|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:06 |
|
Christ it's like a trip to Bizarro World.
|
# ? Dec 30, 2014 21:18 |
|
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 |
|
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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 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 Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 31, 2014 |
# ? Dec 31, 2014 02:38 |
|
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? 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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
VitalSigns posted:No one would do business with a company that used its resources to unfairly escape justice. 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 |
|
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? 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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? 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 |
|
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 |
|
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). 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. 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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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:
|
# ? Jan 2, 2015 19:58 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:06 |
|
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! 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 |