Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Trick-or-treating, a tradition popularized by candy manufacturers as a marketing gimmick to move more product in the off season, is socialist indoctrination

# ? Dec 30, 2014 21:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 15:57

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Christ it's like a trip to Bizarro World.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 21:18

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

His point about private shipping companies during the holiday rush is all sorts of wrong. UPS and FedEx start reminding customers well before the holiday season that they'll need to send their packages out earlier than they other would during other times of the year. And poo poo, over the last five years USPS has been significantly more likely to get my packages where they need to be not only on time but days early.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 21:31

Caros: May 14, 2008

I can't believe he pulled up all of those and glossed over this gem of perfection. For shame Nolanar. For shame.

quote:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a master of theoretical history. He tells us that

it is not my purpose here to engage in standard history, i.e., history as it is written by historians, but to offer a logical or sociological reconstruction of history, informed by actual historical events, but motivated more fundamentally by theoretical � philosophical and economic � concerns. [Caros Note: Most people call this historical fiction. Harry Turtledove is apparently a master of theoretical history.]

The work of Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises on the commodity origin of money is a prime example of what Hoppe has in mind. [Caros Note: It's also contrary to the work of actual anthropologist David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years. But hey, I guess they used theoretical anthropology.]

In carrying out his illuminating project, Hoppe finds himself in opposition to the dominant way of looking at the evolution of government. According to this perspective, government has over the centuries become ever more democratic. Rule by the people is the final form of government; once it has been reached, history, at least as far as government is concerned, has ended. This historical movement, further, is a �good thing.� It is the triumph of freedom. History is the story of progress.

Hoppe is not a complete pessimist like the �Gloomy Dean� W.R. Inge, who, in his famous Romanes Lecture of 1920, denounced �the superstition of progress.” To the contrary, Hoppe thinks that in economic life, the Industrial Revolution enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity.

In government, though, matters are entirely different, and here Hoppe is a firm opponent of progressive orthodoxy. For him, rather, history in this area is a tale of a fall � not from the Garden of Eden but rather from a reasonable way of settling disputes.

How would real, rational, peace-seeking people have solved the problem of social conflict? ... What people would most likely accept as a solution, then, is this: Everyone is, first off or prima facie, presumed to be owner � endowed with the right of exclusive control � of all those goods he already, in fact, and so far undisputed, controls and possesses. This is the starting point. As their possessor, he has, prima facie, a better claim to the things in question than anyone else who does not possess these goods � and consequently, if someone else interferes with the possessor�s control of such goods, then this person is prima facie in the wrong and the burden of proof, that is to show otherwise, is on him. However, as the last qualification already shows, present possession is not sufficient to be in the right.
Hoppe assumes that everyone agrees on the appropriate principles for settling property disputes:

The criteria, the principles, employed in deciding between a present controller and possessor of something and the claims of another person are clear then, and it can be safely assumed that universal agreement among real people will be reached regarding them.
To reiterate, Hoppe sees property as antecedent to the state; people in a �state of nature� will rationally agree on the appropriate principles.

The fact that people agree in this way does not solve all problems. Principles must still be applied to concrete issues; and here arises the likelihood of disputes. If people dispute property titles, what is to be done? Hoppe suggests that people would gravitate toward certain �natural leaders� deemed trustworthy to decide cases in an unbiased way:

In order to settle their conflicts and to have the settlement lastingly recognized and respected by others, they will turn to natural authorities, to members of the natural aristocracy, to nobles and kings. What I mean ... is simply this: In every society of some minimal degree of complexity, a few individuals acquire the status of a natural elite. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess more authority than others and their opinion and judgment commands widespread respect.

Hoppe here shows himself to be a true Jeffersonian. In a letter to John Adams, written on October 28, 1813, Jefferson said:

I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. ... The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.

[Caros Note: Of course Jefferson followed up by saying "I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the real good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society." But who cares about that right? I see where Jrod gets it from.]

Is the process Hoppe has set forward more than just speculation? Hoppe looks to feudal Europe for confirmation of his line of thought.

Feudal lords could only �tax� with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land, every free man was as much of a sovereign, i.e., the ultimate decision maker, as the feudal king was on his. ... The king was below and subordinate to the law. ... This law was considered ancient and eternal. �New� laws were routinely rejected as not laws at all. The sole function of the medieval king was that of applying and protecting �good old law.� [Caros Note: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Feudal lords only taxed with the consent of the taxed. I mean sure they owned the loving land these people lived on and would kill or remove them if they didn't pay, but that is totally consent. Modern taxes on the other hand. I also liked the joke about how feudal kings were subject to the law, truely the best in theoretical history from my man HHH.]

An obvious objection is likely to occur to readers, but Hoppe is ready for it: What Hoppe has described is a Utopia �that never was, on sea or land.� The Middle Ages were in fact a period of large scale oppression. Hoppe replies,

I only claim that this [feudal] order approached a natural order through (a) the supremacy of and the subordination of everyone under one law, (b) the absence of any law-making power, and (c) the lack of any legal monopoly of judgeship and conflict arbitration. And I would claim that this system could have been perfected and retained virtually unchanged through the inclusion of serfs into the system.

Unfortunately, matters did not develop in this happy way. Instead, kings seized more and more power. They claimed to have final authority, rejecting appeals to competing authority within the territories they controlled. Hoppe finds it easy to understand why kings might endeavor to arrogate such power to themselves, but another question is at first puzzling. How were the kings able to succeed in their grasp for absolute power? Why did not the partisans of the old aristocratic order thwart them?

Hoppe offers a two-part answer to this mystery. First, the king allied with the people against the aristocracy.

He appealed to the always and everywhere popular sentiment of envy among the �underprivileged� against their own �betters� and �superiors,� their lords. He offered to free them of their contractual obligations vis-�-vis their lords, to make them owners rather than tenants of their holdings, for instance, or to �forgive� their debts to their creditors, and could so corrupt the public sense of justice sufficiently to render the aristocratic resistance against his coup futile.

In this grasp for power, the king had the aid of the �court intellectuals.� They propagandized on behalf of the king, supporting the thesis that the king represented the people.

The demand for intellectual services is typically low, and intellectuals, almost congenitally, suffer from a greatly inflated self-image and hence are always prone to and become easily avid promoters of envy. The king offered them a secure position as court intellectuals and they returned the favor and produced the necessary ideological support for the king�s position as absolute ruler.

How did the court intellectuals carry out their malign mission? They did so by promoting a twofold myth. Society began in a war of all against all. To escape this condition, people voluntarily contracted with an absolute ruler. In that way, they could escape chaotic disorder.

Hoppe firmly rejects both parts of this story, as should by now be abundantly evident. Society begins, not in a Hobbesian state of nature, but rather with people�s mutual recognition of rights; and there was no contract giving power to the king. [Caros Note: Actual historians and anthropologists agree that humans started with socialism and little to no concept of private property. Don't let that stop you from making poo poo up!]

With help of the court intellectuals, monarchs in Europe gained the absolute power they sought; but the appeal to the people eventually proved their undoing. The myth of the contract helped to transform the absolute monarchy into a constitutional one; and this transition Hoppe by no means regards as progress. Constitutions �formalized and codified� the king�s right to legislate and to tax.

Constitutional monarchy eventually ceased to satisfy the intellectuals.

Ironically, the very forces that elevated the feudal king first to the position of absolute and then of constitutional king: the appeal to egalitarian sentiments and the envy of the common man against his betters ... also helped bring about the king�s own downfall and paved the way to another, even greater folly; the transition from monarchy to democracy.

When the king�s promises of better and cheaper justice turned out to be empty and the intellectuals were still dissatisfied with their social rank and position, as was to be predicted, the intellectuals turned the same egalitarian sentiments that the king had previously courted in his battle against his aristocratic competitors against the monarchical ruler himself.

With the help of the intellectuals, rule by the people came to replace monarchy; and, Hoppe famously argues, this transition is by no means to be celebrated.

To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official.

Democracy then does not end the depredations of absolute monarchy but in fact increases them.

Yet a king, because he �owns� the monopoly and may sell and bequeath his realm to a successor of his choosing, his heir, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values.

Here it is necessary to avert a misunderstanding. Hoppe is not a defender of absolute monarchy � far from it. He argues only that democracy as it is today understood is worse than monarchy. But, as is never to be forgotten, monarchy ranks far below the best system, one of private property rights in which respected members of the elite settle disputes.

This essay, thus, is a veritable tour de force. It accepts the standard account of the evolution of government from feudal aristocracy to monarchy to democracy but precisely reverses the standard valorization of this process.

If Hoppe is no exponent of progress here, though, he does not leave us with a counsel of despair. The democratic State�s frenzied finance cannot continue indefinitely; and he finds grounds for hope in a movement toward smaller, decentralized governments.

Economic crisis hits, and an impending meltdown will stimulate decentralizing tendencies, separatist and secessionist movements, and lead to the breakup of empire.

In this way the growth toward Leviathan may be reversed.

While researching some of the stuff from this wacky essay I also found that apparently Hoppe is a bit of a 9/11 denier and a firm supporter of the Child molesting branch Davidians. Not really surprising but food for thought.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 21:59

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Caros posted:

I can't believe he pulled up all of those and glossed over this gem of perfection. For shame Nolanar. For shame.

I only wanted to post articles that I actually read, and my eyes kept sliding off that one when I tried. It's like memetic teflon. I won't skimp next time though!

# ? Dec 30, 2014 22:30

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Caros posted:

While researching some of the stuff from this wacky essay I also found that apparently Hoppe is a bit of a 9/11 denier and a firm supporter of the Child molesting branch Davidians. Not really surprising but food for thought.

I really hope you mean 9/11 truther, rather than someone who believes that nothing actually happened to the World Trade Center or Pentagon, because, I mean, how would that even work?

# ? Dec 30, 2014 22:33

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

I could read past the term theoretical history because my eyes were welling up from laughter. Hey they do it with the word physics and stuff so maybe you can add "theoretical" to whatever you're doing and make it sound smart.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 22:35

Caros: May 14, 2008

Heavy neutrino posted:

I could read past the term theoretical history because my eyes were welling up from laughter. Hey they do it with the word physics and stuff so maybe you can add "theoretical" to whatever you're doing and make it sound smart.

Well its espcially amusing for me because my wife loves community, a show that includes theoretical phys ed as a subject. Honestly, theoretical history as a subject actually seems more ridiculous.

quote:

I really hope you mean 9/11 truther, rather than someone who believes that nothing actually happened to the World Trade Center or Pentagon, because, I mean, how would that even work?

Err, yeah, the latter. Here is a quote from his "How to defend yourself" article, one of many in which he shows his truther tendancies:

quote:

(Granting, maybe prematurely, that the U.S. had nothing to do with 9-11 directly, the events of that day certainly show that the U.S. was not good at defending its own citizens: first by provoking the attacks and secondly in having its population disarmed and defenseless vis-a-vis box-cutter wielding foreign invaders.)

quote:

Rather, in order to enlist the public�s assistance �evidence� must be manipulated or fabricated so as to make aggression appear as defense (for what reasonable person could be against defense). We know the catchwords: FortSumter, the USS Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 9-11.

Apparently he also thinks that Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were false flag attacks. So I guess we can add conspiracy theorist to the very long list of things that Hans Hermann Hoppe preaches that aren't backed up by anything. If nothing else it is proof that being a tenured professor doesn't mean you can't also be a total loving wackjob.

quote:

I only wanted to post articles that I actually read, and my eyes kept sliding off that one when I tried. It's like memetic teflon. I won't skimp next time though!

I honestly understand the feeling.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 22:45

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Caros posted:

Apparently he also thinks that Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were false flag attacks.

Somewhere the ghost of Edmund Ruffin is extremely pissed off.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 23:28

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

I'd be more sympathetic towards the accusation of erecting strawmen if we didn't painstakingly cite each seemingly ludicrous position as expressed by a libertarian thinker jrodefeld has admired.

# ? Dec 30, 2014 23:29

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Heavy neutrino posted:

I could read past the term theoretical history because my eyes were welling up from laughter. Hey they do it with the word physics and stuff so maybe you can add "theoretical" to whatever you're doing and make it sound smart.

As to myself, I pursue an interest in theoretical goodposting.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 00:12

Antares: Jan 13, 2006

Caros posted:

Apparently he also thinks that Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were false flag attacks. So I guess we can add conspiracy theorist to the very long list of things that Hans Hermann Hoppe preaches that aren't backed up by anything. If nothing else it is proof that being a tenured professor doesn't mean you can't also be a total loving wackjob.

We know praxeologically that the government is bad, therefore any reasonable person would conclude that bad things are because of the government.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 00:19

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Somewhere the ghost of Edmund Ruffin is extremely pissed off.

Well it's not like he wasn't already. That dude lived in a state of being perpetually pissed-off almost his whole life, those brief four years and change excepted, I can't imagine being dead and having to watch the march of progress he'd spent his whole life opposing has improved his outlook.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 00:22

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Caros posted:

Apparently he also thinks that Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were false flag attacks. So I guess we can add conspiracy theorist to the very long list of things that Hans Hermann Hoppe preaches that aren't backed up by anything. If nothing else it is proof that being a tenured professor doesn't mean you can't also be a total loving wackjob.

Haha, you think the Statists would ever allow a brave free-thinking Libertarian hero to have a tenured teaching position at state indoctrination centers?

I can prove from first principles that this is impossible, and all academics are not-to-be-trusted puppets of autocrats.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 00:30

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

SedanChair posted:

I'd be more sympathetic towards the accusation of erecting strawmen if we didn't painstakingly cite each seemingly ludicrous position as expressed by a libertarian thinker jrodefeld has admired.

Yeah, the absurd caricatures we attack are usually actual people, but he showed a shocking amount of self-awareness (ie: any) with that post and I wanted to nurture it.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 00:32

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

VitalSigns posted:

I can prove from first principles that this is impossible, and all academics are not-to-be-trusted puppets of autocrats.

Man, I wish. At least then we'd get paid better, I'd hope.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:38

Cemetry Gator: Apr 3, 2007; Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

What I find funny about the article on policing is that it misses the big fact - we already have a ton of supplemental policing going on by private companies, and nobody points to those and say "this is why we should get rid of the publicly funded police department." Things like loss prevention at stores, mall security, really, any kind of private security serves as a private form of the police. What do you think they do?

After all, the saying goes - when seconds counts, the police are minutes away.

Those people in Ferguson are not a replacement for the police, but rather, a supplement. After all, the police has limited resources and can only deploy so many people in so many areas. And in the case of something like Ferguson, they are required to pick and choose what they can deal with. Do they stand on the top of buildings, or are they are on the ground, trying to contain the chaos?

After all, some of the stuff the Threat Management Centers does is stuff that the police can't really do. Can the police really escort grandma to the grocery store? Looking at their webpage, it's more of a community volunteer service. Once again, that serves to supplement the police.

Do Libertarians really think that some of the "failures" of policing wouldn't happen in a private company. The same issue will always come up. You can only have so many police officers. They can only be in so many places at once. Their job is to investigate and bring people to justice. Yes, ideally, they're stopping crimes, but that's not really the reality of the situation.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:44

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Cemetry Gator posted:

Do Libertarians really think that some of the "failures" of policing wouldn't happen in a private company. The same issue will always come up. You can only have so many police officers. They can only be in so many places at once. Their job is to investigate and bring people to justice. Yes, ideally, they're stopping crimes, but that's not really the reality of the situation.

Libertarians believe that the perfect libertopia wouldn't need police anyway but we don't live there yet. They also believe that private police companies would be more efficient because the profit motive would force them to cut costs and be more efficient. A basic belief of libertarians is that the government is inherently inefficient in everything it does, all the time, forever. More extreme flavors believe that you should be allowed to opt out and live without laws if you really want to. Even so, the belief is that private is always better and more efficient than public but we can already see in the private prison system how loving terrible an idea putting private anything in law enforcement actually is. Making the police increasingly private would also lead to way more corruption and abuse of power. To make matters worse people that can't afford to pay for police services would be completely boned and at the mercy of people that could. In a way we're already seeing some of that in the legal system. Whoever can hire the best lawyers can probably get away with poo poo or corrupt the system if they try hard enough and pay enough money. Hell there are even cases where companies win legal battles by just shoveling money into lawyers until the other side can't pay legal fees anymore and just gives up.

The other argument is that if there were many private police companies doing the policing people would just automatically gravitate toward the one that never fucks up because, as we all know, corporations and businesses are always perfect and never, ever make mistakes. They most certainly aren't rampantly negligent when they can get away with it either.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:51

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

More efficient means lower costs, lower costs means smaller payroll, smaller payroll means fewer officers and OH LOOK somebody just stole my television.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:53

Cemetry Gator: Apr 3, 2007; Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

Really, one issue with Libertarianism, ironically, is that they fail to recognize that money is power while oddly recognizing that at the same time. I guess maybe, if you were trying to say it better than I just did and be less ponderous, you would say they don't fully grasp the idea that money is power.

You bring up the lawsuit example. If I sue a major company, I do not have the resources to shut down a lawsuit, but that major corporation does. So, what is my recourse when that happens to me? Libertarians think it won't happen because they don't realize that money is power.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:56

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Cemetry Gator posted:

You bring up the lawsuit example. If I sue a major company, I do not have the resources to shut down a lawsuit, but that major corporation does. So, what is my recourse when that happens to me? Libertarians think it won't happen because they don't realize that money is power.

No one would do business with a company that used its resources to unfairly escape justice.

Remember when Dow Chemical's business never recovered from the PR disaster of refusing to hold anyone accountable for or pay compensation to the victims of Bhopal and their families?

# ? Dec 31, 2014 01:58

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Cemetry Gator posted:

Really, one issue with Libertarianism, ironically, is that they fail to recognize that money is power while oddly recognizing that at the same time. I guess maybe, if you were trying to say it better than I just did and be less ponderous, you would say they don't fully grasp the idea that money is power.

You bring up the lawsuit example. If I sue a major company, I do not have the resources to shut down a lawsuit, but that major corporation does. So, what is my recourse when that happens to me? Libertarians think it won't happen because they don't realize that money is power.

Well they do realize that money = power but they believe that if everything is deregulated completely then the market will sort itself out somehow because reasons. It's "well God works in mysterious ways" levels of reasoning. The belief is that it will just work, we swear. Like, people would just not do business with a company that ran corrupt police so the business would obviously just shrivel and die. They realize that money is power but the belief is that people would definitely vote with their wallets and collectively remove the funding of a corrupt police company. The end goal is to have the people having all the power while failing to realize how much corruption libertarian policy tends to lead to.

Libertarianism would work if everybody had equal access to perfect information and nobody was trying to gently caress anybody else over. It's the whole "well in a perfect world..." nonsense. Sorry kids, this isn't a perfect world.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:01

Antares: Jan 13, 2006

Cemetry Gator posted:

Really, one issue with Libertarianism, ironically, is that they fail to recognize that money is power while oddly recognizing that at the same time. I guess maybe, if you were trying to say it better than I just did and be less ponderous, you would say they don't fully grasp the idea that money is power.

You bring up the lawsuit example. If I sue a major company, I do not have the resources to shut down a lawsuit, but that major corporation does. So, what is my recourse when that happens to me? Libertarians think it won't happen because they don't realize that money is power.

In my experience they seem to believe that money is everything, but that they would be amongst the powerful if only they could keep the 12.5% the federal government takes AT GUNPOINT. Naturally, they are perfect beings who would be benevolent overlords, voluntarily replacing any essential governmental functions you care to name (please don't ask how).

The only libertarian ideological constant you can really nail down is "money = good" (in fairness I believe that Jrod sincerely believes in the utopian NAP/voluntarism stuff but he's a minority). Even if you accept that their way would make someone/everyone more money, I don't think the worship of cash for its own sake is the basis for a society anyone wants to live in.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:09

Vorpal Cat: Mar 19, 2009; Oh god what did I just post?

Caros posted:

I can't believe he pulled up all of those and glossed over this gem of perfection. For shame Nolanar. For shame.

While researching some of the stuff from this wacky essay I also found that apparently Hoppe is a bit of a 9/11 denier and a firm supporter of the Child molesting branch Davidians. Not really surprising but food for thought.

I would just like to reminded everyone that the feudal system that libertarians like to romanticize, with its privately held lands under feudal lords and rampant ~~mercenary companies~~ DROs, was so bad that absolute monarchy was actually a step up. Generally speaking when someone in the middle ages went power mad and started executing petty noblemen by the dozens they were remember as a folk hero. That's the system libertarians want us to be more like, the one where Vlad the impaler is an improvement over the previous administration.

Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 31, 2014

# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:38

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Cemetry Gator posted:

What I find funny about the article on policing is that it misses the big fact - we already have a ton of supplemental policing going on by private companies, and nobody points to those and say "this is why we should get rid of the publicly funded police department." Things like loss prevention at stores, mall security, really, any kind of private security serves as a private form of the police. What do you think they do?

After all, the saying goes - when seconds counts, the police are minutes away.

Those people in Ferguson are not a replacement for the police, but rather, a supplement. After all, the police has limited resources and can only deploy so many people in so many areas. And in the case of something like Ferguson, they are required to pick and choose what they can deal with. Do they stand on the top of buildings, or are they are on the ground, trying to contain the chaos?

After all, some of the stuff the Threat Management Centers does is stuff that the police can't really do. Can the police really escort grandma to the grocery store? Looking at their webpage, it's more of a community volunteer service. Once again, that serves to supplement the police.

Do Libertarians really think that some of the "failures" of policing wouldn't happen in a private company. The same issue will always come up. You can only have so many police officers. They can only be in so many places at once. Their job is to investigate and bring people to justice. Yes, ideally, they're stopping crimes, but that's not really the reality of the situation.

quote:

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.

Using the Oath Keepers in Ferguson as an example of a good replacement for police is essentially saying "wouldn't it be great if our police force was just there to shoot the ni- I mean urban ferals?"

# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:45

Caros: May 14, 2008

Cemetry Gator posted:

Really, one issue with Libertarianism, ironically, is that they fail to recognize that money is power while oddly recognizing that at the same time. I guess maybe, if you were trying to say it better than I just did and be less ponderous, you would say they don't fully grasp the idea that money is power.

You bring up the lawsuit example. If I sue a major company, I do not have the resources to shut down a lawsuit, but that major corporation does. So, what is my recourse when that happens to me? Libertarians think it won't happen because they don't realize that money is power.

Well if you go by Hans Hermann Hoppe's view the problem isn't that they don't recognize money as power, its just that he believes the wrong people have the power. He thinks that democracy has taken us away from nature where the natural social elites would take their proper place, no doubt with him among their number. And no black people.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:46

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Yo Cemetary Gator I agree with your general point but the Ferguson police are a really bad example. Dudes have too many resources and spend them all harassing (and murdering) people who aren't committing crimes.

# ? Dec 31, 2014 03:20

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

VitalSigns posted:

No one would do business with a company that used its resources to unfairly escape justice.

Remember when Dow Chemical's business never recovered from the PR disaster of refusing to hold anyone accountable for or pay compensation to the victims of Bhopal and their families?

The point has been made a few times already in this thread, but it really bears repeating. Libertarians always argue that that we don't need regulations to prevent companies from doing bad things because once people find out a company did a bad thing everyone else will immediately stop doing business with them. But if that's true, why are companies like Dow Chemical, BP, Toyota, GM, Comcast, etc. still around? Is there something about the "State" existing that somehow forces the citizenry to continue doing businesses with such companies that wouldn't happen in libertopia?

I was arguing with some libertarian on another forum about how racism could be ended by the free market. If a white business owner turns away a black guy, he'll no doubt suffer bad publicity and go out of business. How would this work in a place where racism was just fine and dandy, like most of the South? Well, in that case it's up to the black guy to leave and find a more tolerable place, and oh guess that didn't do anything to deter racism at all now oh golly...

# ? Jan 2, 2015 03:30

Caros: May 14, 2008

Mr Interweb posted:

The point has been made a few times already in this thread, but it really bears repeating. Libertarians always argue that that we don't need regulations to prevent companies from doing bad things because once people find out a company did a bad thing everyone else will immediately stop doing business with them. But if that's true, why are companies like Dow Chemical, BP, Toyota, GM, Comcast, etc. still around? Is there something about the "State" existing that somehow forces the citizenry to continue doing businesses with such companies that wouldn't happen in libertopia?

I was arguing with some libertarian on another forum about how racism could be ended by the free market. If a white business owner turns away a black guy, he'll no doubt suffer bad publicity and go out of business. How would this work in a place where racism was just fine and dandy, like most of the South? Well, in that case it's up to the black guy to leave and find a more tolerable place, and oh guess that didn't do anything to deter racism at all now oh golly...

Well the trick is that it would work if you assume that humans are robots that follow perfect libertarian ideas. In a perfect libertarian society being a racist business owner would allow shops to open to cater to the racially discriminated group, and if the group was large enough the business would thrive. Sure there might only be 150,000 blacks in the city, but if all of them shop at your store because everyone else kicks them out then your business will thrive, and this strength will allow you to grow and use your economic power to air your views more widely, thus ending racism (somehow).

In reality you'll get the poo poo kicked out of you and your shop constantly vandalized and burned the ground. Because racists aren't going to play by the NAP when it comes to black people.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 03:39

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

I guess you could say that I'm just speculating but my hunch is that circa Jim Crow the whites-only businesses were rewarded by the fact that nearly all the disposable income was held by white people, who would boycott non-discriminating businesses.

The Libertarian idea that the market in a bigoted society would reward non-bigoted business owners, at first glance, looks to be the opposite of reality.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 03:47

Igiari: Sep 14, 2007

Heavy neutrino posted:

The Libertarian idea that the market in a bigoted society would reward non-bigoted business owners, at first glance, looks to be the opposite of reality.

Don't forget: empiricism can only be used to reinforce Ancap beliefs, not disprove them. The Free Market of the Gaps.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:00

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

Mr Interweb posted:

The point has been made a few times already in this thread, but it really bears repeating. Libertarians always argue that that we don't need regulations to prevent companies from doing bad things because once people find out a company did a bad thing everyone else will immediately stop doing business with them. But if that's true, why are companies like Dow Chemical, BP, Toyota, GM, Comcast, etc. still around? Is there something about the "State" existing that somehow forces the citizenry to continue doing businesses with such companies that wouldn't happen in libertopia?

I think their argument is supposed to be that because the state purports to watch out for such transgressions, regular people make no effort to find out about, make judgments about, or change their activities based on what they do. Of course the state is inherently corrupt and so actually does nothing, but for some reason nobody except libertarians ever notices this, but somehow those same people would possess perfect knowledge and moral scruples absent the government.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:28

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Mr Interweb posted:

The point has been made a few times already in this thread, but it really bears repeating. Libertarians always argue that that we don't need regulations to prevent companies from doing bad things because once people find out a company did a bad thing everyone else will immediately stop doing business with them. But if that's true, why are companies like Dow Chemical, BP, Toyota, GM, Comcast, etc. still around? Is there something about the "State" existing that somehow forces the citizenry to continue doing businesses with such companies that wouldn't happen in libertopia?

I was arguing with some libertarian on another forum about how racism could be ended by the free market. If a white business owner turns away a black guy, he'll no doubt suffer bad publicity and go out of business. How would this work in a place where racism was just fine and dandy, like most of the South? Well, in that case it's up to the black guy to leave and find a more tolerable place, and oh guess that didn't do anything to deter racism at all now oh golly...

The argument that is sometimes made, and it's actually a legitimate one, is that a lot of those companies are riding on government corruption. GM effectively has a negative tax rate. Comcast will often sign contracts with local areas setting themselves up as literally the only company you can get TV and internet from. Actually that company is notoriously lovely for being anti-competition. In these cases the lolbertarians are right in that these companies should not get as much government help as they do and, if that help wasn't there, somebody would be less lovely and get the business. One major problem with America is that crony capitalism is rampant and the government has picked winners in certain markets. You literally can't compete with certain companies. It is impossible.

The problem is that they extend this attitude toward all regulation and government meddling in the market. As we've seen certain regulations are basically required to prevent things like, you know, the financial market deliberately tanking the world economy because they could make a few bucks doing so. Sure this is along the lines of a broken clock being right twice a day but they're against all of it.

They're partially right on that one but like you said they also believe that racism can be solved by the market, as can corruption and yes they're very wrong.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:30

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Caros posted:

Well the trick is that it would work if you assume that humans are robots that follow perfect libertarian ideas.

Done and done.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:31

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

Caros posted:

Well the trick is that it would work if you assume that humans are robots that follow perfect libertarian ideas. In a perfect libertarian society being a racist business owner would allow shops to open to cater to the racially discriminated group, and if the group was large enough the business would thrive. Sure there might only be 150,000 blacks in the city, but if all of them shop at your store because everyone else kicks them out then your business will thrive, and this strength will allow you to grow and use your economic power to air your views more widely, thus ending racism (somehow).

In reality you'll get the poo poo kicked out of you and your shop constantly vandalized and burned the ground. Because racists aren't going to play by the NAP when it comes to black people.

Heavy neutrino posted:

I guess you could say that I'm just speculating but my hunch is that circa Jim Crow the whites-only businesses were rewarded by the fact that nearly all the disposable income was held by white people, who would boycott non-discriminating businesses.

The Libertarian idea that the market in a bigoted society would reward non-bigoted business owners, at first glance, looks to be the opposite of reality.

After the American Civil War there was actually a very viable economic niche for merchants willing to sell to black customers. But I would call your supposition at least partly correct. The problem was not so much that selling to blacks was in itself a breach of community standards. Rather it was crossing the color line and being social with them that was the problem. White people who were perceived as friendly with blacks risked their status in the community, and that transgression could lead to social and economic sanctions. A white merchant who sold to blacks, extended them credit, and so forth, might (as Heavy neutrino suggests) be quietly boycotted by white customers and thereby stand to lose much more money than he had to gain by selling to the black customer base. He could also lose friends, become the subject of malicious gossip, and be ostracized along with his family.

As a result that viable economic niche was often filled by merchants of Jewish and other immigrant extraction (such as Italians), who weren't considered white in the same way as other European Americans, who were already socially excluded by the white community at large. Thus they weren't seen as crossing the color line as seriously, and in any case they weren't losing any social or business opportunities they hadn't already lost just by virtue of being Jewish or Italian. But of course, Coras is quite correct:

quote:

In reality you'll get the poo poo kicked out of you and your shop constantly vandalized and burned the ground. Because racists aren't going to play by the NAP when it comes to black people.

Here's an article about Jewish merchants from Southern Jewish History, a journal sponsored by the Southern Jewish Historical Society. The salient quote:

p.65 posted:

In July 1899 five Sicilian storekeepers were lynched in Tallulah, Louisiana. The murdered men had aroused the ire of the local community by trading with black and white customers on an equal basis.
...
Jews offended the white community through their contravention of caste principles. Their actions risked economic reprisals, social opprobrium, and even violence. On August 15, 1868. S.A. Bierfield, a young Russian Jew, was seized by Klansmen and shot dead. Bierfield had caused offense to the white folk of Franklin, Tennessee by fraternizing with the blacks who shopped at his store. Fourth months later, Samuel Fleishman, a Jewish hardware merchant, was murdered in almost identical circumstances in Marianna, Florida. Blame for the outbreak of the Atlanta race riot in September 1906 was leveled at the largely Jewish saloon owners who, it was alleged, had openly encouraged black drunkenness and debauchery. City authorities responded by closing many of these establishments.

So basically, these merchants could be economically successful by selling to blacks, and sometimes were even able to sell to both black and white customers. But they had to be very careful about blurring the color line because they could be violently punished, even killed, by the white community at any time.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:46

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

EvanSchenck posted:

So basically, these merchants could be economically successful by selling to blacks, and sometimes were even able to sell to both black and white customers. But they had to be very careful about blurring the color line because they could be violently punished, even killed, by the white community at any time.

I don't understand why didn't people just boycott the people doing the killings???

# ? Jan 2, 2015 04:57

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

Mister Adequate posted:

I don't understand why didn't people just boycott the people doing the killings???

Umm the problem is obviously that the same bigoted principles crept into the state power system, which wouldn't happen in privatized, for-profit power systems because errrrr...

# ? Jan 2, 2015 05:10

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

Mister Adequate posted:

I don't understand why didn't people just boycott the people doing the killings???

I know you're joking but lynching actually works on a whole other level as a disproof of the ancap/voluntaryist argument that the community will spontaneously organize to punish violators of the NAP. In one sense, yeah, the boycott never happens. But in the other sense the community actually does spontaneously organize itself to punish transgressors! In a way, they're right, and it does work!

It's just that the crime they're punishing is just "being different," and the punishment isn't nonviolent boycott/ostracism but being brutally murdered. Because it turns out that IRL nobody at all gives a poo poo about the NAP, but they're extremely interested in the racial caste system, to the point that they'll murder people for nothing more serious than being nice to black people.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 18:30

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

paragon1 posted:

Second of all, please answer one of the many excellent posts in this thread regarding the inelasticity of certain markets, specifically healthcare!

Did we STILL not get to this? Dear god.

Well, Jrode, here it is again, in case you want to revert to an older subject on which you were staggeringly wrong, instead of the current one:

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. 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�it's "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 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. 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?

# ? Jan 2, 2015 19:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 15:57

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

EvanSchenck posted:

I know you're joking but lynching actually works on a whole other level as a disproof of the ancap/voluntaryist argument that the community will spontaneously organize to punish violators of the NAP. In one sense, yeah, the boycott never happens. But in the other sense the community actually does spontaneously organize itself to punish transgressors! In a way, they're right, and it does work!

It's just that the crime they're punishing is just "being different," and the punishment isn't nonviolent boycott/ostracism but being brutally murdered. Because it turns out that IRL nobody at all gives a poo poo about the NAP, but they're extremely interested in the racial caste system, to the point that they'll murder people for nothing more serious than being nice to black people.

The only thing this disproves is rubes like jrod who believe spontaneously organized terror against minorities is a bug and not a feature. For guys like HHH, this is evidence that ancapism works great.

# ? Jan 2, 2015 20:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »