Cemetry Gator posted:

But what good does smearing him as a racist do? Is it so you can feel superior?

Who What Now posted:

Forcing people to face their flaws can motivate them to change those flaws and ridicule, whether you like it or not, can also serve as a very effective way of changing people.

Jack of Hearts posted:

In this specific case, though, jrod is definitely the type to dig in under ridicule, so its value is pretty questionable.

Jack of Hearts posted:

In this specific case, though, jrod is definitely the type to dig in under ridicule, so its value is pretty questionable.

jrodefeld posted:

Deontology is concerned with determining "right action" through logic and reason, as well as empathy towards others. Then each individual action is judged by its adherence to that universal standard of morality. Now, a person may be wrong in his determination of what "moral rules" he feels must be applied, but in such a case he has made an error in reason and must be challenged on those grounds, not on a rejection of deontology.

Every single religious and spiritually teaching is, by definition, deontological. The Ten Commandments is deontological. "Do unto others" is deontological. Now, a fact that backs up the libertarian deontology is the fact that nearly everyone already accepts libertarian ethics of non aggression, cooperation and respect for private property rights in every aspect of their private lives. It is only when it comes to the State that people begin to make exceptions.

However, how can exceptions to morality be anything less than the rejection of morality itself? Deontology does not permit exceptions. If an action contradicts the moral "rules" that are established through use of ones reason, then that action is immoral for everyone.

H.H. Joachim posted:

[T]he sphere of necessary and timeless being -- the sphere in which substances or subjects are necessarily and timelessly united with certain properties or divorced from others -- is the subject matter of strict scientific truth or demonstration proper. Demonstrative science establishes mediate necessary truths (or premises) or apprehends and proves connections determined by necessary laws. (e.g. mathematics)
...
But in many spheres of being, Aristotle thought, no such absolutely necessary connections obtained. There were connections which held for a time, or for the most time, not timelessly (i.e., indifferently at all times) nor without exception -- not laws of nature in the modern sense, but general rules. And, corresponding to this variable and indeterminate nature of the subject matter, human experience in such spheres necessarily fails of absolute truth or demonstrative certainty. (e.g. ethics)

Who What Now posted:

Forcing people to face their flaws can motivate them to change those flaws and ridicule, whether you like it or not, can also serve as a very effective way of changing people.

quote:

There is an important lesson to this story. Racists can be dealt with by social action, without the use of government force. The racist tree should have the right to choose who it gives it's apples to, but will face consequences if those choices are irrational and disapproved of by the people around it. The parts of the Civil Rights act that prevent the government from discriminating are justified, but the parts that ban businesses from discriminating are a violation of the racist tree's rights and unnecessary.

Mr Interweb posted:

Let's check out the comments, shall we?


Well then.

Who What Now posted:

I never said that story was going to change minds, it was merely to illustrate the point that ridicule can change some people's minds.

Jack of Hearts posted:

In this specific case, though, jrod is definitely the type to dig in under ridicule, so its value is pretty questionable.

jrodefeld posted:

I'd suggest you take Cemetary Gator's advice and drop the accusations of racism towards me or libertarianism in general. I'd be happy to talk about the actual or likely effects of various policy proposals on different groups of people thought. After all, that is really the most important consideration if you truly are as concerned about the plight of blacks or other racial minorities as you claim.

jrodefeld posted:

I'd suggest you take Cemetary Gator's advice and drop the accusations of racism towards me or libertarianism in general. I'd be happy to talk about the actual or likely effects of various policy proposals on different groups of people thought. After all, that is really the most important consideration if you truly are as concerned about the plight of blacks or other racial minorities as you claim.

jrodefeld posted:

Your claim that libertarians are either ignorant of, or don't care about the plight of the poor, of minorities and those without privilege is ridiculous given the sheer volume of material that libertarians produce that focus on these very issues.

jrodefeld posted:

I'd suggest you take Cemetary Gator's advice and drop the accusations of racism towards me or libertarianism in general. I'd be happy to talk about the actual or likely effects of various policy proposals on different groups of people though. After all, that is really the most important consideration if you truly are as concerned about the plight of blacks or other racial minorities as you claim.

jrodefeld posted:

jrodefeld posted:

Pththya-lyi posted:

Jrod, you keep dumping this stuff on us and presenting it as what you believe, then you get mad at us for assuming it's what you believe. I appreciate that you're trying to articulate your own positions now instead of echoing others, but I don't think we can be blamed that strongly for failing to understand what you won't articulate.

I'd like to know what libertarians are doing about the problem of racism other than writing about it. All the libertarian groups I've heard of seem to focus on relaxing regulations on business and don't seem to advocate for oppressed groups. (Unless you define 'business owners' as an oppressed group, but that definition is going to be a hard sell in DnD.) Private charity is supposed to provide the solution to public welfare problems, so what private charity are libertarians providing?

jrodefeld posted:

I'd like to reengage with you on a number of important topics, but I couldn't help but read the last three or four pages and notice that, even in my brief absence, many of you could not resist labeling me a racist or lobbing other ad hominem attacks on my character. Notably several of you, like "Cemetry Gator", rejected the use of this label as either unfair or at the very least unproductive. But there is a narrative that you seem desperate to establish. Specifically, that libertarians are sheltered and privileged, unaware of (at best) or supportive of the racist effects of the policies they support. There is a pattern that has emerged where if I cite a libertarian author or thinker, you immediately comb through their published work searching for anything controversial they have ever written and then attribute any and all of those views to me demanding that I answer for the "offending" quote.

quote:

For someone like Hoppe or Rothbard, I explain what I think they meant by phrases like "time preference" and the alleged superiority of one culture over the other, and then you erroneously assume that I then agree with these arguments. Considering that you would casually label ME a racist given the limited knowledge that could be ascertained over an anonymous internet message board demonstrates that you use the label as a pejorative designed to assassinate someones character rather than as a descriptive label that requires proof or at the very least substantial evidence. I have been quite outspoken in making it clear that my personal social values are quite different than those of someone like Hoppe and many of the religious and/or conservative Austrian libertarians. If someone makes an argument I find compelling or persuasive, I make note of it and I cite that argument or information.

quote:

Earlier I listed a few of my favorite libertarian thinkers to give some idea of the breadth of the movement and the different social and/or cultural values that libertarians do and have held. What I found fascinating is that Caros repeatedly praised the person of Gary Chartier who I listed as one of my favorites. Why is this? Why is Chartier a good guy, certainly not a racist, while the others are despicable horrible people?

The obvious answer is that Chartier is culturally on the "left". He spent a decade or more on the left proper and returned to libertarianism sharing my of the concerns and values that leftists hold. He articulates those concerns through his libertarian advocacy.

quote:

The puzzling thing though is that the actual policies advocated by Gary Chartier are nearly identical to those promoted by Murray Rothbard. He is an individualist, private property anarchist. His recent book is titled "The Conscience of an Anarchist".

quote:

If I had to describe my own views, I would be on the "left", a left libertarian. Not a socialist or anti State Marxist, but the sort of laissez faire radical that is concerned with many common values that are important to leftists. I know that almost none of you bothered to read the article I cited that was written by Sheldon Richman, "Free Market Anti Capitalism", but that describes many of my views and my values closer than the "right wing" brand of libertarianism of someone like Ayn Rand (though she rejected the label "libertarian") or Hoppe or late-period Murray Rothbard.

quote:

I read a great deal of libertarian commentary and analyses and, if you actually had any exposure to the breadth of the libertarian commentary that is readily available, it would be absurd on the face of it to think of us as "racists". I listen to Scott Horton's podcast every day and, almost without fail, he rails against racist white cops and their treatment of poor blacks. You should hear his commentary about Ferguson. Or someone like Will Grigg, who happens to be black, has done more than anyone I know to expose the atrocities committed by police against the public. He pays special attention to the treatment of minority communities by police and other arms of the State.

Anthony Gregory, one of my favorite authors and commentators, is a left libertarian who attended Berkeley and currently lives in San Francisco. He is a "Rothbardian" is his policies, a genuine anarchist, but his message is far more "leftist" in tone and in content.

Walter Williams, a black libertarian economist, produced a documentary that you can find on youtube called "The State Against Blacks" which documents the various vicious policies and economic restrictions that politicians have placed upon inner city minorities. The economic opportunities available to minorities are artificially restricted due to minimum wage laws, licensing restrictions and permits require to start businesses, monopoly privilege provided to established businesses, failing schools and, of course, the war on drugs which provides incentive to make money in a dangerous and illegal trade.

quote:

Your claim that libertarians are either ignorant of, or don't care about the plight of the poor, of minorities and those without privilege is ridiculous given the sheer volume of material that libertarians produce that focus on these very issues. It could just be a general ignorance of the breadth of libertarian literature and commentary or, more likely, a blind desire to pigeonhole libertarianism into a sort of right wing extremism that comports with your currently existing prejudices. It might be comforting, but it is hardly accurate.

quote:

I'd suggest you take Cemetary Gator's advice and drop the accusations of racism towards me or libertarianism in general. I'd be happy to talk about the actual or likely effects of various policy proposals on different groups of people thought. After all, that is really the most important consideration if you truly are as concerned about the plight of blacks or other racial minorities as you claim.

Heavy neutrino posted:

Err what values of the left are represented by individualistic free market anarchism again?

quote:

-engaging in class analysis and class struggle;
-opposing corporate privilege;
-undermining structural poverty
-embracing shared responsibility for challenging economic vulnerability;
-affirming wealth redistribution;
-supporting grass-roots empowerment;
-humanizing worklife;
-protecting civil liberties;
-opposing the drug war;
-supporting the rights of sex workers;
-challenging police violence;
-promoting environmental well-being and animal welfare;
-fostering children’s liberation;
-rejecting racism, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, and national chauvinism; and
-resisting war, imperialism and colonialism.

Simultaneously, it features libertarian commitments to:

-affirming robust protections for just possessory claims;
-embracing freed markets and a social ideal of peaceful, voluntary cooperation; and
-crafting a thoroughly anti-statist politics.

Caros posted:

Generally speaking libertarians do have a bunch of things in common with leftists. This is why someone like Rand/Ron Paul can be successful with young voters. No death penalty, oppose the drug war, end imperialism and so forth. Here is Gary Chartier's version of left libertarianism for example:


I think most leftists have a ton in common with the first chunk of that list, its the latter half that we hold umbrage with. The issue really comes down to how said goals are accomplished, rather than what the goals actually are. Ancaps are less... generous than that list suggests, for example I've never read an An-Cap thinker who gave a poo poo about structural poverty as part of their platform, they simply don't acknowledge it or figure that it will get fixed with the magic of the market.

Caros posted:

Generally speaking libertarians do have a bunch of things in common with leftists. This is why someone like Rand/Ron Paul can be successful with young voters. No death penalty, oppose the drug war, end imperialism and so forth. Here is Gary Chartier's version of left libertarianism for example:

Heavy neutrino posted:

Err what values of the left are represented by individualistic free market anarchism again?

Pththya-lyi posted:

Freedom of association (e.g. the right to marry or have sex with whom you want), freedom of speech, freedom to do what you want with your body (e.g. get a sex change or an abortion).

Caros posted:

Generally speaking libertarians do have a bunch of things in common with leftists. This is why someone like Rand/Ron Paul can be successful with young voters. No death penalty, oppose the drug war, end imperialism and so forth. Here is Gary Chartier's version of left libertarianism for example:


I think most leftists have a ton in common with the first chunk of that list, its the latter half that we hold umbrage with. The issue really comes down to how said goals are accomplished, rather than what the goals actually are. Ancaps are less... generous than that list suggests, for example I've never read an An-Cap thinker who gave a poo poo about structural poverty as part of their platform, they simply don't acknowledge it or figure that it will get fixed with the magic of the market.

VitalSigns posted:

We did that in the last thread, you said black people should just build their own schools and roads and gold mines and plantations. Is it going to be different this time around, or are we still going to pursue our own volkseie through the ennobling system of separate development with a homeland for every race?

jrodefeld posted:

This is the sort of thing that makes communication difficult if not impossible. Not I, nor any libertarian that I am aware of, ever said anything close to what you described.

The sum total of the libertarian position that could ever remotely be construed as segregationist or separatist is the acknowledgement that once individuals acquire property in a legitimate manner they have the right to exclusive control over that scarce resource provided their actions don't invade the property boundaries of another's legitimately owned private property, including of course their physical body. Inherent in this right is the unfortunate right to exclude or discriminate based on bigoted views. This is not an advocacy of such action anymore than a defender of the first amendment is a supporter of hate speech.

So private property owners could potentially discriminate based on racist reasons explicitly but there are various economic incentives that would discourage such overt discriminatory policies. We should not expect to see most businesses advocating for artificially limiting their customer base due to petty bigoted views the owner holds. Naturally the more inclusive business who serves everyone would gain more and more market share and make more profits as a result.

Any racist business would exist on the periphery of society, subject to boycotts and social pressure. Any private property that is not open to the public is free to discriminate for any reason even today, so there would be no change in a libertarian society.

I enjoy living among a racially diverse population. So stop with the insulting and inaccurate hyperbole. The least courtesy you could extend me is to state my (and the libertarian) position accurately.

jrodefeld posted:

This is the sort of thing that makes communication difficult if not impossible. Not I, nor any libertarian that I am aware of, ever said anything close to what you described.

Muscle Tracer posted:

You do not understand "inelasticity." Let me give you a two-part example:

I like chewing gum, but I don't really NEED to chew gum. If the price of gum went up 500%, I'd probably chew 20% as much gum. Demand for gum is what we'd call "highly elastic"

I absolutely need an MRI so that the doctor can figure out what's wrong with my brain and why I'm having these seizures. If the doctor says "3000 bucks," I'll get one MRI. If the doctor says "6000 bucks," I'm still going to get one MRI. If the doctor said "20 bucks," I would actually STILL only get one MRI. Because I need it—demand is "highly inelastic"—and that's a whole different story. The only way I'm going to not get an MRI is if it's so incredibly expensive that I can't afford it.

That last price point, $20, is key, by the way—inelasticity of demand goes both ways. Not only will I still get one MRI no matter what, but I will also not get any more than one no matter the price, whereas a gum manufacturer might be able to make more money by selling a larger quantity of gum at a lower price. But since that's not true of medical care, that means that there's extremely little incentive for medical providers to reduce their costs. The only incentive to reduce price is if you're losing customers to competitors, but in most parts of the US there are no competitors, or one or two at most. If that sounds similar to Comcast and Time Warner's price gouging and unwillingness to enter the 21st century, that's because it is. There's very little competition in medicine for many reasons, but a large part of it is similar to ISPs: a huge amount of infrastructure is required, especially if you consider the training and expertise of the hospital's employees ("human resources" after all) as infrastructure. So, just like no plucky ISPs are popping up providing better services than Comcast, it's extremely unlikely that a competitor is going to pop up offering comparable services at competitive costs.

So, the capitalist hospital, like all other capitalist enterprises, has one goal when it comes to pricing: find the equilibrium point between supply and demand. Well, demand is almost infinite--it only starts to taper away when it becomes impossible for patients to afford. Doesn't it make logical sense that an enterprise in the business of maximizing its profits would do so by fixing the highest price that people are willing to pay? And if not, why not? There's little to no competition, the demand is inelastic. What is going to drive down the price of essential care?

SedanChair posted:

Yeah just think, when others fight poverty by providing money or services, or by supporting progressive policies, libertarians give that most precious of contributions: reams and reams of paper covered with their own writings