|
To be fair if an MRI was only twenty bucks I'd probably get one once in a while as a preventive measure thing.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2015 20:02 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:51 |
|
This came up in the bitcoin thread and I thought of you allHerman Merman posted:http://mises.org/library/defending-blackmailer
|
# ? Jan 2, 2015 23:03 |
|
Political Whores posted:This came up in the bitcoin thread and I thought of you all This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?!
|
# ? Jan 2, 2015 23:11 |
|
Who What Now posted:This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?! I've seen them defend contract killing as not a violation of the NAP so this isn't that shocking. Still stupid tho.
|
# ? Jan 2, 2015 23:12 |
|
Caros posted:I've seen them defend contract killing as not a violation of the NAP so this isn't that shocking. Still stupid tho. How exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, there's no way it can without causing something else to collapse, but how is it supposed to work?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 01:46 |
|
Buried alive posted:How exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, there's no way it can without causing something else to collapse, but how is it supposed to work? The argument is that the onus of guilt falls upon the person who takes the contract and commits the actual murder. The person who puts the hit out isn't committing any aggression themselves, they're just advertising their willingness to enter into a contract agreement with someone else who might, of their own free will, then go on to violate NAP. This reflects the moral sophistication we've all come to expect from bitcoiners, of course, and is in no way the equivalent of grade-school playground rules lawyering. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jan 3, 2015 |
# ? Jan 3, 2015 01:49 |
|
But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 01:55 |
|
Yeah and the target has presumably burnt all their bridges with any competing DROs who would normally negotiate on their behalf or defend them. This is considered "great."
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 01:57 |
|
Antares posted:But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased. The means justify the ends.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 02:23 |
|
Antares posted:But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased. "Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 3, 2015 |
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:04 |
|
QuarkJets posted:"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners. While the theory is lovely, this is a pretty clear misinterpretation. A farm worker getting paid a wage is not the same as a homesteader making a go of it on their own, and libertarian theory specifically speaks of the latter as their model for "mixing of labor."
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:11 |
|
QuarkJets posted:"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners. Don't worry, the bourgeoisie get to keep all their poo poo. Mixing your Labor with the Soil only counts when it's unowned property, or property that belongs to A good rule of thumb with libertarianism is that if a theory seems to comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable in any way, you're probably misreading it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:24 |
|
QuarkJets posted:"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners. But if you manage a factory you are increasing its efficiency which benefits everybody there. If you invent something you have made everything better and everybody that uses said invention must pay you. What they generally believe is that they are genius ubermensch that will have amazing ideas that will improve everything and make them rich. It destroys the idle rich yes but they believe they're just so amazing they'll be rich anyway.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:29 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But if you manage a factory you are increasing its efficiency which benefits everybody there. If you invent something you have made everything better and everybody that uses said invention must pay you. What they generally believe is that they are genius ubermensch that will have amazing ideas that will improve everything and make them rich. It destroys the idle rich yes but they believe they're just so amazing they'll be rich anyway. Nope! Remember that there is no such thing as patents or intellectual property so the second you invent something expect everyone and their dog to reverse-engineer it produce their own versions for cheaper.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:32 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The argument is that the onus of guilt falls upon the person who takes the contract and commits the actual murder. The person who puts the hit out isn't committing any aggression themselves, they're just advertising their willingness to enter into a contract agreement with someone else who might, of their own free will, then go on to violate NAP. This reflects the moral sophistication we've all come to expect from bitcoiners, of course, and is in no way the equivalent of grade-school playground rules lawyering. The best part of this is that it applies equally to the State! It's not immoral for Bronco Bama to order the Army to forcibly confiscate a portion of your paycheck: it's actually YOUR fault for giving it to them. Quit aggressing against yourselves, ancaps!
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 04:50 |
|
Who What Now posted:This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?! The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 05:37 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:While the theory is lovely, this is a pretty clear misinterpretation. A farm worker getting paid a wage is not the same as a homesteader making a go of it on their own, and libertarian theory specifically speaks of the latter as their model for "mixing of labor." The rules of working the land are entirely arbitrary and subject to interpretation, in libertopia. As an example, if the farm owner went away for 10 years while the farm hands continued working, then under the homesteading rules the farm hands would surely get the farm. Now suddenly you have to determine how long is long enough for claiming ownership. Does the farmer have to work the land once every 10 years in order to continue claiming ownership? Yearly? Monthly? Daily? At what point do the farmhands say "the owner has been gone for too long, now we're the owners" And since all of this poo poo is arbitrary anyway, why couldn't it be applied to a factory or a grocery or an office building? Because libertarians dislike the possibilities created by these scenarios, so the free market wouldn't let it happen to CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 07:03 |
|
You are making the assumption that workers are people and not indistinguishable units of labor QuarkJets.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 07:56 |
|
Pretty sure its called human resources.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 08:10 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course. Ah, but you're forgetting about the freedom of the poor blackmailer!
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 08:59 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course. Why, it's almost as if libertarian reasoning is but the thinnest wallpaper over an ideology of naked self-interest, in the service of which literally anything is justifiable!
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 15:35 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Why, it's almost as if libertarian reasoning is but the thinnest wallpaper over an ideology of naked self-interest, in the service of which literally anything is justifiable! I still have a big problem with people conflating actual ancaps with conservatives. It gives the ancaps far too much credit. They have nothing to do with one another and there is a vast gulf between them. Ancap ideology isn't accounted for by "naked self-interest" because it's not plausibly in anyone's interest. The only thing that accounts for ancap ideology is delusion. Buckets of conspiracy theory/religious cult level delusion.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 20:09 |
|
asdf32 posted:I still have a big problem with people conflating actual ancaps with conservatives. It gives the ancaps far too much credit. They have nothing to do with one another and there is a vast gulf between them. Said everyone about every ideology ever. But listen I found this one that's really it...
|
# ? Jan 3, 2015 20:25 |
|
Fados posted:Said everyone about every ideology ever. But listen I found this one that's really it... Most political ideologies are based on the analysis of fact. It's easy to forget that libertarianism isn't, and from its very genesis rejected even the possibility of empirical testing.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 00:16 |
|
A lot of current libertarian thought comes from organizations funded almost entirely by dark money from people like the Kochs. In some cases they are all of the funding. Take a wild guess who is supposed to benefit from libertarian policy.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 07:39 |
|
How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 19:40 |
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Most political ideologies are based on the analysis of fact. It's easy to forget that libertarianism isn't, and from its very genesis rejected even the possibility of empirical testing. I really disagree. Every ideology is based on the need to cover an universal existencial anguish with a certain narrative. Facts are then manipulated to fit in to it.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 19:43 |
|
Promise you'll wear gloves.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 19:51 |
|
Nolanar posted:How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow. Please do.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 20:43 |
|
Fados posted:I really disagree. Every ideology is based on the need to cover an universal existencial anguish with a certain narrative. Facts are then manipulated to fit in to it. If you're talking about religion or libertarianism, sure. That's not how something like socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc. are formed.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 20:50 |
|
Nolanar posted:How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow. So long as you remember that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 21:16 |
|
Nolanar posted:How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow. I say Libertarian articles are the funniest poo poo.
|
# ? Jan 4, 2015 23:18 |
|
paragon1 posted:Promise you'll wear gloves. If I were choosing protective equipment for this, I'd have to go with a private browsing session. Youtube is already suggesting Stefan Molyneux videos after my last excursion. SA is being ornery, so I'm typing this in notepad while I wait for it to be fixed. Apologies for any formatting issues I don't catch. Anywho, This Week in Mises.org! Vintage Rothbard to Ring In The New Year posted:As you spend the day with family and friends, we thought you might take some time away from bowl games to enjoy a vintage Rothbard speech that touches on twin themes appropriate to January 1st: reflecting on the past while looking to the future. This thing is over forty-five minutes long. Have at it. Government Spending Does Not Help the Economy posted:Some economists such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman [Krugman! -ed] hold that during an economic slump it is the duty of the government to run large budget deficits in order to keep the economy going. On this score — given that from 2011 to 2014 the rate of growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) hovered at around 2 percent — many experts are of the view that the budget deficit, which stood at $483 billion in 2014, wasn’t large enough. I like that the possibility of government spending being able to generate wealth is dismissed out of hand with zero discussion. Chinese Savings vs. American Spending posted:Furthermore, America’s mainstream financial media often stresses the importance of consumption for economic growth. The belief that if citizens refuse to spend (the media often takes Japan as an example), the government will need to spend on people’s behalf to encourage economic circulation. This flimsy theory goes further and claims that if growth is far from the target rate, the central bank will have to intervene, printing money to stimulate consumption or use negative interest rates to punish savers, forcing them to spend. For decades after World War II, only the top 10 percent who really understood the rules of the game invested their savings in multinational stocks, real estate, jewelry, antiques, and artwork. Apart from this group of asset holders, who are difficult to punish through induced inflation, the majority of people avoid government penalties through consumption and low savings rates. The problems begin when consumption becomes a habit, most people lose the ability to save, and the government is forcing itself to bear future responsibilities of these short-term thinking and welfare-reliant individuals. This one is mostly just standard "China is eclipsing the USA" rhetoric that wouldn't seem out of place in any normal news outlet, except for the quoted bit. This isn't doing it for me. I need something stronger. How Reducing GDP Increases Economic Growth posted:Recently, the Financial Times published an article containing charts displaying the correlation between government spending and real GDP growth.1 Based on these correlations, the author of the article, Matthew Klein, comments: “It’s no secret that spending cuts (and tax hikes) have retarded America’s growth for the past four years.” He goes on to argue that from mid-2010 to mid-2011, the reduction in government spending in the US shaved 0.76 percent off of the economic growth rate. Klein conjectures that this slowdown in the growth rate caused a level of real GDP today that is 1.2 percent less than it would have been in the absence of this exercise in “austerity.” He also points out that since 2012 almost all of the depressive effect on real GDP growth of government austerity was the result of the reduction in military spending. While some of the reduction was beneficial, Klein opines, “some of it represents a self-inflicted wound.” Indeed it may represent a self-inflicted wound on the Federal government, but in that case it benefits the private economy. Yeah, that's the good stuff. Take that "bad thing actually good thing" and inject it straight into my veins! The 'Dog-Eat-Dog' Delusion posted:When people want to add extra “oomph” to negative depictions of self-owners acting without coercion — that is, market competition under capitalism — they turn to name-calling. One of the most effective forms is describing such competition as dog-eat-dog. When that characterization is accepted, the mountain of evidence in favor of voluntary social coordination can be dismissed on the grounds that it involves a vicious and ugly process so harmful to people that it outweighs any benefits. Is trying back up your argument with entomology just the universal sign for "I have no intellectual leg to stand on" at this point? Also, I enjoy them pointing out that animals predate on one another with no government, and then just asserting that humans don't ever do that.
|
# ? Jan 5, 2015 03:52 |
|
quote:Yes, this is austerity — but only for the government. Ah yes, remember how in other countries, austerity policies include a government decree that private persons should refuse to spend money and intentionally starve the economy?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 07:42 |
|
"One man's gain is positively another man's gain [unless that man is gaining through a government program]"
|
# ? Jan 6, 2015 16:13 |
|
So a bit of a short post, but I wanted to go back to something i'd talked about the last time we had the conversation about white supremacy and libertarians, particularly in light of recent events. So just recently we've had a bit of a public uproar regarding Congressman Steve Scalise, in particular regarding his attendance of a European-American Unity and Rights Organization meeting. For those who don't know, EAURO is a white power organization through and through. Most notable for the purposes of this discussion, Scalise, the third ranking member of the house republicans was threatened with losing his leadership position in congress simply because he attended one of these events. In all likelihood his attendance in 2002 was a simple matter of not knowing the group before he went, but simply attending the event risked his political career, in no small part because the organizer of that group was former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. Now that name sounds familiar. Murray Rothbard posted:Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them. It took a massive campaign of hysteria, of fear and hate, orchestrated by all wings of the Ruling Elite, from Official right to left, from President Bush and the official Republican Party through the New York-Washington-run national media through the local elites and down to local left-wing activists. It took a massive scare campaign, not only invoking the old bogey images of the Klan and Hitler, but also, more concretely, a virtual threat to boycott Louisiana, to pull out tourists and conventions, to lose jobs by businesses leaving the state. It took a campaign of slander that resorted to questioning the sincerity of Duke's conversion to Christianity – even challenging him to name his "official church." Even my old friend Doug Bandow participated in this cabal in the Wall Street Journal, which virtually flipped its wig in anti-Duke hysteria, to the extent of attacking Duke for being governed by self-interest(!) – presumably in contrast to all other politicians motivated by deep devotion to the public weal? It took a lot of gall for Bandow to do this, since he is not a sacramental Christian (where one can point out that the person under attack was not received into the sacramental Church), but a pietist one, who is opposed to any sort of official creed or liturgy. So how can a pietist Christian challenge the bona fides of another one? And in a world where no one challenges the Christian credentials of a Chuck Colson or a Jeb Magruder? But logic went out the window: for the entire Establishment, the ruling elite, was at stake, and in that sort of battle, all supposedly clashing wings of the Establishment weld together as one unit and fight with any weapons that might be at hand. Oh yeah, its from that essay by Murray Rothbard where he talked about how great it would be if Judge Dread was an actual thing instead of a satirical cartoon, provided that he only got to do it to 'thugs' and not white collar criminals. To be clear, there are plenty of things in David Duke's platform that could not, or should not be embraced by anyone with sense, even paleo-conservatives or libertarians. For one thing David Duke ran on a platform of mandatory birth control for welfare recipients. For another he equated affirmative action to the holocaust (ironic considering he claims he does not believe the holocaust to have happened.) While Rothbard can claim that David Duke totally had gotten past that whole Nazi Klan phase, it was clear in 1991 that this wasn't the case. Most notably a jewish republican party member followed Duke around, recording some... interesting things: quote:For a time, Duke took Rickey to lunch, introduced her to his daughters, telephoned her late at night, and tried to convince her of his worldview: the Holocaust was a myth, Josef Mengele (the Aushwitz physician who performed experiments on Jews and selected which prisoners would die) was a medical genius, and blacks and Jews were responsible for various social ills. Rickey released transcripts of their conversations to the press. She also provided evidence establishing that Duke sold Nazi literature (including Mein Kampf) from his legislative office, and that he had gone to neo-Nazi political gatherings while he held elective office. So to be clear, David Duke wasn't a 'former' anything, and there is no way that a smart man like Rothbard didn't know it. Or his editor, Lew Rockwell for that matter. Two of the most prestigious and well known libertarians ever born were unabashed supporters of David Duke in 1991... what else do I have to say.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2015 08:35 |
|
It's impressive how it just takes a moment's thought to realize that saying "there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians" says a whole hell of a lot more about conservatives and libertarians than it does about David Duke.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2015 08:54 |
|
I especially like that Rothbard makes sure to specify "not white-collar criminals", as if to say "Ho ho, of course I don't mean you, dear robber-baron reader, but those drat ni-uh, I mean, street thugs."
|
# ? Jan 9, 2015 11:10 |
|
I like that invoking the Klan and the Nazis is a "bogeyman" to discredit a literal Grand Wizard who sold Mein Kampf from his office. Also, in what loving universe did the establishment in the 60s "gently chide the violent left?" Like, what is he even talking about? Hell, referring to the KKK as just a bogeyman to rile up the blacks, and then turning around and trying to invoke the Weathermen to scare his readers is just beautiful. Also this: quote:But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to "community standards." Federal anti-segregation laws? That would be a fatal compromise to our beliefs, sir! We're all about personal freedom without exception, except when freedom would upset Pat Buchanan. But we're not just paleoconservatives, honest.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2015 14:01 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:51 |
|
That's one of the craziest drat things I have ever read in my life. If you'd shown teenage me that screed, I doubt I would have ever embraced libertarianism for that unfortunate phase we all seem to go through.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2015 17:47 |