|
Obviously, if the prosecutors or courts reached decisions we didn't like, we would stop using them and they would go out of business. Just like that time that JP Morgan Chase went out of business for committing massive mortgage and insurance fraud and were swiftly abandoned by their customers. I have a JP Morgan Chase mortgage. They offered me the lowest rate, so I took it. The system works.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
"Violence" is just libertarian-speak for "something that I don't like"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
It's fascinating that most outside analyses of what a libertarian society conclude that it would almost immediately form an analogy of a state, whether similar to ours or a single-party fascist one. Almost like capital and the state are fundamentally connected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Can I give you a helpful hint, Jrodefeld? Stop being so intellectually lazy. A lot of your ideas are very primitive, and not really well-explored. Take your conclusions to the next level. Look for flaws in your arguments. Because honestly, most of the flaws I find are not these really clever flaws that demonstrate an intense understanding on the things you discuss. Rather, they're me spending five seconds trying to argue against your claims. You make a lot of paper thin arguments because you don't take the time to see where they might be structurally weak. And don't think using flowery language is making them stronger. A weak argument eloquently stated is just nice smelling poo poo. It's what he's used to. Writing libertarian essays should be viewed as some kind of art form, like Balinese dance, rather than a method for learning or communicating ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
The problem with Libertarian law is the same problem with deontological morals; the idea there is a set, objective 'fairness' for every situation that exists that everyone agrees on. Of course if a DRO just decided to let Bill the baby-face eater walk after his stroll through the maternity ward, people wouldn't keep using them. But that's not the situation that raises problems, what raises problems is when the two sides of a dispute disagree on what's fair; what happens when a private citizen oversteps his rights and injures/kills someone who went onto his property, but the victim is a minority so the community around him doesn't care? They have a preferred DRO that they pay, so it backs them. Another group wants to go with a different DRO. Which one gets priority? Can one forcibly extradite a defendant using their own DRO? If they do extradite it, is the other DRO obliged to abide by their decision, or can they attempt to get him back? In fact, how does a dispute between two DROs function in general? That's the biggest thing that doesn't work, if each group is representing different interests (like say, two groups disputing who owns a patch of land between them,) and each DRO comes to a different conclusion, which one takes priority? If they can't come to a peaceful resolution, what is the solution for the dispute, is it based on the group that can afford to privately police it to keep the others off? What if they both can? These ideas of justice only work if you think there is only one perspective on what is just and fair. That is a shockingly myopic view that betrays the exact kind of astonishing naivete you see in pretty much every libertarian. And Bitcoiners. And those furries that want to make their magic robot island.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's what he's used to. Writing libertarian essays should be viewed as some kind of art form, like Balinese dance, rather than a method for learning or communicating ideas. Goon project: analyze the postings of jrod to see how closely they conform to the eight legged essay format.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:In fact, how does a dispute between two DROs function in general? That's the biggest thing that doesn't work, if each group is representing different interests (like say, two groups disputing who owns a patch of land between them,) and each DRO comes to a different conclusion, which one takes priority? If they can't come to a peaceful resolution, what is the solution for the dispute, is it based on the group that can afford to privately police it to keep the others off? What if they both can? I think Jrod explained this earlier, basically the two DROs find a third party arbitration company and that third party settled it. What happens when Warren Dilson's DRO won't agree to an arbitrator that would not find in his favor? Well, better hope Bike Mrown's family can start a Twitter campaign strong enough to force his DRO to go to arbitration! What happens if Warren Dilson's DRO doesn't even recognize the murder of black people as a crime and so there is nothing to arbitrate? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I think Jrod explained this earlier, basically the two DROs find a third party arbitration company and that third party settled it. What happens when Warren Dilson's DRO won't agree to an arbitrator that would not find in his favor? Well, better hope Bike Mrown's family can start a Twitter campaign strong enough to force his DRO to go to arbitration! Assassination. Fun fact, the best thing I've ever heard about DRO's was this argument I got into over facebook. It was about some guy who brutally tortured cats (set them on fire I think) and how the libertarian believed that it wasn't immoral to do so and shouldn't be illegal since it isn't hurting 'anyone', and there should only be laws against things that hurt people. It got into a huge tizzy, and he posted the question to reddit to get backing from his fellow An-Caps. Long story short, Reddit decided that various DRO's could decide for themselves whether or not it should be legal. And if you couldn't get third party arbitration then there was always assassination, or, and I poo poo you not this is true, the threat of nuclear arms to force arbitration. An-Capism.txt basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I feel at that point you don't need a response if the ideal outcome is nuclear war every time a cat is tortured. But that does raise a good question Jrod, how would crimes against animals work? Does the kennel club have to bring charges on behalf of every abused dog or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder whether a libertarian society wouldn't resemble Bronze Age Greece: "What's that, you violated my property rights? And your dispute resolution organization refuses to placate me with enough goods to place me on an equal or higher indifference curve? Well, I have contracts with these other dispute resolution organizations, and we're going to apply some common sense justice to rectify this situation." Queue the Trojan War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I feel at that point you don't need a response if the ideal outcome is nuclear war every time a cat is tortured. If people care about animals, then people will join DROs that press charges against animal cruelty. If you feel so strongly that people should be allowed to torture animals because you are a crazy NAP-only-applies-to-humans whackjob then you can go find a DRO that charges an insane premium because no one wants animals to be tortured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Why would a DRO charge an insane premium when it would save money by not investigating animal cruelty. Actually gently caress that question, why do you think a model society is one that makes it de facto legal to loot, rape, and murder any homeless guy or orphan who cannot afford DRO protection?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would a DRO charge an insane premium when it would save money by not investigating animal cruelty. Because people want a DRO that does investigate that. People want to live in a nice society that doesn't have homeless people being slaughtered and cats being tortured in back alleys. You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I feel at that point you don't need a response if the ideal outcome is nuclear war every time a cat is tortured. See, that's when any sensible person would suddenly go against the non-aggression principle. It governs all and is the sole principle out of which the only True Ethics is formed, but sometimes you just have to break it. It's common sense!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because people want a DRO that does investigate that. People want to live in a nice society that doesn't have homeless people being slaughtered and cats being tortured in back alleys. You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it. Just because people are willing to share costs through taxation that ensures compliance, this doesn't mean they will still co-operate without enforcement when they'd personally benefit from defecting. This is like human nature 101, dude, oh wait poo poo right, Libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
The people who don't like the homeless being killed have the choice to donate to charity DROs who will protect them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Obviously charity will protect the poor so much better than the bad old government, so once the state collapses the poor will finally get to live the safe, prosperous, violence free life currently enjoyed only by Somalian peasants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because people want a DRO that does investigate that. People want to live in a nice society that doesn't have homeless people being slaughtered and cats being tortured in back alleys. You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it. You've just made a pretty strong case for the necessity of taxes. So...I agree, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Assassination. Yeah nuclear war is totally nonviolent when you're using it to settle a dispute The Mutato posted:If people care about animals, then people will join DROs that press charges against animal cruelty. If you feel so strongly that people should be allowed to torture animals because you are a crazy NAP-only-applies-to-humans whackjob then you can go find a DRO that charges an insane premium because no one wants animals to be tortured. The Mutato posted:
The DRO that does not cover the investigation of stray animal and homeless people murders is going to be cheaper than the DRO that does. Like in all things, people will mostly go with the cheaper option despite the moral implications of doing so because gently caress the bums, those leechers aren't getting a single red cent of my hard-earned ron paul bucks  And nothing that you've said actually dealt with the criticism raised by VitalSigns; you inadvertently wound up condoning the murder of stray cats and bums, so long as you've got the cash to pay higher premiums for a DRO that will defend you against the DROs that seek to prosecute you (to what ends, I do not know). In any case, what would most likely happen is that a DRO would request "donations" to help support coverage for stray cats and homeless people, but then they simply wouldn't implement any of that because we've got a bottom line and shareholders to answer to, no point in investigating the murder of bums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
I actually have to agree with the Mutato that DROs would prosecute animal abuse cases. Regardless of what the NAP would say, torturing animals is repulsive to nearly everyone in society, including the people in charge of DROs. They'd punish the wrongdoer out of sheer disgust, or out of a good excuse to throw another criminal into the salt mines if you're less charitable. It's not like anyone would object to a "no torturing neighborhood cats" clause in their bill. Now, the question of homeless people is different. People depressingly often don't care about what happens to the very poor, because "he was probably a criminal drug abuser anyway" or "it was her fault for being in that situation in the first place." We've seen over and over that it's far easier to dehumanize humans than it is to dehumanize animals. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because people want a DRO that does investigate that. People want to live in a nice society that doesn't have homeless people being slaughtered and cats being tortured in back alleys. You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it. Right, if nobody wanted the "Don't prosecute animal cruelty" DRO, then the price would be very low, due to low demand and the DRO attempting to get customers, so I would probably pick it because I'm just trying to survive in this crazy Libertopian World, and need the best price I can get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it. Reading this again, it's like the perfect LibertarianQuestionBeg.txt Literally any issue you bring up about Libertopia is something you obviously care about, therefore everyone would altruistically pay for it with no disagreements or free riders or exceptions QED 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
I'm perfectly aware that Walmart is a poo poo company that exploits its workers in America and abroad, and I'm aware that its ability to undercut competitors on price is at least partially the result of its complete lack of morality. However, knowing this, I still occasionally buy poo poo from Walmart because the price is lower and I'm a rational person. How does Libertarianism resolve this problem? JPMC holds my mortgage because they had the lowest interest rate, which they were able to offer because of their superior market position. Their superior market position is owed at least in part to their massive fraudulent activities during the housing bubble of 1996-2007. I obviously care about this and want JPMC to be punished, but I also would like to save $50 a month on my mortgage payment, so I'm not really the best person to hand out this punishment. So, if customers are supposed to punish companies for wrongdoing, but they are also supposed to be rational economic actors, and bad actor companies can outcompete other companies by being bad actors, how can customers ever reliably punish corporate wrongdoing? "Wow, I feel great about paying 30% more for these groceries from a company that doesn't exploit labor and the environment!" *can't afford DRO subscription anymore* *gets murder-raped*
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I actually have to agree with the Mutato that DROs would prosecute animal abuse cases. Regardless of what the NAP would say, torturing animals is repulsive to nearly everyone in society, including the people in charge of DROs. They'd punish the wrongdoer out of sheer disgust, or out of a good excuse to throw another criminal into the salt mines if you're less charitable. It's not like anyone would object to a "no torturing neighborhood cats" clause in their bill. And I completely disagree with this given that current society does not prioritize animal cruelty when it comes to criminal investigation and prosecution , often only being spurred into action by particularly odious occurrences uncovered by shock-journalism, and charitable institutions that attempt to fill in the gaps are chronically underfunded and barely have enough resources to make what small gains they can. Agreeing that something is bad is pointless if resources are not dedicated to enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:And I completely disagree with this given that current society does not prioritize animal cruelty when it comes to criminal investigation and prosecution , often only being spurred into action by particularly odious occurrences uncovered by shock-journalism, and charitable institutions that attempt to fill in the gaps are chronically underfunded and barely have enough resources to make what small gains they can. Agreeing that something is bad is pointless if resources are not dedicated to enforcement. I actually wasn't aware that our enforcement of these things was that bad, but I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. But I agree, there's no reason to think libertopian handling of animal cruelty would be any better than real life. My guess is it would be roughly on par, mainly in light of my "DROs would turn back into states within a month" belief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Yeah, sorry CommieGIR I totally misread the conversation, I thought Bandor was trying to point out how, if someone only ever thinks of things in terms of Models, you end up with praxeology (which is why you get a lot of hardcore religious or libertarian engineers despite the nominally empirical nature of their work). I am saying this. And I can prove this by direct quotation. And CommieGIR thinks that a liberation literally saying this explicitly ie. : "As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch, doesn't show that apparently. Ron Paul Atreides posted:But yeah, Praxeology is in no way the same thing as flow modelling or mechanical design doctrines or things like that. That's straight up one of the most irrational things I've ever heard. But I am also saying this. Conceptual model behave like models. Ideologies are conceptual models. Things vary by degree, by sophistication, but it's is always an error to say that any particular model is uniquely related to reality. The more well made, the more widely applicable, and the more sophisticated the model the more easy and tempting it is to assert that there is something special about it. To equate it with reality and to forget that it is a model. None of this is to say that some models are not significantly better than others (which Commigir is implying that I am saying) When people make this error bad things happen. Examples include when financial risk model applicable within a constraining set of assumptions is assumed to be predictive outside of those assumptions. Or when a cargo plan is approved in one port under one set of rules, and then another cargo is loaded in another port under another set of rule, welp now people are dead. Basically Commiegir is butt hurt that I'm telling him that there isn't anything special about the way he looks at the world, that his ideology is a conceptual model too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
No one would torture an animal, guys. It wouldn't be in anyone's rational self-interest because the market would reward more profitable uses of animals which, like orphans and the homeless, can be a lucrative source of free labor, meats, organs, experimental subjects, or sport shooting targets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
If corporations are mere abstractions (and thus having no rights), would libertarian ethics say there is anything wrong with setting a Wal-Mart on fire? Let's suppose there is nobody inside at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And what are the confines of praxeology, within which it is functional? Sucking yourself off while thinking deep thoughts? Is this comparable to the functional confines of theology by any chance? For the Kochs specifically, it's the running of their business. They are unarguably successful at that. How can I say this? They have facilities in cites (and in the industries) that were just utterly decimated by the changes that occurred in American industry, they weathered those changes, hell even thrived, as competitors failed around them. For Austrian economics in general I think it's the cold war, the fight against communism, which is why so many of the Birchers would use it and be drawn to it. But both of them are universalizing. The Kochs are turning "how I successfully run my business" into how the world should run. The Austrian stuff is turning there are problems with authoritarian centralized governments and communism in general that deny freedom into: Freedom should be absolute and limitless. Christian theology usually universalizes too. It takes the life and story of Jesus and makes it applicable to everything, even to reality itself. I do acknowledge that, yes, this might be a problem too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I am saying this. And I can prove this by direct quotation. And CommieGIR thinks that a liberation literally saying this explicitly ie. : "As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch, doesn't show that apparently. Nope, you are still wrong. The idea that the models of an ideology that in NO WAY reflects reality or valid evidence is comparable to engineering models is a false equivalence. The difference being you are trying to argue that conceptual models of religious fanatics are somehow comparable to evidence based models of engineering. You're the one whose butt hurt that others outlook of the world is not dependent upon a theology of some sort. BrandorKP posted:For Austrian economics in general I think it's the cold war, the fight against communism, which is why so many of the Birchers would use it and be drawn to it. Austrian economics is, once again having to explain this to someone that ran an entire thread about it, a cult. They demand that you not question their views, and that you demand no evidence for their ideals. They appeal to emotions and make themselves out to be the victims while espousing racist and sexist views. They create their models after the fact and make the facts fit their pre-espoused views instead of making models to estimate what happened, all while screaming about how 'They predicted it'. Von Mises was more like a mathematically advanced astrologer than an economics specialist. Its closer to religion than an economic model because their models are based on FAITH. Their models are hopes and dream that ignores the entirety of what we know about economic systems and markets at large. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:If corporations are mere abstractions (and thus having no rights), would libertarian ethics say there is anything wrong with setting a Wal-Mart on fire? Let's suppose there is nobody inside at the time. No, because that wouldn't be profitable. Now if you set a factory on fire because you could save a buck by not sweeping out flammable cloth scraps and by locking all the exits so no one can sneak out early, and the only people inside were economically worthless high-time-preference women in poverty, well that's quite a different matter altogether  
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
As proof that engineers and scientists are no different from Libertarians, let me use an example of completely unrelated mathematical models in the finance industry created by free market worshipping thieves. Take that, circuit theory 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope, you are still wrong. The idea that the models of an ideology that in NO WAY reflects reality or valid evidence is comparable to engineering models is a false equivalence. That's the problem if only it was as easy as "in NO WAY reflects reality". Why do people believe in particular ideas? Because they think they explain reality. Some models explain reality better than other models, but they all are attempts to explain reality, and they all do to some degree explain reality. Take something like the astrology you keep bringing up. You realize there were very functional purposes for stories about the stars right? If you knew the stories about the constellations, how thy moved across the sky, you were able to navigate, to find directions. To get home if you were lost. There are more sophisticated version of this, the process of taking star sight in cel nav. But the less sophisticated models, the stories, they reflected reality too. I'm more than happy to agree they definitely reflected it less. BUt what you want to do is to assert that a particular type of conceptual model (religious ones) "in NO WAY reflect(s) reality". That's a falsehood any way it's sliced. The discussions of: to what degree do they reflect reality?, are alternatives more reflective of reality?, etc those are all discussions that are valid. But when you say something like "in NO WAY reflects reality" you're as bad a Jrod. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:That's a falsehood any way it's sliced. The discussions of: to what degree do they reflect reality?, are alternatives more reflective of reality?, etc those are all discussion are valid.  No, they are not. Engineering =/= libertarianism no matter how many quotes you get from Charles Koch.BrandorKP posted:Take something like the astrology you keeps bring up. You realize there were very functional purposes for stories about the stars right? If you knew the stories about the constellations, how thy moved across the sky, you were able to navigate, to find directions. To get home if you were lost. There are more sophisticated version of this, the process of taking star sight in cel nav. But the less sophisticated models, the stories, they reflected reality too. I'm more than happy to agree they definitely reflected it less. I brought up astrology once. Astrology was functional prior to models that represented the ACTUAL function of the solar system and stars at large, regardless their models are now total bunk. BrandorKP posted:BUt what you want to do is to assert that a particular type of conceptual model (religious ones) "in NO WAY reflect(s) reality". You compared libertarianism (cult) to Engineering (established and very scientific approach) and then to religious apoligism (theology/cult) and argued their models are one in the same Wrong. BrandorKP posted:But when you say something like "in NO WAY reflects reality" you're as bad a Jrod. Based on the woo you are pushing, you and Jrod would get along wonderfully. Stick to the religion thread, you are better at it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared libertarianism (cult) to Engineering (established and very scientific approach) and then to religious apoligism (theology/cult) and argued their models are one in the same Here's where you are straw manning me. I'm arguing that abstract conceptual models have the characteristics of abstract conceptual models. This is not to say that they are all identical. But it's is to say that mistaking an abstract conceptual model for reality or applying it outside it's assumptions is always an error. Edit : I've already made a comparison between how I think to how Jrod thinks. That's what lead to all the talk about Praxeology/ Austrian economics being discussed as a religious idol, btw. I asked him to witness, to explain what life events lead to him believing in Libertarianism, and that I would do the same in response about my faith if he did. He didn't take me up on the offer (well he non-sequitor responded). I went digging for an idol after that and found it/
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's where you are straw manning me. I'm arguing that abstract conceptual models have the characteristics of abstract conceptual models. This is not to say that they are all identical. But it's is to say that mistaking an abstract conceptual model for reality or applying it outside it's assumptions is always an error. The difference being the 'abstract models' of of engineering are adjusted for observed changes in a system when tested, versus libertarianism where they completely reject the ideals of observed changes and empiricism completely. And Religious Apoligism which just yells about you for going to hell for not agreeing with them. Which is more of a 'tactic' than a model. BrandorKP posted:I've already made a comparison between how I think to how Jrod thinks. That's what lead to all the talk about Praxeology/ Austrian economics being discussed as a religious idol, btw. I asked him to witness, to explain what life events lead to him believing in Libertarianism, and that I would do the same in response about my faith if he did. He didn't take me up on the offer (well he non-sequitor responded). I went digging for an idol after that and found it/ Because he thinks its REAL. He thinks that its so real, its unreasonable to think of it as a religious idol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
You keep ignoring the part where scientific and engineering models are revised with new evidence, while praxeology makes claims about the real world but declares they are immune to revision or empirical contradiction and must be logically true. Even the Catholic Church defers to empirical evidence on worldly matters and only claims infallibility in matters of faith and morals that are impossible to prove. Praxeology is on the level of evangelicals who dismiss all evidence of evolution as pranks by Satan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The difference being the 'abstract models' of of engineering are adjusted for observed changes in a system when tested, versus libertarianism where they completely reject the ideals of observed changes and empiricism completely. Engineering even ignores theoretically correct models (for example, the Gerber parabola for mechanical fatigue life) if it more accurately represents the imperfect, empirical data (we use a straight line instead, it's safer.) Sure, those errors are caused by material defects, deviations in loading, part inaccuracy, and plain random happenstance, not by any problems with the theory. But when theory collides with the real world, the real world wins, and we accept that into our models and move on. Praexology? Nope. It is explicitly not subject to falsification by empirical evidence. That's not a model that attempts to reflect reality in any way. They don't even try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's where you are straw manning me. I'm arguing that abstract conceptual models have the characteristics of abstract conceptual models. This is not to say that they are all identical. But it's is to say that mistaking an abstract conceptual model for reality or applying it outside it's assumptions is always an error. I agree, Your fairy-tale god is as bullshit as libertarianism. Neither has any application to reality and the world would be a better place if both were purged from human society. E: No engineering model attempts to universalize itself across all facets of life, that's something that's reserved for misguided worldviews like yours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
Political Whores posted:I agree, Your fairy-tale god is as bullshit as libertarianism. Neither has any application to reality and the world would be a better place if both were purged from human society. You're giving Libertarianism way too much credit here by likening it to scriptures that condemn the rich and command us to love our neighbor. Book of Von Mises Chapter 2, verse 5 I was hungry, and you cut taxes on the job creators so the wealth would trickle down unto Me I was thirsty, and you noticed My higher time preference and increased your wealth many times over by supplying Me water at cunningly high prices I was sick and in prison, and you comforted Me with an explanation of how my race is inherently stupid and criminal Go Ye Blessed, to the Reich Hand of the Fatherland VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:40
|
|