|
I think we may appreciate you all the more, by contrast. Before you do, I'm afraid to look him up, but is Paul Elam the dude's real name? 'cause that is some comic book fuckery. Is he going to disappear if you get him to say "malE luaP!"?
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I think we may appreciate you all the more, by contrast. Pretty sure it's an assumed name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:I'm still tickled that Jrodefield has trumpeted the triumph of white/European culture and economics which has (supposedly) lifted up many (while claiming not to be racist too). Have I not made the case strongly enough that I oppose war and empire? And I am not the one speaking about the superiority of European culture. For the record, Reisman used the term "Western" culture. The only reason I posted that excerpt is that I feel that the position he has taken has everything to do with the ideas that he believes are superior for civilization, not anything to do with race or ethnicity. I don't understand his position fully enough to elaborate beyond that and I am not speaking for him. However, I would state that I believe the ideas of the free market, of sound money, of a restrained or non existent central State, of science and intellectualism, of rational thought and intact families with peaceful parenting, among other issues, are empirically superior to the primitive values espoused by others. I care not what race or ethnicity happen to be promoting these values or which race or ethnicity happen to reject them. It is the ideas that I feel have value and lead to a more civilized, progressive and cultured society. How on earth could such a thing be considered racist? There is no question that Western and European cultures have been incredibly militaristic as well, but I don't support any of that. There is a sad fact that the more internally free and prosperous a society becomes, the more likely that society is to be able to finance and sustain a military empire of conquest. The goal of course would be to achieve prosperity and wealth without permitting politicians to take the nation to war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I find it really great that LolitaSama, once a rabid defender of all things libertarian, popped into the thread earlier and discussed how the biggest factor driving him away from the movement was when he realized that almost all of it was just a smokescreen for angry white men who are really upset that minorities and women aren't second-class citizens anymore. Dozens of pages later and jrodefeld is demonstrating that quite astutely. It's like we've come full-circle 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Funny how we can just section off the slavery, conquest, war, and empire that built European dominance and say "oh I don't mean the bad parts, those aren't true Western culture, I just mean the good parts" but when it comes to other cultures, nope no positive things to be sifted out there, toss it all in the bin marked "savagery" because all others are objectively inferior!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Fans posted:Last one I promise. George Reisman solves the nature of the universe in eight tweets. George Reisman sitting home with his bong getting stoned and thinking profound thoughts. Haven't you ever expanded your mind and considered the nature of existence? Seriously though these ARE good questions about the universe. But let's seriously not try and comb over someones loving twitter page and think that we've comprehended their worldview, all right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have I not made the case strongly enough that I oppose war and empire? And I am not the one speaking about the superiority of European culture. For the record, Reisman used the term "Western" culture. The only reason I posted that excerpt is that I feel that the position he has taken has everything to do with the ideas that he believes are superior for civilization, not anything to do with race or ethnicity. You and your ilk are for the antithesis of civilization fyi
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Seriously though these ARE good questions about the universe. No they're loving not. Know why? Because they go against everything science currently knows of how the universe was formed because that guys a loving idiot that's never heard of cosmic microwave background radiation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, I would state that I believe the ideas of the free market, of sound money, of a restrained or non existent central State, of science and intellectualism, of rational thought and intact families with peaceful parenting, among other issues, are empirically superior to the primitive values espoused by others. Ah, I see the problem jrodefeld has now. He has literally no idea what "empirically" means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:George Reisman sitting home with his bong getting stoned and thinking profound thoughts. Haven't you ever expanded your mind and considered the nature of existence? Seriously though these ARE good questions about the universe. But let's seriously not try and comb over someones loving twitter page and think that we've comprehended their worldview, all right? These were important enough to him that he reproduced them on his blog a full day later, added them as comments to the NYT article that started him on the whole thing, and then also made an additional post about them that I quoted above. This isn't some 'oops I posted while stoned' mistake, this was him consciously arguing that the big bang is not a real thing because he, as an objectivist, decided it was stupid. Seriously Jrod, I know you struggle tooth and nail with the idea that someone you admire could be wrong, but your whole arugment here is "Oh hahaha, he said something weird. But also that they were good comments about the universe! Also lets not talk about the fact that this guy I like doesn't believe in global warming, or the big bang." George Reisman is an objectivist who believes that he knows the secrets of the universe. That is the hill that you were willing to lay down on. Go expand your mind and consider the nature of your mistakes. A man who doesn't understand science posted:The “Big Bang” theory and its associated estimate of the age of the universe are not empirical facts of any kind but strictly inferences from propositions that are themselves questionable. Namely, an estimate of the size of the universe and the claim that the universe is expanding and is so at some definite rate. Given a definite size and rate of expansion of the universe, it follows mathematically that at some point, allegedly 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was disappearingly small.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
You literally posted a sound file of a crank economist praising Christopher Columbus as a civilizing force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, I would state that I believe the ideas of the free market, of sound money, of a restrained or non existent central State, of science and intellectualism, of rational thought and intact families with peaceful parenting, among other issues, are empirically superior to the primitive values espoused by others.  quote:Adverb So do tell, what sort of studies and surveys have you proposed to determine that certain cultures are better than others? I suppose you haven't gone that far, what methodology did you use to determine that a restrained or non existant central state is empircally better than the one we have now. Keep in mind you'll have to show your work, and it'll have to be repeatable. Its almost as if you're just throwing the word around willy-nilly and expecting it to add to your credibility. After all, you are empirically proving it! quote:I care not what race or ethnicity happen to be promoting these values or which race or ethnicity happen to reject them. It is the ideas that I feel have value and lead to a more civilized, progressive and cultured society. Because you are declaring that the western race (white people) developed all the best values in the world? That can be seen as pretty racist to... I dunno, every other culture in the world who might disagree that western culture is the best. And that is what he is doing. As an objectivist, he is declaring that his preferred set of moral values is the objectively best set of moral values around. His (western) art is objectively better than Eastern art. His take on logic, or government or whatever is better. But the thing about that is that 'better' is subjective. There are plenty of cultures out there who decry our collapse of the family structure for example, or the way that westerners are so distant from one another. Take a look in the Eripsa thread and you can drink your fill of him berating modern society for making everyone estranged from one another, something not true in many cultures. Better in this view is the same as better in terms of art. Its all subjective, all in the eye of the beholder.  No, not you! Go away! Bad beholder! He always looks so surprised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I feel like this thread has gone off the rails. I'd really like to get into some substantive issues, but I won't bother unless there are some of you who still are willing to engage with good faith. I should have never gone back to the "who's ideology is racist" topic because it is incredibly counter productive. I would rather speak about what I believe. I don't want to speak for anyone else or explain away their thoughts because I frankly don't have enough information to know the context of any particular quote that is offered. I can speak to my experience in the libertarian movement and my motivations for believing in the free market and opposing the State. You can go right along believing whoever you want is racist. I'd rather discuss the principles that I believe in and the effects of proposed policies. This is not an evasion because I concede that you all are right and Reisman and the others are really racist, it is just a call to end an unproductive line of discussion. I can only speak for myself. Most of my friends are on the left and I consider myself to be socially liberal. Contrary to the perceived myth, I enjoy racially and culturally diverse communities. I am motivated partially because of the unequal racial outcomes of many State policies so I want to reform them and change the system. I don't believe that the free market will somehow lead to bad outcomes for minorities. In fact I feel that the insinuation that some people can't "handle" freedom to be paternalistic and offensive. History has in fact showed that in the years between 1940 and 1970 black achievement, levels of employment and intact families were equal or superior to whites by many metrics even though white racism was more prevalent. The State has screwed over blacks many times, first through slavery, then Jim Crow and finally through the Welfare State, the War on Drugs and the criminal justice system. It is not right. I feel that blacks can excel and exceed the achievements of other groups without the need for condescending paternalism by guilty white liberals. I find it a little odd how you hand wave away the vitally important consideration of how you can restrain the expansion of State power. I have to reiterate that you favor the use of violence against me for following my conscience. I merely want to be left alone to use my property as I see fit. I want my self ownership respected. I should be able to choose which charities I support and voluntary associations should never be interfered with. I can't understand the ethical rationale for the use of violence against me for following my conscience. I extend to you the courtesy of respecting your natural right to following your values without interference as a believer in the non aggression principle and not only do you not reciprocate you insinuate that I am a racist on top of that. Astonishing. I'd love to get into discussing some other issues, but I need some indication of a willingness to discuss these issues without resorting to the use of epithets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I feel like this thread has gone off the rails. I'd really like to get into some substantive issues, but I won't bother unless there are some of you who still are willing to engage with good faith. you first e: "please put aside how every one I put forward and base my philosophy on isn't just a crank but actively racist, misogynist, or otherwise insane and get back to me being hilariously wrong about substantive issues" Polygynous fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:George Reisman sitting home with his bong getting stoned and thinking profound thoughts. Haven't you ever expanded your mind and considered the nature of existence? Seriously though these ARE good questions about the universe. But let's seriously not try and comb over someones loving twitter page and think that we've comprehended their worldview, all right? No, they're not good questions. They're loving dumb. Junior high dumb. At best I'd consider myself well out of my depth trying to determine the structure and nature of the universe, but even I can see he has no idea what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I feel that blacks can excel and exceed the achievements of other groups without the need for condescending paternalism by guilty white liberals. Condescending paternalism like "if an American Indian were to educate himself, he could become an Anglo-Saxon westerner too! The Best Culture on Earth is for everyone!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have I not made the case strongly enough that I oppose war and empire? And I am not the one speaking about the superiority of European culture. For the record, Reisman used the term "Western" culture. The only reason I posted that excerpt is that I feel that the position he has taken has everything to do with the ideas that he believes are superior for civilization, not anything to do with race or ethnicity. I don't understand his position fully enough to elaborate beyond that and I am not speaking for him. Good lord, you realize rational thought, intellectualism, and good parenting aren't exclusive to European culture right? Just off the top of my head: the Arabs and Persians invented algebra and chemistry, European medicine was advanced out of the dark ages by the writings of Persian Avicenna. To India we owe our numeral system, mathematical discoveries, and vaccination. Astronomy and navigation came to Europe via the Middle East as well. Good parenting sure as gently caress isn't exclusive to Europe. And we could stand to learn a thing or two from other cultures about tolerance of sexualities. Selecting out positive ideas from around the world and labeling them Western European and their original inventors as savages with primitive values is hilariously dishonest, and going a step further and graciously bestowing the title of "Honorary Western European" on someone who achieves something you approve of is loving disgusting. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're young and naive. Reisman however has no excuse for falsely representing achievements from around the world as creations of Western European culture, condemning the original inventors as savages, and then turning around and excluding from his definition of Western European culture everything bad like slavery, colonialism, exploitation, was, and empire. He's just defining Western European as All Good Things, "other" cultures as all bad things, and then well Western Europeans are superior to the darker savage races, QED!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:So do tell, what sort of studies and surveys have you proposed to determine that certain cultures are better than others? I suppose you haven't gone that far, what methodology did you use to determine that a restrained or non existant central state is empircally better than the one we have now. Keep in mind you'll have to show your work, and it'll have to be repeatable. Turns out, the epistemological achievement of praxeology has taught us that empirical evidence is absolutely useless for anything involving human affairs, with the single exception of proving that the pure Nordic and Germanic races are superior to all others, and in this instance and this alone is the empirical evidence authoritative and irrefutable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:These were important enough to him that he reproduced them on his blog a full day later, added them as comments to the NYT article that started him on the whole thing, and then also made an additional post about them that I quoted above. This isn't some 'oops I posted while stoned' mistake, this was him consciously arguing that the big bang is not a real thing because he, as an objectivist, decided it was stupid. I don't struggle with the idea that people I admire could be wrong. Many of them are wrong all the time. I have no problem admitting when someone is wrong. I've admitted disagreements with many libertarian thinkers. The main issue that I am having is that you all simply deny that any of these people have many any significant contributions to economics or history whatsoever. George Reisman penned a 1200 page, small font economic treatise on capitalism. He is the Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University. He got his Ph.D from New York University under the direction of Ludwig von Mises. Whether he has made errors or even profound mistakes (which he surely has) the fact that you can dismiss someone as "non serious" or a joke, someone who is laughed at by the "establishment" is quite absurd. That is what I object to. Frankly, I don't have the slightest qualification to get into what Reisman was talking about regarding the big bang and the expanding universe. I have no idea. Reisman is not a scientist but an economist with some background in history. There may be more context to what he was saying or there may not be. Now, if you could acknowledge that value and contributions of libertarian economists and historians to our understanding of markets and major historical events, I would be more eager to discuss the errors they individually made, because they certainly were wrong on some things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, if you could acknowledge that value and contributions of libertarian economists and historians to our understanding of markets and major historical events Less than zero. You've repeatedly ignored people proving you wrong about libertarian economists predicting recessions or the Great Depression, why not bring it up again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
At this point I feel one of us could beat jrod to death and escape statist justice by printing out this thread and showing it to the judge
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I feel like this thread has gone off the rails. I'd really like to get into some substantive issues, but I won't bother unless there are some of you who still are willing to engage with good faith. You have no intention of arguing in good faith. If I catalogued every fallacious argument you've made in this thread I'd be up all night. You frequently post absurd conclusions and preface them with things like "Clearly" or "it should be obvious" and so forth. Why should we engage with you in any credible way when you refuse to to admit you could ever possibly be wrong. You know what, I'll ask you once: Are you open to the possibility that you could wrong about libertarianism? What do you think it would take to make you consider that change? Do you believe there are any racist libertarian thinkers? And what sort of comment would it take for you to agree that someone is in fact racist? I've added my usual comment to the end there, because you made the claim on the last page that you are open to the idea that these people are in fact people and can have abhorrent beliefs, but after seeing you try and handwave away Stefan Molyneux's absurd misogyny for the upteenth time, I really want to know what it will take for you to consider someone racist, misogynistic, homophobic etc? I'll drop the whole race/hate speech etc question and yell at anyone who tries to bring it up ever again if you actually answer those questions honestly. I just want some sign that you are actually willing to engage the possibility that you might be wrong, and to know the terms that you'd consider. Because as I say, I'm at the point where I believe I could show you a picture of Hans Hermann Hoppe in a white robe in front of a burning cross and you would argue that doesn't prove anything. I simply don't believe you are being honest in this conversation. quote:I should have never gone back to the "who's ideology is racist" topic because it is incredibly counter productive. I would rather speak about what I believe. I don't want to speak for anyone else or explain away their thoughts because I frankly don't have enough information to know the context of any particular quote that is offered. I can speak to my experience in the libertarian movement and my motivations for believing in the free market and opposing the State. You can go right along believing whoever you want is racist. I'd rather discuss the principles that I believe in and the effects of proposed policies. This is not an evasion because I concede that you all are right and Reisman and the others are really racist, it is just a call to end an unproductive line of discussion. It is indeed counter-productive to have to grapple with the fact that many of these thinkers say awful things. That said I can totally accept the fact that you don't want to argue minutia of who is and is not racist. Frankly I don't like to do it either because it gets heated or boring. I've said it in other threads that I don't like the racist talk, but I'll be damned if I'll let you get the last word in by saying "Nope, none of these people are racist... now lets talk healthcare." quote:I can only speak for myself. Most of my friends are on the left and I consider myself to be socially liberal. Contrary to the perceived myth, I enjoy racially and culturally diverse communities. I am motivated partially because of the unequal racial outcomes of many State policies so I want to reform them and change the system. I don't believe that the free market will somehow lead to bad outcomes for minorities. In fact I feel that the insinuation that some people can't "handle" freedom to be paternalistic and offensive. History has in fact showed that in the years between 1940 and 1970 black achievement, levels of employment and intact families were equal or superior to whites by many metrics even though white racism was more prevalent. The State has screwed over blacks many times, first through slavery, then Jim Crow and finally through the Welfare State, the War on Drugs and the criminal justice system. It is not right. I feel that blacks can excel and exceed the achievements of other groups without the need for condescending paternalism by guilty white liberals. Christ, if you're going to drop it then drop it. When you say something like "Contrary to the perceived myth" that causes people to want to interject "No actually, I don't think that is a myth at all. I believe that is actually how we got on this derail, though it is so long ago I can barely remember." Frankly I feel the strawman that any liberal would say people can't 'handle' freedom to be offensive as hell. No one is saying that. Our position is that outcomes with absolute freedom tend to be more poor than outcomes without. If we had absolute freedom I could kill you, gently caress your woman and eat your food. We don't like that so we restrict the food with property rights, and laws to prevent rape and murder. Its not that you can't handle it, it is that it leads to poor outcomes. For the record I don't think you are racist. I think you have a very poor sense of what racism actually is, or the variety of ways that it can affect people, but I don't think you are racist. quote:I find it a little odd how you hand wave away the vitally important consideration of how you can restrain the expansion of State power. I have to reiterate that you favor the use of violence against me for following my conscience. I merely want to be left alone to use my property as I see fit. I want my self ownership respected. I should be able to choose which charities I support and voluntary associations should never be interfered with. I didn't hand wave it away. I made a substantive post on it that you ignored. Would you like me to re-post it? With that out of the way, I'm going to refrain from calling you an rear end in a top hat this time, even though you "In good faith" just argued that I am using violence against you. Do you realize how insulting that is by the way? That if I don't agree with you and your ideology 100% I am being violent against you? Of course that doesn't actually happen, and your definition of violence bares no relation to the one used by humanity, but it is still messed up. I've asked you this before, and you haven't replied so I'll end with this: You claim that you just want to be totally free. You want your self ownership, total voluntarism blah blah blah. How do we go about it? Because if this were Carosistan and I had absolute dictatorial power, I'd be happy to give you your voluntary society. But how? Seriously. You say you are totally okay with me living my life the way I want to so long as we let you do it. So how do we do that? Do we just make you exempt from all laws and remove all legal protection from you? What about the land you own that the government has claim to? Should we just give you all a big hunk of land? If so how is that any different from somalia other than maybe being more peaceful? To set society up the way you want would require a total dissolution of our current society. We would have to sell of roads, power plants and other infrastructure. Police and fire services would have to be privatized, healthcare would be denied to millions who suddenly find themselves paying out of pocket. The elderly would no longer have social security which means roughly 27 million people suddenly beneath the poverty line. So no, I can't live my life the way I enjoy and still give you what you want. If you've got a method I'm all ears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I find it a little odd how you hand wave away the vitally important consideration of how you can restrain the expansion of State power. I have to reiterate that you favor the use of violence against me for following my conscience. I merely want to be left alone to use my property as I see fit. I want my self ownership respected. I should be able to choose which charities I support and voluntary associations should never be interfered with. Nobody can disprove this for you, because your whole worldview assumes the truth of it as an axiom, and axioms are allowed to be arbitrary. The best we can do is show that adopting a system based upon it leads to universally horrible results in the real world, but you've already told us you're not interested in empirical evidence and no amount of real-world data can matter to you because you've assumed the NAP and the Libertarian definition of violence as an article of religious faith. Logical arguments are out of the question because you're assuming as true the question you are ostensibly offering to debate. Empirical arguments are out of the question because you reject empirical evidence (well, in every case except on the question of which race is superior, of course) out of hand. So all we've got left is to make you question your faith by pointing out that it's pretty drat suspect when the pure rational deductions of racists just-so-happen to conclude that white culture is the best and that it's immoral to stop them from discriminating against blacks. Like, yeah if Einstein were a homophobe that wouldn't impugn the theory of relativity. But if the theory of relativity just happened to conclude that the gays should be locked up then yeah actually we should probably take another look at his reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, I would state that I believe the ideas of the free market, of sound money, of a restrained or non existent central State, of science and intellectualism, of rational thought and intact families with peaceful parenting, among other issues, are empirically superior to the primitive values espoused by others. When you (or one of your mentors) makes such a statement, without any obvious basis in anthropological fact, your readers are going to try to suss out its meaning. Most of the other statements in the quoted paragraph have a plausible negation - it's possible to imagine a society founded on a strong central State, with an inflationary currency policy, dominated by religious dogma, etc... You can even find historical examples of failed or extinct nations which espoused some of those negated principles. But we're k-strategists. There is no plausible negation. Being an abusive parent isn't "primitive" - it's simply inhuman. Thus, we can't parse the phrase based on its literal meaning. Since the conversation is adversarial, some of us will attempt to interpret it as an encoded racist message (commonly known as a "dogwhistle"). In this case, it looks like a simple jab at a minority: by emphasizing the virtue of intact families, we remind the reader that "African-American fathers abandon their children, am I right?  "You may (justly!) retort that we're being politically correct and hypersensitive; that your statement was innocent and that the racism is entirely in the eye of the beholder. That's fine. But please be aware that you (and your interlocutors) live in a culture which is shaped by racism. Prominent racists make deliberate efforts to cloak their sentiments behind coded language (e.g. Atwater 1981). People are vigilant (or "defensive") about dogwhistle phrases because the alternative is simply to surrender the cultural medium to bigots. tl;dr - Take a few minutes to learn the phrases used by racists. If you don't want to offend people (and/or you don't want to be accused of racism) then don't repeat such phrases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:What does the underlined comment refer to? Is there some well-documented trend of infidelity and divorce in Samoa? Do Chinese parents neglect their children so that they can allocate more of their income towards nightclubs and cocaine? Well they're savages so it's obvious they cannot love their children as much as we.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Wow 1200 pages, in a small font no less. There must be a good idea in there somewhere, because
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't struggle with the idea that people I admire could be wrong. Many of them are wrong all the time. I have no problem admitting when someone is wrong. I've admitted disagreements with many libertarian thinkers. For a minute there I thought you were trying to convince us he knows his rear end from a hole in the ground but I'm not seeing any evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Position in queue 244... eh, I've got time.jrodefeld posted:I don't struggle with the idea that people I admire could be wrong. Many of them are wrong all the time. I have no problem admitting when someone is wrong. I've admitted disagreements with many libertarian thinkers. I think the only instance I've seen of you saying this was Murray Rothbard on selling children. You certainly couldn't admit Molyneux was a misogynist despite a mountain of proof. quote:The main issue that I am having is that you all simply deny that any of these people have many any significant contributions to economics or history whatsoever. George Reisman penned a 1200 page, small font economic treatise on capitalism. He is the Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University. He got his Ph.D from New York University under the direction of Ludwig von Mises. With respect, he is. Austrian economists are the redheaded stepchild of economists. Its the reason that when I search up his book for review I don't get a single hit outside of libertarian circles. Frankly I'd never even heard of George Reisman before today, which says a lot about how utterly meaningless he is in the grand scheme of things. And I know I've mentioned Eripsa a lot, but it is worth mentioning that forum poster Eripsa is a full professor of Psychology at a more prestigious school that Reisman. I also have no respect for Eripsa because credentials mean almost nothing to me, especially in the face of actual evidence that the man doesn't know what he is talking about, such as the Ebola post he made, or his complaints about labor unions, or the fact that he thinks he is more qualified to talk about the big bang than actual scientists who study it. Frankly speaking, any person stupid enough to get taken in by Ayn Rand is not a person I would want to associate with or sing the praises of. Her cult was an exercise in sociopathy, and every other alumni I've read about has gone on to do frankly awful things. Feel free to post some of his economic theory, and we can discuss the man as much as you want, but I am not impressed by some credentials. The fact that he still studies and espouses objectivism is a big red flag for me, sorry. Objectivism pretty much "Sociopathy: The Ethical System". quote:Frankly, I don't have the slightest qualification to get into what Reisman was talking about regarding the big bang and the expanding universe. I have no idea. Reisman is not a scientist but an economist with some background in history. There may be more context to what he was saying or there may not be. Neither does he. Having a background in history does not make for any sort of understanding of the big bang, but you can be damned if he didn't try. The context is that Reisman thinks he knows better. The big bang isn't real because he has logically proved it isn't, just like global warming isn't a thing either despite what 'science' tells us. quote:Now, if you could acknowledge that value and contributions of libertarian economists and historians to our understanding of markets and major historical events, I would be more eager to discuss the errors they individually made, because they certainly were wrong on some things. There are a handful of libertarians or people you would call libertarian who have contributed decent ideas. You typically claim hayak for example, and while I think his models were off, I also know he came up with some innovative ideas and concepts we still use today. So there is one for starters. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wow 1200 pages, in a small font no less. There must be a good idea in there somewhere, because Chapter 1: On Peaceful Parenting: For the bulk of human history, children were considered an ugly nuisance, their provenance a mystery, their cries shrill and irritating, feeding them an unwelcome burden, a source of strife and misery. This sad state of affairs prevails yet among the savage parts of the globe. But in Western Europe, something happened, something which would ignite the fire of civilization. A dirty, matted, apelike semihuman gave birth to something different, something fair and lovely. The tribe gasped in amazement. The simian parents were overwhelmed by a strange feeling as they gazed upon a beautiful baby: pearly skin, rose-red cheeks, hair yellow like spun gold, and deep blue eyes the colour of the summer sky. This feeling of peace, elation, bonding brought a word unbidden to the thick lips and jutting jaw of the mother. "Love," said she, "Love." And the world was changed forever. "Love!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Let's all start debating like Jrodefeld. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that Austrian economics and its principles can predict anything even so lowly as a fart coming out of my butt, and no rational person could believe otherwise. Furthermore, if you look at [links to marxist website], you'll find a wealth of evidence showing the obvious supremacy of collectivist action, including comparative observations of living standards in statist and stateless societies. I think we can all agree on that, and start debating from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Praxeology means that the best solution is kill you're parents Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:But we're k-strategists. There is no plausible negation. Being an abusive parent isn't "primitive" - it's simply inhuman. K-strategy is an invention of Western European culture. It's open to all species to adopt k-strategy and become honorary Western Europeans, but if they prefer to be savages and continue with the r-strategy of Darkest Africa and the nations of the Mysterious Orient then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Praxeology means that the best solution is kill you're parents Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul This is true a priori but read this 1200 page paper on it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't struggle with the idea that people I admire could be wrong. Many of them are wrong all the time. I have no problem admitting when someone is wrong. I've admitted disagreements with many libertarian thinkers. I am just going to point out that this does not mean anything. Von Mises and Austrian school economics has little to no influence on orthodox economics, particularly neoclassical, where Keynes has 100x more influence. There are pockets of schools of economics within the US such as GMU that are bastions of Austrian/Chicago school thought that provide many "contributions" to the vast literature of economics, but that is not an indicator of influence or mainstream acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. A while back we were talking about minimum wage laws. I was arguing that raising them would not translate to higher living standards but only higher prices for goods and/or more unemployment since it is marginal productivity of the worker that determines wage rates not some arbitrary edict from Washington. You took the opposite position and argued for higher minimum wage laws. As a practical compromise, would you or would you not support the elimination of minimum wage laws for teenagers only? Surely teenagers living with their parents don't require the same "living wage" as a working adult trying to raise a family? The problem is that teenage unemployment is much higher and for black teenagers it is astronomically higher. Surely everyone would benefit from having greater work experience earlier in life? If the average teenager already had six plus years of work experience by the time they were 21 or 22, they would already be earning much more than the minimum wage once they move out on their own. I can only see this as a positive step in the right direction. Exempt teens from minimum wage requirements and allow them to work for whatever wage they agree to on the market. What are your thoughts on this proposal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now, if you could acknowledge that value and contributions of libertarian economists and historians to our understanding of markets and major historical events, Libertarians, yourself included (perhaps especially), have given absolutely nothing of value to society and are leeches upon productive members such as myself. Everything libertarians consume is a complete and utter waste of resources that we will never get back. Libertarians make this a worse nation simply by virtue of being immense drains upon the rest of us. So I fully acknowledge the value and contributions of libertarian economists and historians to our understanding of markets and major historical events as being a massive net negative. -EDIT- jrodefeld posted:As a practical compromise, would you or would you not support the elimination of minimum wage laws for teenagers only? No, I absolutely do not support having children work for slave wages, especially ones on the street or from underprivileged families. Jesus Christ do you have a single idea in that addled head of yours that isn't repugnant? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Double Post!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the average teenager already had six plus years of work experience by the time they were 21 or 22, they would already be earning much more than the minimum wage once they move out on their own. how There's like no part of that that isn't wrong, but this stands out. If we allow employers to pay teenagers sub-minimum wage somehow they end up earning more with no explanation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:This is true a priori but read this 1200 page paper on it anyway. Excuse me sir I teach economics 080 at Catabba Diesel Tech I don't need to read books. Books are propaganda that force their ideas on me and thus violate the NAP which clearly means that farrrrt
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
"The solution to black children not having jobs in their often systemically poor communities is to pay them a nickel per hour!" says the absolutely non-racist guy who loves diverse neighborhoods. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:09
|
|