|
Wait, Hans Hermann Hoppe is alive and writing today?  I had no idea that could be possible.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, Hans Hermann Hoppe is alive and writing today? It really is hard to remember that isn't it? I mean, who the gently caress writes about segregation and natural social elites in a positive way in 2014?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, Hans Hermann Hoppe is alive and writing today? His writing makes it hard to remember that no, he's not a 50's klansman reacting to the civil rights movement, but rather a modern person who just so happens to be awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, Hans Hermann Hoppe is alive and writing today? Yeah this came up a few pages ago. HHH writes like a lesser German aristocrat from 1890 but he's in his mid-sixties and actively contributes to economic discussions that are happening right now. Well at least he would if economists didn't avoid him like the plague.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Best of all he is a state employee of the university of Nevada. Its funny how many libertarians are state employees isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Yes but he's not going out in public shouting "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family" or otherwise meeting some impossible standard of No True Racism so it doesn't count. Plus, you know, racism is a collective ideology so no libertarian can be racist, obivously. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Can you understand how the belief in the use of force against the innocent is inextricably linked to nearly every instance of racial horror, from Apartheid to Jim Crow to the Holocaust? Bigoted private views, while unfortunate, lose all of their power if not backed up by the law, by aggressive force. You know that thing where we chide you on about talking about things on which you do not understand? Boy, did you go running full steam into this one. This is probably the stupidest thing you have ever said. I want you to bask in the massive stupidity of this statement. Yes, if Hitler followed my ideology, he wouldn't have murdered 11 million people. But then he would cease to be Hitler and become something totally different. If Hitler followed my political philosophy, or the philosophies of anyone in this thread, he wouldn't be Hitler. Here's the thing about Nazism, it was the creation of a mad-man who's views on the values of human existence are so foreign to our way of dealing with politics that it is meaningless to discuss. The reality is that no system can stop a Hitler from rising up, and it's foolish for us to try. Even if your claim wasn't offensive on the face of it, it's also meaningless since nobody here is trying to push the Nazi ideology. Plus, once again, how would Libertarianism prevent a Hitler from rising up. It seems as if Libertarianism requires us to find the next big black monolith and have this massive changing and awakening in human behavior. It requires a change on how people act and handle themselves. It suddenly requires us to cease to try and exploit people and things and work together in unity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
So I've heard a lot of jrodefeld and other libertarians praising competition in the free market as a mechanism to affect change, and how bad actors would be out-competed by good ones starting their own business. But what I can't figure out is why anyone would want to do this. Yes, the government sets a lot of barriers to starting a new business, but it also keeps others down. For example, jrodefeld is happy to propose a society without limited liability - but why would I take the enormously risky venture of starting my own business if it could lead to the loss of literally everything I own? If my business fails in a state with welfare programs, and I lose my income stream, I can still, depending on jurisdiction, count on receiving health care, child care, food assistance, and so on. Libertopia would require me to depend on the kindness of strangers, and endangering my paycheck would be an act of real self-endangerment, given that so many services in it would be offered on a subscription basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Okay this is addressed directly to Jrod (or any libertarians that want to talk about race): There is no genetic difference between different races because race has absolutely nothing to do with biology, not even skin color. Race is entirely a social construct to create an "other". If you want proof just look at the race categories in the US census from the beginning of the 20th century for each decade until now because it is both hilarious and incredibly horrifying. I don't actually know if you know this or not I'm just telling you out of courtesy because this is the bare minimum you should know if you talk about race. Edit: well there there is probably noticeable genetic differences on a superficial level since you are looking at different groups of people but the point is is that they are irrelevant to race. Cnidaria fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:So I've heard a lot of jrodefeld and other libertarians praising competition in the free market as a mechanism to affect change, and how bad actors would be out-competed by good ones starting their own business. But what I can't figure out is why anyone would want to do this. Not to mention that, if it was better business sense to be a "Good Actor" than a "Bad Actor," we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Yet, as it is, Bad Actors have dominated economies for millennia, and government regulation has risen up in response, to restrict them. It's yet another case in which Libertarians seem to think that the real world is like some sort of videogame, where I can decide not to shop at Walmart because their StrangeCoin auras are the resonant black-red of Lawful Evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Okay this is addressed directly to Jrod (or any libertarians that want to talk about race): Just look at the ever shifting definition of White. 1014 years ago, I would not be white. That's what I get for being an Irish Catholic. They hated people like me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Okay this is addressed directly to Jrod (or any libertarians that want to talk about race): There is a much greater genetic diversity between the peoples of east and west Africa than there is between all the peoples of Europe and Asia combined. This is exactly in keeping with principles of evolutionary biology observed in other species. But basically all race categorization systems will insist that a Somali woman and a Nigerian man are the same race, but that a French man and a Pakistani man are different. Race is entirely a social construct. They're no biological basis at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, Hans Hermann Hoppe is alive and writing today?  You reasonably assumed that Hoppe was writing from a bygone era and needed a manservant to starch his collars Under no circumstances, he's professor emeritus at UNLV 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:There is a much greater genetic diversity between the peoples of east and west Africa than there is between all the peoples of Europe and Asia combined. This is exactly in keeping with principles of evolutionary biology observed in other species. But basically all race categorization systems will insist that a Somali woman and a Nigerian man are the same race, but that a French woman and a Pakistani man are different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
I guess that does explain why he doesn't just drop the pretense and call himself a fascist, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I guess that does explain why he doesn't just drop the pretense and call himself a fascist, though. Well there isn't anything wrong with benevolent fascism, as we've already clarified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Basically Libertarianism in general and especially Anarchic-Capitalism in particular subscribe to Utopianist magical thinking that assumes that if we just get rid of all the bad actors and live right
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
One of these days jrod is going to respond to the effectiveness of public health care outside the United States, and why it appears to be successful contrary to his assertions. I just know it! Or maybe he'll just respond to a post about racism again while going "ugh guys I swear this is my last post about racism" for the nth time. Like seriously, what is this bullshit: sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this: sudo rm -rf posted:"Guys, please address my arguments!" 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 whining about political correctness! sudo rm -rf posted:If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success? sudo rm -rf fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:One of these days jrod is going to respond to the effectiveness of public health care outside the United States, and why it appears to be successful contrary to his assertions. I just know it! Racism is actually a bigger problem for him, considering his recruitment strategy is to tell black people to stop being so gullible and get off the government plantation, and listen to a bunch of white people who believe they are genetically inferior (but not in a racist way) instead. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:One of these days jrod is going to respond to the effectiveness of public health care outside the United States, and why it appears to be successful contrary to his assertions. I just know it! We could get bogged down for days in the minutia of empirical evidence you guys keep presenting about health care, but empirical evidence is beside the point. What do you think about this article proving from a priori reasoning that the minimum wage hurts the poor, written by a guy who has elsewhere used a priori reasoning to disprove the Big Bang, cosmic microwave background radiation, genetics, and the 25-year decline in crime rates. Some Insane Libertopian Prophet posted:Assume I am right, therefore I am right VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Also I have to say that, as someone who used to be very strongly anarcho-syndicalist in my beliefs, the attempt to conflate them with the poo poo in this thread pisses me off. There are parts of anarchism that are flawed and unworkable, but their ideology isn't a tissue-thin cover for unrestricted greed and the right to be bigoted with no consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:How do we end this teenage crime wave? Maybe let the black kids be janitors so they can learn janitor skills. Interestingly enough, this reduction is probably due to the end of leaded gasoline, something Libertarians would not bother with because it's a restriction on the free market. They'd much rather make money first on their cheaper gasoline, then make additional money running the private prisons to house all the people who had their brains broken by that cheap fuel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Interestingly enough, this reduction is probably due to the end of leaded gasoline, something Libertarians would not bother with because it's a restriction on the free market. They'd much rather make money first on their cheaper gasoline, then make additional money running the private prisons to house all the people who had their brains broken by that cheap fuel. Libertarians would never dream of thinking black children needed to be coddled by taking away pollutants like the real racists the Leftist Progressives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Air pollution is also one of those things a libertarian society absolutely can't deal with since it is something that has to be managed collectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Uh air pollution is a byproduct of a society advanced in technology, hygiene, medicine, and manufacturing through the power of rational thought. It's not heavy metals poisoning you hate: it's Man's Reason. Edit: Hmm, I wonder if anyone has plotted popularity of Libertarianism on a 20-year time lag with childhood blood levels of lead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Air pollution is also one of those things a libertarian society absolutely can't deal with since it is something that has to be managed collectively. And if you wait until there are concrete damages before I can sue you for polluting, it means I can only do anything about it once it's far too late and the damage to the environment may be irreversible. Or if I can sue you preemptively for damages your polluting factory might do to me, it flips around and now I can sue anyone for driving a car anywhere in the world. Pollution is aggression, aggressing against me from half way across the world is still aggression  .
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh air pollution is a byproduct of a society advanced in technology, hygiene, medicine, and manufacturing through the power of rational thought. It's not heavy metals poisoning you hate: it's Man's Reason. If the Dinosaurs had all died due to Dinosaur-Made Pollution in the Atmosphere we'd be very impressed with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Finding out that Hans-Herman Hoppe actually taught at UNLV for twenty years actually explains a lot of the libertarians floating around Nevada without any real connection to reality. Also finding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics explains a lot of Jrod's particular debate style. "Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument." Obviously anything that contradicts Jrod's stated position doesn't exist/or is logically wrong. Stepped in that sort of idea, I can see where he really doesn't have a lot of room to actually acknowledge something that isn't his stated position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Also finding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics explains a lot of Jrod's particular debate style. "Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument." Am I crazy, or is all it would take to disprove this is to argue on behalf of another party's aggression? StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Finding out that Hans-Herman Hoppe actually taught at UNLV for twenty years actually explains a lot of the libertarians floating around Nevada without any real connection to reality. The best part is how no one outside of libertarians even bothers to criticize argumentation ethics because of how loving stupid it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Also finding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics explains a lot of Jrod's particular debate style. "Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument." The way it does this is wonderfully childish too. While the whole argument is a bit more complicated to cover it's obviously hanging out rear end it can be summed up like this. Because you need a body to make an verbal argument, you must agree that ownership of your own body is required for that argument to take place. Therefore you believe personal ownership is the lynchpin of all non-violent conflict resolution. QED LIBERTARIANISM WINS AGAIN 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
It seems like a libertarian arguing that, since you aren't punching them in the jaw, that you must therefore agree to the premise of his argument, is really tempting a good punch in the jaw. edit: is a punch in the jaw actually the most concise argument against libertarians? I think it might be, as it expresses the aspects of human nature that make libertarianism unworkable before you even get into their idiocy about praxeology and voluntary police and fire departments StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It seems like a libertarian arguing that, since you aren't punching them in the jaw, that you must therefore agree to the premise of his argument, is really tempting a good punch in the jaw. No but see you can't punch them in the jaw because you don't own that jaw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It seems like a libertarian arguing that, since you aren't punching them in the jaw, that you must therefore agree to the premise of his argument, is really tempting a good punch in the jaw. It actually is. "Force prevails. Are you gonna call the state thugs about it?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:It seems like a libertarian arguing that, since you aren't punching them in the jaw, that you must therefore agree to the premise of his argument, is really tempting a good punch in the jaw. I found the best argument is to deny human rights are universal and are entirely constructs of a society. It was how I managed to get this libertarian running for the minnesota house to yell at me about all rights coming from God and the "founders being guided by God".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:No. Instead of engaging with me, you're going to dump a really long, and dry, article by some guy I never heard of and ask me to give my thoughts on the matter? It's laziness. It's an appeal to authority. I don't think I am overly relying on links or quotes at all. Now, if YOU wanted to quote an article that was a reasonable length that was relevant, I'd be more than happy to look over it. The point of that article was to point out that pro-market, pro-private property left libertarianism and mutualism is a forgotten but once influential tradition that I figured you would appreciate. The traditional values and concerns of the radical left are entirely compatible with support for the free market and private property rights, as the radical individualist anarchists and mutualists of the 19th and 20th centuries prove.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think I am overly relying on links or quotes at all. What's more likely, that we as a thread have gotten together to say you rely on articles far too much for some purpose or that you're wrong and you really do rely on articles far too much?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think I am overly relying on links or quotes at all. Now, if YOU wanted to quote an article that was a reasonable length that was relevant, I'd be more than happy to look over it. What makes you think we care what you think? We, the people who you are talking to, are asking you to stop relying on links or copy-pasting entire articles of other peoples work and expecting us to read it. Clearly you are overly relying on links because people are getting annoyed that you are doing it. No one is here to argue with Sheldon Richman, Sheldon Richman isn't in this thread. If Sheldon Richman were here then we would argue with him. You don't see us posting large swaths of other people's work because it is largely not helpful for the discussion we're having. In particular I find it impossible to argue against someone elses work because when and if I point out errors or massive flaws in the work, you simply respond by saying that you clearly disagree with it, but that the article is still sound. And no, the traditional values and concerns of radical left are not compatible with support for the free market because one of the core values of the radical left is their disgust for the free market. This is the same as you trying to argue that Lysander Spooner agrees with you, when he'd laugh in your face if he were alive. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:And no, the traditional values and concerns of radical left are not compatible with support for the free market because one of the core values of the radical left is their disgust for the free market. This is the same as you trying to argue that Lysander Spooner agrees with you, when he'd laugh in your face if he were alive. One thing you might want to consider is that Rothbard has also coopted the term "Left Libertarian" to include broader anarchists that support market dynamics. However, even under Rothbard's expanded definition, they absolutely do not uniformly believe in the same definition of private property and property rights that Right Libertarians do (they are still more aligned with collectivists). Basically the whole discourse has been poisoned by Rothbard, and JRod will hide behind this to ensure that he is always right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Caros posted:What makes you think we care what you think? We, the people who you are talking to, are asking you to stop relying on links or copy-pasting entire articles of other peoples work and expecting us to read it. Clearly you are overly relying on links because people are getting annoyed that you are doing it. Using the same methodology as argumentation ethics if you simply pre-define leftist-libertarianism as being compatible with leftism then obviously leftist-libertarianism is compatible with leftism! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:16
|
|