|
QuarkJets posted:Hi jrodefled. Freudian slip?  edit: Well this is just the best new page starter ever. 
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Caros posted:The possible extinction of the human species is not a 'good reason'? What about the deaths or displacement of millions of the world's most impoverished people? At what point do we get to say "Hey, we need to change the way we are behaving because we are loving this planet to the core." See this is NOT an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on this issue. I have never read any serious scientific study or report (and I have looked) that said that because of increased CO2 emissions from human activity in the past century and a half we risk "extinction of the human species". This is the sort of thing where playing loose with the facts is seen as somehow justified. What it really does is cause people to react to the other extreme and deny any climate science or concern about emissions. When people are uninformed about the science and politicians are agitating for political action on an issue, things tend to be hyped up to force some legislation to be passed. The worst case scenarios tend to involve sea level rises of at most six inches in the next century and as little as an inch or two. The talk of "a foot or more" that Al Gore once spoke about has basically been debunked as hyperbole and exaggeration. Now, don't get me wrong. A sea level rise of a couple inches could be very costly and damaging to a lot of people who live at or below sea level. But if today we could read the future and we knew that nothing we did could significantly alter this changing climate, human beings would adapt. Co2 levels have been MUCH higher before in our history and humans survived. If we are talking about potential extinction level events that could wipe out human life, there are many potential scenarios. There are a huge number of ecological and cosmic disasters that may happen now or in the near future. Things we should be incredibly concerned with. The, historically speaking, rather modest increase in Co2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution are one of the least likely to cause our extinction. I don't have any sort of faith in State bureaucracies to address these issues. I know you can't imagine any sort of market or voluntarily solution to global climate change but that doesn't demonstrate that States would do any better. The reality is that you have millions of poor Chinese and Indians who are climbing into the middle class and they will certainly not accept a reduction in their (very modest) standard of living. Technological innovation and rising prosperity should make cleaner forms of energy more profitable and thus more available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Everyone including and especially jrod is a statist, they just want to quibble about the nature of the oppression they will turn a blind eye to. why would God have given us saltpeter if he did not want us to blast our way into the gilded halls of the job creators?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:See this is NOT an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on this issue. I have never read any serious scientific study or report (and I have looked) that said that because of increased CO2 emissions from human activity in the past century and a half we risk "extinction of the human species". This is the sort of thing where playing loose with the facts is seen as somehow justified. What it really does is cause people to react to the other extreme and deny any climate science or concern about emissions. Have you actually read the scientific studies or reports? "Runaway climate change" implies a cycle in which Earth becomes completely uninhabitable for humankind. It wouldn't happen in our lifetimes, but the cyclic nature of climate change does spell a much earlier end for mankind living on this planet. Humans, believing ourselves to be extremely clever, might survive such an event, but we would have to leave, and there's no guarantee that we would be successful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't have any sort of faith in State bureaucracies to address these issues. I know you can't imagine any sort of market or voluntarily solution to global climate change but that doesn't demonstrate that States would do any better. The fact that states exist and have successfully reduced CO2 emissions in countless industries via regulation proves that states do better than private industry at reducing global emissions. You don't have to like it, but ancap societies would definitely do a worse job at this than the state, despite its minimal effectiveness. Private industry has no interest in reducing emissions on its own, and you know it. There is no mechanism for private industry to accomplish this, in any universe, unless you can break all of the rules and invent a time machine. Climate change poses a prisoner's dilemma problem, whereby everyone experiences a net benefit in the (distant) future by reducing emissions, but reducing emissions today causes some financial cost. Everyone has an incentive to cooperate, but everyone also has enormous incentives to cheat, and enough cheating causes everyone to lose. Humans are lovely and will inevitably cheat, leading to the logical conclusion that cooperating is pointless. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
quote:If you honestly looked at the relative prosperity and standard of living in that part of the world, you would see quite clearly the success of very small and independent countries like Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bermuda, and even Switzerland. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't have any sort of faith in State bureaucracies to address these issues. I know you can't imagine any sort of market or voluntarily solution to global climate change but that doesn't demonstrate that States would do any better. Why have no such solutions appeared yet? What would prompt the appearance of a voluntary solution to climate change? What would it look like? Why hasn't it appeared yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Jrodefield, As to the climate change conversation, I highly recommend Skeptical Science which looks at the hard numbers of research and data to explain what scientists are really saying about climate change. Newspaper columnists, politicians, and ideologues often can misunderstand the data and get it wrong or twist it. As to the 97% statistic, read here: https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm And returning to your challenge about testing libertarian ideals, yes, most of us would love to be shown a better way of living in a society if it helped us be healthier, safer, more prosperous, and more respectful of our environment. So you and your libertarian buddies better get cracking. You got a lot to prove. And surely you will get private funding for your long term experiments? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:Now other people have pointed this out, but the problem with pollution is that you cannot point to an act of pollution and see measurable harm. The harm caused by your personal CO2 emissions cannot be directly linked to an specific increase in sea levels, but we know for a fact that the CO2 levels of our current societies are causing the sea levels to rise. Your method of determining when we should act makes it impossible for anyone to act, and that is on something like CO2. If I pour heavy metals into the water and you get sick two decades later I might not even be alive to be sued, my company might be bankrupt and I might have shot myself. I might have better lawyers and simply be able to wait you out since you are sick. Even if you win, then so what, you still have loving cancer. Nah I'm sure that the survivors of Bhopal will have no problem getting together the money to hire a DRO to threaten Dow Chemical into paying restitution. In fact, it's such a certainty that the mere fear of it would keep Dow obsessively diligent about maintenance and safety so the problem would never actually arise. jrodefeld posted:See this is NOT an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on this issue. I have never read any serious scientific study or report (and I have looked) that said that because of increased CO2 emissions from human activity in the past century and a half we risk "extinction of the human species". This is the sort of thing where playing loose with the facts is seen as somehow justified. What it really does is cause people to react to the other extreme and deny any climate science or concern about emissions. . Are you implying that if you were convinced it were an accurate representation of scientific consensus then you would support carbon restrictions? If you still wouldn't "on principle" then it's kind of a distraction isn't it? What do you think of the Rothbard article I posted earlier wherein he proposes the Libertarian solution of an absolute injunction on all pollution, as airborne pollutants are a trespass on my property rights once they blow over my land or into my lungs? He makes a good argument on Libertarian principles that retaliatory force against polluters, no matter how small-time, is a moral obligation. Murray Rothbard posted:The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants — from smoke to nuclear radiation to sulfur oxides — through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another's property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple. The major function of government — of courts and police — is to stop aggression; instead, the government has failed in this task and has failed grievously to exercise its defense function against air pollution. Carbon emissions, just like taxes and sensible regulation, are actually slavery! And when you, jrodefeld, propose that you should be allowed to damage my property for your own convenience without compensation, you are a slave-driver, a bandit, an arsonist, no better than the marauding savages that our glorious forebears cleared from this verdant American continent. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have no quarrel with any scientists who are independent and honest, no matter their opinion on this subject. However, when proposals are laid out which grant the State an excuse to use violence against me, my friends or my family, I pay attention. You just leap to violence and assume that we all agree. Look, I'm not trying to hurt you. In fact, I don't think any reasonable person would think "I better pay my taxes or else I'm going to get shot and killed!" In fact, violence is so abhorrent to our processes that you can see the reaction of the people when citizens are killed in what should be non-violent encounters in recent news stories! quote:If someone wants to lay claim to my property or to threaten me or restrict my natural rights, I had better be given a darn good reason. I live fairly consciously. My carbon footprint is very low. I make an effort not to pollute or otherwise negatively affect the people around me. If I am charged with the act of pollution, I need it to be demonstrated conclusively how I polluted, who has suffered damages from my pollution and I should be made to pay restitution to them. Just saying "well, there is this problem over here and we are just going to take your property to deal with it" is not sufficient for me. STOP BEING SO INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! Let's take me, for example. I'm an American. I have a car. I drive that car. Now, the pollution I'm responsible probably barely registers on the scale of things. It probably has no effect. But multiply that by 300 million... Let's take an example from my office. Between two buildings, there's grassy field that you can walk across. Now, one person walks across the grass, and nothing happens. But overtime, a path started to developed, and where people kept walking, the grass started to die. One person wasn't a problem. But everybody walking on the grass eventually killed grass and created a path. Well, it's the same thing with pollution. One person living normally isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody lives this way. The results are compounded and start to add up. And the effects are felt. So yeah, I can't say that your pollution is bad. But your pollution mixed in with the pollution of 7 billion other people starts to mean something. And if that pollution has negative consequences, what are we supposed to do. So, if to negate that pollution, it requires a massive change in how people live, how do we do that reliably in a Libertarian system. I just don't see how you can do that. It's like lightbulbs. Regulations went into place requiring more efficient lightbulbs, and Sky Admiral Bachman and others said they were going to repeal it and try to let people keep their old style CFC filled lightbulbs. Because who is the government to force these new expensive lightbulbs on us? However, the lightbulb manufacturers just laughed it off. You know why? Because of the regulations, they spent more time and money on trying to get the cost down on these lightbulbs to the point where it actually made more economic sense to make the new style lightbulbs rather than the old fashioned ones. They were like, "We would keep producing the same levels of new lightbulbs without regulation, because it's cheaper." So, let's say we needed cars on the road that were more energy efficient and outputted let emissions. How do we do that in a Libertarian system? Wait and do nothing. That's not a solution. That's putting your hands up your rear end and hoping to find chocolate. Please don't eat the rear end-chocolate. Under your system, since I can't prove that you caused this negative effect, poo poo gets to hit the fan, and everyone can say "Well, you can't prove I did it." It would only work in the cases where the big polluters get caught with their pants down. See, if you thought about what you said, you would have realized that it was stupid. But you just got carried away with how smart you think you are and thought you were saying something reasonable. quote:There are many brilliant scientists who are doing complex research that I couldn't begin to comprehend. The only thing I ask is: raise your own loving money to do your research. Don't use violence against me or other peaceful citizens. Don't be a loving thug. Don't be a moocher. If your research is valuable you should have no problem getting donations and grants from private sources. Violence, violence, violence! That's all you ever go to. Please, tell me the last time a scientist went into your house and pointed a gun at your head and said "Fund my research or else!" God, you are insufferable. See, here's the thing Jrodefeld. If you actually read our thread, you would realize that research is not really profitable. In fact, a lot of it is expensive, and it doesn't necessarily have immediate applications. But here's another thing. Private people expect results. And they want good results. So, let's say the Jrodefeld Carbon Emission company, which specializes in pushing CO2 into the air, pays me to research the impact of just pumping CO2 into the air. And I come back with a report that shows how this is going to be catastrophic for the environment and is terrible and we shouldn't do it. Are you going to keep paying for that research. My research basically says that your product is terrible. See, that's why having public research can be good. They are beholden only to show that they aren't spending their money on hookers and blow, unless their study is on the impact of blow on a hooker's performance. And if I remember correctly from my friend who went through this process, the money can be given out in stages. So if stage 1 shows promise, you'll get money for stage 2, and so on and so forth. quote:Do your research, present your ideas to the public and use persuasion, use the free market to compel positive behavioral change. If there is a solution to this problem it WILL come from the free market, not because the State threatened a bunch of people and stole their property. And what if the free market can't find an answer. We're still waiting for better healthcare to arise from the free market. But for the time being, I'm enjoy the light produced by my highly efficient lightbulbs. That the government mandated, which made private industries work to make them more financially lucrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Anyone catch the snippets of the fox coverage of the "Black Lives Matter" protests? The "Protests blocking traffic are violence" talking point. That's ground work for an argument of: thus force is justified against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Anyone catch the snippets of the fox coverage of the "Black Lives Matter" protests?  Cemetry Gator posted:Well, it's the same thing with pollution. One person living normally isn't a problem. The problem is when everybody lives this way. The results are compounded and start to add up. And the effects are felt. So yeah, I can't say that your pollution is bad. But your pollution mixed in with the pollution of 7 billion other people starts to mean something. And if that pollution has negative consequences, what are we supposed to do. Ten years after the collapse of modern civilization and the extinction of the human race, we finish meticulously collecting all the evidence and file a class action lawsuit. That'll show Exxon! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I feel like this just sums up a lot of the current state of America's politics in general, thanks to how much power the right wing is still throwing around all over. Who needs a stable, well-fed, educated work force, anyway? Rampant poverty and massive social unrest sure are amazing. Mmhm. As it is, when the government saves these people from themselves, they keep voting Republican. People need to see tangible effects of what they've done, or they won't change. They'll just keep believing the jackass on talk radio telling them that "those people" in the cities are draining the public coffers dry, and causing them to suffer. "But don't worry, we make sure you have what you need (via federal funding)." If the government lets "The market" live with itself, we can demonstrate exactly what happens when you burn down the house to cut taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do your research, present your ideas to the public and use persuasion, use the free market to compel positive behavioral change. If there is a solution to this problem it WILL come from the free market, not because the State threatened a bunch of people and stole their property. On the other hand, the oil industry and Tetraethyl Lead. Nothing that industrialists say can be trusted, their scientists are nothing but shills paid to maximize profit and rubber stamp whatever bullshit their masters tell them to. Non-consumer goods industries are not subject to your vaunted "free market" solutions, and are immune to bad press. Koch Industries doesn't give a single gently caress what the average person thinks, because they don't deal with people. They deal with other large businesses. The common man has no way to stave off industrialists who own the water and energy supplies in their locality. This is why you and the rest of the Libertarians want to get rid of the vote; to keep us entirely powerless to stop the rich from loving us over. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
What nooooooo. People are rational actors all the time and would never trust industry propaganda over scientific journals, or be ignorant or apathetic or swayed by advertising by oil or cigarette companies. That's why advertising is a poor man's career and beer commercials are just: "Bud Lite. It exists and is slightly cheaper than better-tasting beers. Stay tuned for an authoritative list of independent studies regarding the health effects of alcohol"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
It's kind of flabbergasting whenever I see someone seriously suggest that we should end the funding of sciences and let private industry step in. Big and popular causes like AIDS and cancer research would wind up with the lion's share, while funding in basic research (the undoubtedly most important kind of science if you've paid attention to history at all, since the greatest advancements in science tend to occur accidentally while performing basic scientific research) would wind up in the shitter. Antibiotics, microwave ovens, the Internet, and countless other modern conveniences and life-saving technologies would in all likelihood not exist today if not for basic research funding. What venture capitalist is going to fund a physicist to try and more accurately measure the electron mass, thus leading to the formulae that allowed the construction of the first magnetron, which would eventually lead to the creation of the first microwave oven? That first building block, the cornerstone of all of this discovery, would be snuffed out by a lack of funding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:See this is NOT an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on this issue. I have never read any serious scientific study or report (and I have looked) that said that because of increased CO2 emissions from human activity in the past century and a half we risk "extinction of the human species". This is the sort of thing where playing loose with the facts is seen as somehow justified. What it really does is cause people to react to the other extreme and deny any climate science or concern about emissions. You know for someone who claims to not really be informed about this issue you sure are making a lot of sweeping statements from ignorance. What do I mean? Lets take a look. quote:The worst case scenarios tend to involve sea level rises of at most six inches in the next century and as little as an inch or two. The talk of "a foot or more" that Al Gore once spoke about has basically been debunked as hyperbole and exaggeration. Now, don't get me wrong. A sea level rise of a couple inches could be very costly and damaging to a lot of people who live at or below sea level. I think you mean to say feet. Six feet in the next century. Unlike you, I'm going to back up what I'm saying. -The IPCC projected in 2007 that the sea level would rise 7.1 to 23.2 in during the 21st century but thta their numbers do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks or ice sheet changes. - The US National Research Council projected in 2010 that the change is likely to be between 22 to 79 inches (Between two and six and a half feet.). - The Third National Climate Assessment determined this year that they expect between One and Four feet of change. quote:But if today we could read the future and we knew that nothing we did could significantly alter this changing climate, human beings would adapt. Co2 levels have been MUCH higher before in our history and humans survived. The last time CO2 in our atmosphere was this high was fifteen million years ago. To say humans survived is somewhat of a misnomer because the last time it was this high humanity was still a glimmer in the eye of the great apes, which is to say that we did not exist. quote:If we are talking about potential extinction level events that could wipe out human life, there are many potential scenarios. There are a huge number of ecological and cosmic disasters that may happen now or in the near future. Things we should be incredibly concerned with. The, historically speaking, rather modest increase in Co2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution are one of the least likely to cause our extinction. We have nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. In what bizarro world you consider that modest? And I'm right there with you, I believe we should pay attention to things like asteroids and other earth based ecological disasters as well. One does not preclude the others. quote:I don't have any sort of faith in State bureaucracies to address these issues. I know you can't imagine any sort of market or voluntarily solution to global climate change but that doesn't demonstrate that States would do any better. I certainly can't imagine one because you consistently refuse to present one that isn't a statement along the lines of "The market will figure it out." I'm sorry that I don't accept your faith based statement that K'ashe the current will solve all our problems but right now I live in a world that I'd like my children and grand children to be able to live in, and you simply don't offer solutions. quote:The reality is that you have millions of poor Chinese and Indians who are climbing into the middle class and they will certainly not accept a reduction in their (very modest) standard of living. People have been saying this for fifty years. Believe it or not without the government there isn't exactly a lot of people spending money on developing these new sources of energy because people would rather just dig up more oil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Jrod, what specifically does a libertarian free market offer us in terms of solutions that the current fascist market does not? Businesses are free to stop environmentally damaging practices at any time, common folk are free to stop doing business with businesses that have environmentally damaging practices, green energy companies are free to start up at any time, I can sue people for polluting my water supply, etc. How would abolishing the minimum wage help us here? If I opened up a business for buying and selling children, would this somehow lower greenhouse gas emissions? What if I were to found a nation called the Confederate States of America, could that somehow lead to responsible logging practices?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
What is Libertarian's fascination with the words: Force, Rape, Freedom. Seriously, are Libertarians just all secretly into Bondage?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Jrod, what specifically does a libertarian free market offer us in terms of solutions that the current fascist market does not? Businesses are free to stop environmentally damaging practices at any time, common folk are free to stop doing business with businesses that have environmentally damaging practices, green energy companies are free to start up at any time, I can sue people for polluting my water supply, etc. How would abolishing the minimum wage help us here? If I opened up a business for buying and selling children, would this somehow lower greenhouse gas emissions? What if I were to found a nation called the Confederate States of America, could that somehow lead to responsible logging practices? To expand on this, through what mechanism does the current market prevent 'free-market' solutions like the ones you rely on as your answer to everything from working?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What is Libertarian's fascination with the words: Force, Rape, Freedom. Don't forget Liberty! One of the most annoying things about libertarians is that they refer to themselves as the liberty movement, as if they are the only ones on the face of the planet who want people to be able to live happy, free lives and the rest of humanity are their oppressors. quote:It's kind of flabbergasting whenever I see someone seriously suggest that we should end the funding of sciences and let private industry step in. Big and popular causes like AIDS and cancer research would wind up with the lion's share, while funding in basic research (the undoubtedly most important kind of science if you've paid attention to history at all, since the greatest advancements in science tend to occur accidentally while performing basic scientific research) would wind up in the shitter. Antibiotics, microwave ovens, the Internet, and countless other modern conveniences and life-saving technologies would in all likelihood not exist today if not for basic research funding. I honestly have this weird feeling that many, many libertarians look at research as though it was a game. Like they look at the invention of the microwave and assume it was just people pointing their research points towards the development of the next level of cooking implement or something. For the record, businesses are FANTASTIC at incremental research. I trust apple to make a better iPhone than I do congress because there is a clear path to money and by god they will sniff that motherfucker out like a bloodhound. Researching a new screen type, or miniaturization technique, or text to speech software is all stuff that the market does very very well because they have the actual incentive to do so. On the flip side however, nearly every component in the iPhone had its start in public university research, from the touch screen to the batteries to the speakers and so forth. And it makes sense because there is no financial incentive for anyone to develop a capacitive touch screen when they have nothing to use it on, but once you have all the collected parts it is easy to see why making the screen more accurate or higher resolution would be to your benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Hey jrod. First of all go gently caress yourself! Second of all, please answer one of the many excellent posts in this thread regarding the inelasticity of certain markets, specifically healthcare!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let us suppose that a libertarian society were to be tried as a social experiment on a relatively large scale and, after twenty or thirty years, it was found that the poor and needy are NOT worse off than in social welfare States. Let us stipulate that society as a whole is more prosperous, lifespans are higher and all the social indicators reflect well of the libertarian society even to the poorest of the citizens. Or we could even stipulate that the poor and needy are only slightly better off than in your model social democracy. This is the core problem. You only have what-if scenarios, and they're never supported by actual evidence. You only speak of solutions in the most vague, general terms, there's never any real data and anytime you're given data that essentially shows "yeah, here's where they tried this whole no regulations, no taxes thing and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer" you immediately dismiss it as not being a real example of a free market. The thing is. I would love for you to be right, and I think the other posters here would too. I would love it if unfettered capitalism not only allowed me to continue living a life of hedonistic indulgence but also just happened to be the most moral way to live. That would be wonderful, and as soon as you provide actual evidence that it is possible and not just "hey, maybe let's try it and see if it works" I will personally reconsider my stance. Unfortunately, thus far all you've done is call taxes 'violence', discuss how empirical evidence isn't as important as your gut-feelings, and dodge anything approaching a hard question (the inelasticity of healthcare, the long-term legal issues with pollution, the inherent issues in making all law enforcement privatized, etc).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am well aware that I come into these discussions making certain unfounded assumptions about you all as you probably do to me. I have in my head some concept of a left wing ideologue that I am going to refute while you no doubt imagine some stereotype about a sort of libertarian caricature and these illusions permit us to hurl ad hominems, insults and otherwise engage in a more hostile exchange than would happen in a face to face discussion. I'm fascinated by your constant attempts to make the two sides of this thread sound symmetric, like your earlier go at the "please respond to my post" routine. Yes, you are clearly engaging with a hypothetical left-wing ideologue in your posts and countering his hypothetical arguments. On the other hand, we are responding to you*. We quote your posts and rebut your arguments, fairly quickly and in some detail, but you rarely do the same to ours. Outside of the giant If you're aware of a problem with your debating style, fix it! Don't just go "hey, I've noticed this problem" and then keep doing it. If you want to fix your unfounded assumptions of what liberals and leftists think, you could just ask us! Just, you know, avoid the "what do you think of this Mises.org article" and "so what are your rationalizations for committing violence against me?" routes of doing it. Just try something like "how would a leftist handle a problem like [thing they would agree is a problem]?" or "what philosophy do you use to figure out your political beliefs?" Probably don't do it in this thread though, since this is the thread for libertarianism. *I want you to appreciate the effort it took not to go for the cheap joke here. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:First I want to apologize for not being around more to actually have a discussion. This has been a crazy time of year for me. I usually don't intend to come by and write a short post and then disappear for a week. I'm sure a lot of you are probably wondering why I put in the effort to post as much as I do. The chances of actually converting any of you are very small indeed no matter how persuasive the arguments. That is just the nature of internet debates. And I am reminded that anonymous internet exchanges tend to let people use language that they would never dare in a face to face meeting. I am well aware that I come into these discussions making certain unfounded assumptions about you all as you probably do to me. I have in my head some concept of a left wing ideologue that I am going to refute while you no doubt imagine some stereotype about a sort of libertarian caricature and these illusions permit us to hurl ad hominems, insults and otherwise engage in a more hostile exchange than would happen in a face to face discussion. Dude, come off it. You're trying to be the reasonable voice so you can keep excusing your failures. The fact of the matter is that you're not here to engage in a debate with us. You don't engage. You're constantly resetting the clock to 0 and then coming back and trying to start a new argument. Then it gets ripped apart, because there are more of us than you and so you are in an unfair position. I'll give you that. But then you never even attempt to engage in our arguments. Like, for example, you recently posted about technocracy and the history of Keynesian economics. Where the gently caress are your replies? It makes you look weak, and it makes me believe you can't argue against what I'm saying. Don't be so afraid to tell us what you really think! quote:I haven't read all of the last few pages of this thread but I recall Caros asking about how we could peacefully coexist in a society when we have such different views about how society should be organized. You all want a system of single payer to provide "free" healthcare coverage to people while I don't want you to initiate force against me to force me to pay for a system that I morally object to. So could we have a system where our two diverse ideological groups could coexist? The answer is...possibly. I think it's time we focus more on "violence" because you keep talking about it, and it is a huge sticking point for us and your arguments. See, we don't see that we're using violence against you. So when you ask questions like "What gives you the right to initiate violence against me," we look at you like you're crazy. This is the core of your argument, so it seems like we should spend more time engaging with it. So, I really like to ask that question - when are we initiating violence against you? Because in order for your arguments to make any sense, we have to reach a consensus on this point. Otherwise, we're just talking past each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Rothbard has convinced me that jrodefeld is using violence against me whenever he starts up his car. Not only does he damage my property without my consent nor even compensation, look how he is not even contrite, he claims a right to my property for his convenience! Can any greater moral depravity even be conceived?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:How long has paragon been trying to get you to respond to their healthcare/inelasticity posts? Months? How about my critiques of Austrian economics' underlying logic? To clarify it's not my post (though I have made similar points), but someone else who made a decent effort post about how normal market dynamics don't apply to healthcare at loving all. I think it was Cemetary Gator? Maybe Caros? Apologies to whoever it actually was, but know that I have taken up your valiant cause! Also jrod if you want to talk natural rights and violence, then it is my strength and will to do you harm, and my ability to avoid negative consequences, that gives me the right to do violence to you. That is the only "natural" right that exists. Take what you can take for your own benefit, and keep others from doing the same to you. Valhalla DRO embraces this truth, and that's why I think they're the company to beat! Those guys are going all the way to the top (of the food chain)!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Man Caros this whole exchange reminds me of something Preston Manning once said regarding environmentalism; "You want to protect the environment, but have you ever considered solutions from...the market?" or some poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Man Caros this whole exchange reminds me of something Preston Manning once said regarding environmentalism; "You want to protect the environment, but have you ever considered solutions from...the market?" or some poo poo like that. I'm reminded of the juxtaposition of a bag of money versus the globe on one of those banker's scales. The future of the human race or money?? Well hold on guys I gotta think about that one... Is there a libertarian after life? Do we get to take it with us? OK we're all dead it's game over no one else can play but I got the functioning society high score so you all can suck it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I think it's time we focus more on "violence" because you keep talking about it, and it is a huge sticking point for us and your arguments. See, we don't see that we're using violence against you. So when you ask questions like "What gives you the right to initiate violence against me," we look at you like you're crazy. This is the core of your argument, so it seems like we should spend more time engaging with it. The Non-Aggression Principle, along with the Axiom of Human Action, are the two (I think they're separate, but maybe he's deriving one from the other?) big things JRod's arguments all stem from / assume, and I have so many questions about them that he's never answered. But you're absolutely right. The problem is he's trying to convince us that our beliefs are inconsistent by showing how they violate his moral code. Since we're coming at every issue from a completely different starting point, actual argument on real-world topics becomes difficult beyond just poking at inconsistencies. So yeah, I'd love to talk about violence. JRod (and any other current/former libertarians), is your definition of "initiatory violence" equivalent to the NAP? Are one or both of those derived from the Action Axiom, or is it a separate concept entirely? What definition of violence are you using, exactly? I have lots more questions than this, but I figure we should at least get the basics nailed down. I'd even be willing to read a (short! Please god, short) article from mises.org if you think it gives a good summary of these specific concepts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:First I want to apologize for not being around more to actually have a discussion. This has been a crazy time of year for me. I usually don't intend to come by and 1. I have known for a long time that the two biggest hurdles for the leftist in coming to libertarianism are: healthcare and the environment. No doubt there are many others but these two seem to be the major sticking points. I have heard it asserted here again and again that you cannot accept libertarianism because you are convinced that the poor and needy will be destitute and much worse off than in contemporary Statist regimes where the poor have access to food stamps, Medicare, and other wealth transfer programs. The bold would be an unquestioned success in my opinion. Such practical metrics are by far the most important things in my opinion and I'll buy into any political system that I think can deliver them. But to flip this around, suppose the opposite, suppose the libertarian society is tried and it's a measurable failure in terms of living standards and happiness (while technically meeting the libertarian criteria for liberty). How would you react? One problem in this thread is your dogmatic belief that this must happen, coupled with the likelihood that you don't actually care - you seem to support your ideology independent of outcome. I think clarification here would be useful for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
No it's a trick question. If empirical evidence were powerful enough to convince you that praxeology is true, then according to praxeology you'd have to immediately reject empirical evidence as a way of determining truths about the world, leaving you once again with no reason to believe in praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:The Non-Aggression Principle, along with the Axiom of Human Action, are the two (I think they're separate, but maybe he's deriving one from the other?) big things JRod's arguments all stem from / assume, and I have so many questions about them that he's never answered. But you're absolutely right. The problem is he's trying to convince us that our beliefs are inconsistent by showing how they violate his moral code. Since we're coming at every issue from a completely different starting point, actual argument on real-world topics becomes difficult beyond just poking at inconsistencies. The basic idea that lolbertarians oppose stuff like taxation on is that taxation is ultimately not really voluntary. The basic idea is that if you do not pay your taxes then you get fined and arrested. If you choose to not be fined and arrested and resist it then the police are allowed to manhandle you. If you resist the manhandling or become violent they are allowed to be violent with you. Basically if you just go "lolnope" and never pay a single tax dollar you're going to be locked up, possibly forcibly. Thus, by extention, the state is holding a gun to your head and saying "pay up, fuckstick." So, by using any service that he paid tax for you are perpetuating violence on him. Similarly, by regulating what he can and can't do with his property under penalty of the law you are perpetuating violence on him. The basic idea he's getting at is that all association should be totally voluntary. As in, you should not levy taxes to build public roads but rather people should be free to donate to roads or pay for toll roads as they need to use them. That sort of thing. Nobody should be holding a gun to anybody's head (as in, levying taxes) to get public things paid for. The logic is that "it's for the public good" is poor justification for threatening to harm somebody's person if they don't pay their taxes. That's where the non-aggression principle comes in; the basis of government should be people voluntarily ponying up the dough for public works rather than the government threatening police action if you don't. And yes it's a loving stupid argument. It falls apart because total deregulation allows things like a cartel buying up every shred of road in existence and demanding ridiculous prices to use them. Or, alternately, leads to needless complexity. Roads is one that comes to mind. Instead of paying taxes for roads you'd be charged road charges only for the roads you actually used and how much time you used them. Which is dumb because then you need to have somebody decided how much road you used and figuring out how much to charge you. It's much simpler to have a system of "we need $X to have roads so let's collect $X in taxes and just let people use the roads for like whatever." ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Is driving on the right side of the road instead of the left strictly voluntary? If I do it, the cops will tell me to stop, if I ignore them they'll come in force and if I resist they'll shoot me with guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Is not making GBS threads in the streets voluntary? I mean if I do it the police will tell me to stop, and if I don't they'll shoot me with guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Is not making GBS threads in the streets voluntary? I mean if I do it the police will tell me to stop, and if I don't they'll shoot me with guns. No see everybody in the community would obviously just get together and agree to not poo poo in the streets because nobody likes having poo poo in the streets. You don't really need that kind of law, you know, as the community would just agree "no street making GBS threads" and then just not do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The basic idea that lolbertarians oppose stuff like taxation on is that taxation is ultimately not really voluntary. The basic idea is that if you do not pay your taxes then you get fined and arrested. If you choose to not be fined and arrested and resist it then the police are allowed to manhandle you. If you resist the manhandling or become violent they are allowed to be violent with you. Basically if you just go "lolnope" and never pay a single tax dollar you're going to be locked up, possibly forcibly. Thus, by extention, the state is holding a gun to your head and saying "pay up, fuckstick." So, by using any service that he paid tax for you are perpetuating violence on him. Similarly, by regulating what he can and can't do with his property under penalty of the law you are perpetuating violence on him. I mean, sure, I've seen this specific train of catastrophizing logic before, but at least that has the "men with guns shoot me!" in it eventually. I was wondering more along the lines of assertions like "trespassing/pollution/fraud is violent," which I've seen tossed around a little. What definition of violence are we working from there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Oh oh, I know the answer to this one! "I think it is bad, therefore it is violence"
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I mean, sure, I've seen this specific train of catastrophizing logic before, but at least that has the "men with guns shoot me!" in it eventually. I was wondering more along the lines of assertions like "trespassing/pollution/fraud is violent," which I've seen tossed around a little. What definition of violence are we working from there? If you are trespassing you are using land that belongs to somebody else without their consent. If you pollute the you are dumping nasty poo poo on land that belongs to somebody else without their consent. If you are committing fraud you taking property from somebody else without their consent. All of these are harmful so they are considered violence i the idea of "causing harm to another person." Of course the way you prevent people from committing said acts of violence is never actually explained beyond "well obviously people would get together and agree not to harm each other" but like how would you enforce that without any acts of "violence?" If you can't even take somebody's money without their consent how would you even levy a fine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you are committing fraud you taking property from somebody else without their consent. How is it fraud if you didn't get the person to consent to give you some property? If they don't consent and you just grab it, isn't that just stealing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:48
|
|