual who is working to promote ideas should not be afraid to be politically incorrect. People like Hoppe and Rothbard have had very anti-PC attitudes. Philosophy and intellectual progress would be stifled if thinkers were cowed by the PC police into never taking unfashionable opinions. I try to objectively look at the body of a persons work and I evaluate their character based on the totality of what I read, in the proper context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Rothbard's full-throated approval of Nazi racial science is just too realistic and anti-PC for my poor leftist brain. Ditto Hoppe's proposal that homosexuals should be kept away from decent society, "concentrated" if you will, to protect libertarianism and the white male heterosexual values on which it rests. The truth overwhelms me and I blanch at addressing the content of the argument in rational debate. I must cow them into submission by emotional appeals. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I try to objectively look at the body of a persons work and I evaluate their character based on the totality of what I read, in the proper context. Have you ever sat down and thought "maybe I am not so good at this"? You seem horribly tone deaf to what racism is and how it impacts society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to focus on this Walter Block thing because it simply proves how intellectually dishonest you are being. Walter Block NEVER said slavery was "not so bad". In the course of a LONG conversation where he was explaining the libertarian argument to New York Times reporters, he used the example of slavery as an illustration of what libertarians object to. Rhetorically he posed the question "what is morally wrong about slavery?" It is not the fact that slaves worked hard, or lived on a plantation or whatever. The morally wrong thing, of course, was that slavery was compulsory. The enslaved blacks had no choice but to associate with their "masters" and violence was used against them to get them to comply. If, on the other hand, black workers were hired voluntarily and thus compensated for their labor, there would be little to object to. I know exactly the point that Walter Block was trying to get across. I focused on that specific point because anyone who says that slavery was "Not so bad." is a piece of poo poo. He is downplaying centuries of the most abhorrent practice in human history to being only 'bad' because it was mandatory. Moreover you can argue it is bad word choice, but he seems to choose to say those words pretty loving often: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipXlhWZfWms The title is actually wrong and he makes it clear in other sources that what he is saying is that welfare was actually 'worse' for black families than slavery, not that slavery was better than welfare. Somehow that makes things different, but hosed if I can see how. But lets be fair, here is the entire quote and a bit of rebuttal he himself wrote: quote:“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.” So you see, being forced to serve people lunch when you are a public company is the same as chattel slavery. Also the only real problem with slavery was the whole compulsory thing. Other than that it wasn't so bad. Do you not see the problem with that statement? Other than the forced association it isn't so bad? People get upset about that because it is a whitewashing of all the horrors of slavery. It is an attempt to pretend that slavery is not a vile, disgusting institution and that it really wasn't so bad for the blacks other than the fact that they had to be there. This is not surprising coming from Walter Block, the guy who asserts that women and black get paid less simply because they are "Less Productive." quote:Listen, it is not that I am not willing to denounce and strongly disagree with a libertarian who truly says something bigoted. I am more than willing to do this. The problem is that I have seen so many lies and blatant distortions by people on the left in their attempts to prove that a person is "racist" that I am naturally entirely skeptical of such allegations. I constantly read the work of these commentators and I genuinely try to evaluate their character and values in the proper context. Any serious intellectual who is working to promote ideas should not be afraid to be politically incorrect. People like Hoppe and Rothbard have had very anti-PC attitudes. Philosophy and intellectual progress would be stifled if thinkers were cowed by the PC police into never taking unfashionable opinions. Then do it. You read exactly what we all ready about Stefan Molyneux. Are you willing to denounce him for saying something like.. I dunno, that women are Estrogen Based Parasites? Please, show us that you are actually honest and actually denounce someone for disgustingly offensive comments about half of humanity. Edit: You know the sort of people who typically complain about PC movements and call themselves Anti-PC? People who really want to say racist things. Walter Block believes that welfare is worse than literal chattel slavery. That isn't "Anti-PC", that is hosed up. Double Edit: Have you ever actually stopped reading a libertarian because you decided he was racist? Because you are implying that you keep an open mind but I simply do not believe you. Caros fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:It was Ayn Rand's reasoning, yes. The Indian man was too stupid to use the land properly, so his ownership of it didn't count. Because Ayn Rand was a literal sociopath. If you demonstrated that a libertarian thinker said something explicitly racist, I would denounce them for that statement. I would concede that, for whatever reason, they have an irrational prejudice. Of course, that still wouldn't invalidate an economic argument they made any more than discovering that Einstein was a homophobe would invalidate the theory of relativity. But cease with the insinuations of "code words" and the claim that talk of "time preference", the superiority of "western civilization" or hypothetical and voluntarily chosen "social elites" makes one a racist. For the record, Ayn Rand was completely wrong that Native Americans didn't have property rights that deserved to be respected. There is a reason I don't cite Rand often. She made some good points but her philosophy as a whole had fatal flaws and her followers are genuinely cult-like. As for Molyneux, I will admit that I don't have as much familiarity with him as I do with others. He has an enormous volume of material. What I have heard of his has been valuable and thought provoking. I see him more as a synthesizer of existing information, compiling disparate different economic, historical, philosophic and ethical arguments into an easily digestible whole. I find him thought provoking. But he didn't call women "estrogen-based parasites" and more than if I called a specific woman a bitch based on her actions, that meant that I thought all women are bitches. Molyneux objects to certain behavior by SOME women and he criticizes the modern feminist movement. But how do you extrapolate from this that he hates ALL women? He has condemned men for their actions vis a vis women more times than I could count, yet that doesn't make him a "man hater". Stefan is a person who thinks pretty highly of himself, as you no doubt are aware. He is also in love with his own use of colorful language. For someone who routinely does three plus hour podcasts and call in shows multiple times every week, he uses phrases such as "estrogen based parasites" to condemn certain behaviors in SOME women. What is your definition of misogynist? Is that someone who hates all women? Or just someone who criticizes feminists? I'm not saying that the language that Stefan has used at one time or another could not be seen as offensive by many, but I just think that the burden of proof for proving a person a misogynist or a racist is greater than finding a few choice quotes you find politically incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you demonstrated that a libertarian thinker said something explicitly racist, I would denounce them for that statement. So.....pretty much all the guys you've posted as backing your arguments. jrodefeld posted:For the record, Ayn Rand was completely wrong that Native Americans didn't have property rights that deserved to be respected. There is a reason I don't cite Rand often. She made some good points but her philosophy as a whole had fatal flaws and her followers are genuinely cult-like. She was pretty much wrong about everything she did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you demonstrated that a libertarian thinker said something explicitly racist, I would denounce them for that statement. I would concede that, for whatever reason, they have an irrational prejudice. Of course, that still wouldn't invalidate an economic argument they made any more than discovering that Einstein was a homophobe would invalidate the theory of relativity. Because Libertarianism conflates psychology, sociology, economics, and morality, then racism, misogyny, and bigotry are highly relevant to the discussion. To claim otherwise is to deny the moral implications of such a position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
No you see, when he called women "estrogen based parasites" he actually meant...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But he didn't call women "estrogen-based parasites" and more than if I called a specific woman a bitch based on her actions, that meant that I thought all women are bitches. "He didn't call all black people subhuman niggers, just most of them, the burden of proof remains on you to discover any racial component here." Hahhaha gently caress you archangelwar posted:Have you ever sat down and thought "maybe I am not so good at this"? You seem horribly tone deaf to what racism is and how it impacts society. Based on his approach to the rest of his philosophy, I'm guessing this thought process goes "This person says the State is bad so they must be good" and works backwards from there. See above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even if I conceded your argument that claims of mere cultural superiority aren't bigoted or racist (I don't), that's a pretty different thing from claiming Western culture as "white male heterosexual" as if it owes nothing to the contributions of women, or non-heteros, or to say massive scientific and cultural debts to Indian, Arabic, Egyptian, and Greek mathematicians, astronomers, and scientists. He never said anything of the sort. Look, the least you could do is be intellectually honest and state the positions of your opposition correctly. The ONLY thing Hoppe ever said is that private property owners who voluntarily form a covenant or community through contract could expel people from that property if they were advocating lifestyles that were contrary to the values of that community. That is all he said on that subject. By the same token, one could surely state that gays or far left people could form their own communities through contract and private property and discriminate against the square social conservatives and religious fundamentalists. I will make a concession that Hoppe may indeed personally not understand or approve of the gay lifestyle. There is no question that he is something of a social conservative. Were that the case, I would say that I think such a prejudice is cultural and rather silly, but given that he is a firm believer in the non aggression principle and private property, his views should not be considered any kind of threat to advocates of socially liberal, libertine lifestyles. I read Hoppe because of his theoretical economic work and logical deductive philosophizing, not for any ancillary thoughts he may or may not have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I read Hoppe because of his theoretical economic work and logical deductive philosophizing, not for any ancillary thoughts he may or may not have. Therein lies the problem: His ancillary thoughts directly influence his economic work and 'logical' deductive philosophies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
God, the PC police are getting so bad lately that you can't even call a woman a dumb oval office who needs to shut up and give me that pussy without all women getting offended. I wasn't talking about the rest of you sluts!jrodefeld posted:I will make a concession that Hoppe may indeed personally not understand or approve of the gay lifestyle. There is no question that he is something of a social conservative. Were that the case, I would say that I think such a prejudice is cultural and rather silly, but given that he is a firm believer in the non aggression principle and private property, his views should not be considered any kind of threat to advocates of socially liberal, libertine lifestyles. And yet, somehow you're not seeing how "has ideas for a better society" and "believes that society would be better if all the homosexuals were gone" might be related in some way 
Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Molyneux objects to certain behavior by SOME women and he criticizes the modern feminist movement. But how do you extrapolate from this that he hates ALL women? He has condemned men for their actions vis a vis women more times than I could count, yet that doesn't make him a "man hater". Jesus Christ. In jrodefeld's world "I don't hate all black people, I just hate niggers, you know, the bad ones," (efb) is apparently not a racist statement. That statement is exactly analogous to what jrod is defending here with regards to Molyneux and women. jrod is getting so awful that it's taking the fun out of the thread for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I read Hoppe because of his theoretical economic work and logical deductive philosophizing, not for any ancillary thoughts he may or may not have. A economic framework and deductive argument predicated on what you yourself call a strict moral code which he uses to justify outcomes that even you admit are not moral. If you believe that he is portraying the outcome of moral actions then you are implying that the outcome itself is moral. If it is not, then the actions were not moral. This isn't rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you demonstrated that a libertarian thinker said something explicitly racist, I would denounce them for that statement. I would concede that, for whatever reason, they have an irrational prejudice. Give an example of a statement that you would accept as being explicitly racist, because so far you've already denied that a whole bunch of explicitly racist statements count. You can't talk about a "burden of proof" when literally nothing anyone says makes any impact on you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Quick reminder that someone does not need to be explicitly or even consciously racist to hold racist views. This applies to misogyny and all other forms of bigotry as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Man it sure is weird that jrodefeld keeps ignoring the success of public health care outside the united states in favor of whining about political correctness!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you demonstrated that a libertarian thinker said something explicitly racist, I would denounce them for that statement. I would concede that, for whatever reason, they have an irrational prejudice. Of course, that still wouldn't invalidate an economic argument they made any more than discovering that Einstein was a homophobe would invalidate the theory of relativity. Its not 'social elites' it is 'Natural Social Elites'. The word natural is important because Hans Hermann Hoppe believes that these people are genetically predisposed towards being the leaders of society, which is why he thinks it can be passed down as a genetic trait. And yes, the phrase 'superiority of western civilization' is a racist phrase. I don't even think that is a code word, I think declaring western (white) culture as better than others is pretty much the textbook definition of white supremacy when talking about culture rather than race. quote:For the record, Ayn Rand was completely wrong that Native Americans didn't have property rights that deserved to be respected. There is a reason I don't cite Rand often. She made some good points but her philosophy as a whole had fatal flaws and her followers are genuinely cult-like. Good for you! Only like 700 lunatics to go! quote:As for Molyneux, I will admit that I don't have as much familiarity with him as I do with others. He has an enormous volume of material. What I have heard of his has been valuable and thought provoking. I see him more as a synthesizer of existing information, compiling disparate different economic, historical, philosophic and ethical arguments into an easily digestible whole. I find him thought provoking. For those of you watching at home, this is what is called a 'walkback' in politics. Its when you realize your position is untenable and attempt to walk it back and say that you didn't actually support that guy, or that you aren't really as familiar with him etc. Jrodefeld, you've cited Molyneux more than you've cited probably anyone else on that list you posted the other day, it is absolutely fair game for us to bring him up, and you should be expected to deal with critisism for supporting such an rear end in a top hat. quote:But he didn't call women "estrogen-based parasites" and more than if I called a specific woman a bitch based on her actions, that meant that I thought all women are bitches. gently caress you, gently caress you, gently caress you., gently caress you. I've posted numerous links and sources, and I just posted four separate videos where he uses the phrase in the goddamned title of the video. It is a frequent thing that he says, and I'd wager if you look at his videos for the last year you'd find him say it at least once in 25% of them. The fact that you are so goddamned disingenuous as to try and pretend that he didn't say this despite overwhelming evidence is astounding. A simple google search has the top four links around the phrase being dedicated to him. Frankly referring to one woman as an estrogen based parasite is too many because that is an incredibly misogynistic thing to say. That a guy would spend months and months and hours and hours of video time railing against them is astounding. quote:Molyneux objects to certain behavior by SOME women and he criticizes the modern feminist movement. But how do you extrapolate from this that he hates ALL women? He has condemned men for their actions vis a vis women more times than I could count, yet that doesn't make him a "man hater". Did you even read the quotes that I posted? DID YOU EVEN loving READ THEM!? Do you even read what he says? Here is the description text from the video in which he says that all women have to do is say yes or no, and that an engagement ring is a downpayment on a woman's pussy, which of course implies that he believes all women are whores: "Stefan explaining how women's primary role is to attract males and choose who to reproduce with making them creators of all the ills people face in their lives." That is his text. Stefan believes that women are the creators of all the ills people face in their lives. quote:Stefan is a person who thinks pretty highly of himself, as you no doubt are aware. He is also in love with his own use of colorful language. For someone who routinely does three plus hour podcasts and call in shows multiple times every week, he uses phrases such as "estrogen based parasites" to condemn certain behaviors in SOME women. You know what his definition of an estrogen based parasite is? A stay at home mom. I don't really want to do this but I am not letting this go, so I've actually braved listening to one of his godawful links to bring you the following. This is a man talking about how his dad had a difficult life because he was trying to support his elderly mother after the death of his father. quote:"I'll tell you to me what it sounds like. It sounds like, the women said, hey! We need your money guy. The government is not giving us the money now, not robbing others to give us money, and we haven't found a new guy to get money from, so you, dear son, have to get money or else we'd have to go get jobs and we're not really into that." So yeah, its not just feminists. If you'd like to watch a 50ish minute video that tells you everything you need to know about Molyneux, watch this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diyuAXzN7yo He tells us how the truth is that Robin Williams was depressed because he kept having to pay women who quit their 'jobs' of being married to him. Which is to say, again, that he implies that marriage is a job, and that women are basically all whores. quote:What is your definition of misogynist? Is that someone who hates all women? Or just someone who criticizes feminists? I'm not saying that the language that Stefan has used at one time or another could not be seen as offensive by many, but I just think that the burden of proof for proving a person a misogynist or a racist is greater than finding a few choice quotes you find politically incorrect. Someone who hates women. Stefan Molyneux hates women, likely because of unresolved issues with his mother (I'm serious, he's talked about them). Its not a few choice quotes, that is what you need to understand. You can find something vile in just about any of the hundreds of podcasts or videos he has done on the subject of women. He has displayed a repeated pattern of despicable abuse, and on top of that he hangs around with the grand poobah of all misogynists, Paul Elam. What would it take for you to believe the obvious? Do we have to have a video of Mr. Molyneux punching a woman screaming "You are my stand in for all women everywhere?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:Feel like actually trying to express this in your own words rather than expecting us to listen to a multi minute long clip of some dry rear end libertarian telling us how great "Western Civilization" is? Because I suspect almost no one will actually bother listening to it. But here, let me take a quote from it: You have discredited yourself, Caros. Just when I thought we were getting along and having a reasonable intellectual discussion, you go off on this tangent about how everyone who is a libertarian is a "racist", but attacking George Reisman is a bridge too far. Do you even know who George Reisman is? He is one of the most brilliant living economists and historians. His book "Capitalism: An Economic Treatise" is one of the best and most comprehensive defenses of capitalism and the market economy that has ever been written. The man is incredibly accomplished and a studious intellectual. Yet you demean him by throwing around the pejorative "racist" to describe him. No rational person could read Reisman's quotes and writing and consider it racist. As he stated quite clearly, culture is an intellectual matter and open to everyone. If certain cultural values are more enlightened than others, everyone stands to benefit from their adoption. It is funny that most of his argument is very similar to the "elitist" leftist who argues for the objective superiority of the scientific method, of atheism, of acceptance of climate change over the stupid and primitive superstitions of primitive cultures. Whether Reisman is correct that Western culture as he defines it is indeed superior to other cultures is up for debate. But it seems absurd to think that all cultural values are equal in value. If one culture believes in science, in intellectualism, in philosophy, the market economy, progress, peace and cooperation and other believes in superstition and religious fundamentalism, is it "racist" to say that the values expressed by the former are better than those expressed by the latter? This tactic is quite desperate Caros. We could have a thoughtful and productive discussion on a variety of important issues but you don't need to poison the well by hurling epithets. It indeed is hard to continue to take the high road, when you are desperate to prove that libertarianism is the ideology of white supremacists and racists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Man it sure is weird that jrodefeld keeps ignoring the success of public health care outside the united states in favor of racism, misogyny, and bigotry apologia Fixed that. I am also getting a little disturbed by the latest revelations about JRod. It is so sad when people are totally oblivious to how monstrous their positions are due to being completely tone deaf; but here we are...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:34
|
|