|
jrodefeld posted:Democracy is not a stable system where rights are protected. Societies can be democratically transformed into a totalitarian hell. We must not forget that Hitler and the Nazis came to power democratically. No they didn't you loving idiot. If anything, Nazi representation and power in the Reichstag was declining when von Papen made the biggest miscalculation of his entire life to back the appointment of Hitler to the Chancellorship.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Idiot rich people and trad conservatives thought Hitler would be a brainless and easy control thug they could let loose on the communists. Oops.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the first place, many of the great thinkers of libertarianism have indeed spent a great deal of time answering such criticisms at length. What I don't understand is how left progressives think that the masses of the people can be educated enough to vote in a responsible way to ensure wise State policy to effectively police private economic power but these same people can't effectively use boycotts, lawsuits, free competition and the like to punish bad economic actors in a free market. Because once you put together a monopoly on force called the State, once it becomes colonized and controlled by private economic power, then the people really don't have much recourse. Unless you think the poor can somehow have the lobbying influence of Goldman Sachs. Hey guys, Goldman Sachs' obscene wealth gives them a terrifying amount of political influence in our democracy. Let's stop Goldman from controlling our lives by abolishing democracy and then allowing Goldman Sachs to own the military and police directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey guys, Goldman Sachs' obscene wealth gives them a terrifying amount of political influence in our democracy. But, you see, they will be contractually honest! Open Market!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Jrod, I have a super easy question for you. Well, two really. First, do you know what a "company town" is? A simple yes or no will do for now, we can expand on this so that you can have a basic understanding. Second, have you ever heard of the Pinkerton detective agency? Specifically their operations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Again, yes or no will do, we can educate you later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Also stop being a coward and answer the medical care question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod, I have a super easy question for you. Well, two really. First, do you know what a "company town" is? A simple yes or no will do for now, we can expand on this so that you can have a basic understanding. Ten to one he answers the second in such a way as to make way, way too much of Lincoln's connection to Allan Pinkerton and thereby tars the former with the sins of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Ten to one he answers the second in such a way as to make way, way too much of Lincoln's connection to Allan Pinkerton and thereby tars the former with the sins of the latter. I have no doubt he will be desperately googling relevant mises.org articles for both questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have no doubt he will be desperately googling relevant mises.org articles for both questions. Obviously the fault lies with.... *Googles Von Mises* ...Northern Aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I have no doubt he will be desperately googling relevant mises.org articles for both questions. "Both are the creation of state tyranny enabling immoral aggression, and would never occur in stateless libertopia."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"Both are the creation of state tyranny enabling immoral aggression, and would never occur in stateless libertopia." No True Libertarian, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
JRod, when normal people and mainstream economists talk about "inflation," are they talking about: a. Expansion of the money supply b. A sustained increase in the general level of prices for goods and services You have admitted that it is very important that we agree on definitions. If that is truly your belief, then you must answer this question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And any force that can violently overthrow the state cam supplant it immediately. We just need an entire army of enlightened philosopher-kings who understand the futility of coercion but who are willing to embark on a temporary campaign of The technological superiority of the State military is irrelevant, because most of their forces will defect to our side at the outbreak of hostilities. Clearly, it's in their rational self-interest to serve the captains-of-industry (who might provide them with job opportunities) rather than their actual captains (who provide them with irrelevant poo poo like food, shelter, healthcare, retirement plans, etc). The technological superiority will quickly evaporate anyways; once the free market sheds its filthy Statist constraints ("pollution controls?" "ethics guidelines for experimental testing?" "second law of thermodynamics?" MOOCHER PROPAGANDA!) it will rapidly produce free-energy motors and hyper-strong alloys. The indestructable killdozers of the revolution will plow through the detritus of the State, and will then be immediately retired and converted into tractors. This is a mathematical fact (tractors generate a profit while killdozers do not) and is not subject to counter-argument or falsification. Every fighter will return to civilian life when the revolution is complete. Those injured in battle will cherish their wounds as the price of victory; they will not attempt to use the threat of violence (or - worse yet - an appeal to pity!) to extort an unearned livelihood from their neighbours. Citizens will walk past the paralyzed and homeless Revolutionary Veteran in the town square, and as he gradually starves to death they will salute his rigid adherence to the Libertarian principle of self-sufficiency. Of course, this stoic austerity applies only to human lives. Any landowner whose property is harmed during the revolution will, of course, be able to obtain compensation via the courts. The Libertarian Revolution may have been historically necessary and a massive boon to humanity, but nothing whatsoever can excuse the fact that the 33rd Cincinnatus Division briefly trespassed through a 7-Eleven parking lot during the Cleansing of Spokane. Revolutionary fighters, being keenly aware of the sanctity of property, will have kept careful records and receipts for all of their wartime activities. Edit: this plan has a few flaws, but they look much smaller if you graph them on a log scale. Also, the security issues can probably be fixed by putting everything onto the Blockchain. Therefore there are no flaws and the plan is guaranteed to work. Since I'm the idea guy, I deserve a 50% share of the profits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:
Sorry, I already stole this plan and am using a corrupted version to carve out my own petty empire in the third world without regard to your principles, no chargebacks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Er, what empirical data? Much scholarly work has been done describing the disastrous effect of the war on drugs in breaking up the black family, creating more crime and incentivizing young black males to join gangs rather than enter into honest work. The inflated costs of illegal drugs make the drug trade incredibly lucrative and the fact that it is a black market means that police and courts won't protect your property and business transactions so the only recourse is to use gangs and street warfare to protect your livelihood. Legalizing all illegal drugs and making them widely available and relatively low cost would immediately put the illegal drug dealer out of business and make the drug trade unprofitable. Many hundreds of thousands of black men would not be killed or thrown into a cage. The welfare state has similarly caused a system of dependency and hopelessness. Walter Williams has done some of the best work on this subject. I recommend his documentary "Good Intentions: The State Against Blacks". Williams points out that in the late 1940s, black illegitimacy was actually lower than white illegitimacy. The family unit was intact and fathers were very heavily involved in the lives of their children. I don't have to mention of course that the overt white racism that blacks suffered under was far more than what they deal with today. Something altered this course for black progress some time following the civil rights victories of the 1960s. Williams and others have argued that it was the selling out of the civil rights movement to Democratic Party politics and the perverse incentives and effects of the welfare state and other condescending and counter-effective economic regulations and handouts that white progressives foisted upon the black community. Public housing projects became drug infected and gang occupied in many cities. If we are honest with ourselves we will concede that black progress is not what it ought to be fifty years after the passage of the civil rights act. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party was more interested it seems in pandering for votes than in the well being of the black community as a whole (this is a generalization of course and I always assume good intentions whenever possible).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Would that I cared what Murray Rothbard called anyone anything. I suspect Murray Rothbard also called African American's niggers but that doesn't exactly hold much value with me either. Murray Rothbard had a way with definitions. He also called Thurgood Marshall moronic, the Black Panthers louts, Dr. King a "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style", and he was thoroughly shocked that Malcom X sounded educated and intelligent despite the dark pigments of his skin, almost as if black skin were as those silly liberals claimed not an insuperable barrier to intellectual pursuits. Almost. Murray Rothbard posted:It is a ridiculous liberal cliche that blacks are just like whites but with a different skin color; but in Malcolm’s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true. But no when Rothbard derives from first principles the absolute right of wealthy landowners to restrict immigration as harshly as they please, I'm sure that conclusion was reached after deep thinking and fair-minded neutral consideration of moral ethical principles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So what class does that make Libertarians? Anti-intellectual? Pseudointellectual? (hint, its the latter) I should have said "political class", "politicians" or "central bankers" or some variation on the same. Anyone who benefits from inflation has an interest in fooling the public into not understanding that it is money printing that is the cause of rising prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Walter Williams has done some of the best work on this subject. I recommend his documentary "Good Intentions: The State Against Blacks". Once again, letting others do your thinking for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Much scholarly work has been done describing the disastrous effect of the war on drugs in breaking up the black family, creating more crime and incentivizing young black males to join gangs rather than enter into honest work. The inflated costs of illegal drugs make the drug trade incredibly lucrative and the fact that it is a black market means that police and courts won't protect your property and business transactions so the only recourse is to use gangs and street warfare to protect your livelihood. Yes, quote:Legalizing all illegal drugs and making them widely available and relatively low cost would immediately put the illegal drug dealer out of business and make the drug trade unprofitable. Many hundreds of thousands of black men would not be killed or thrown into a cage. Of course. quote:The welfare state has similarly caused a system of dependency and hopelessness. Walter Williams has done some of the best work on this subject. I recommend his documentary "Good Intentions: The State Against Blacks". Nope! Sorry, Walter Williams is a fake academic and a human joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:No they didn't you loving idiot. If anything, Nazi representation and power in the Reichstag was declining when von Papen made the biggest miscalculation of his entire life to back the appointment of Hitler to the Chancellorship. In Papen's defense, backing Hitler proved to not be as big a miscalculation as it was for Schleicher, the other half of team 'let's be retarded and think we can be the power behind the genocidal maniac.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Welfare's bad for black people. But don't take my word for it, ask this black!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What this means is that it is entirely consistent for a libertarian to oppose State mandated open borders because, in conjunction with the welfare State and Federal mandates, this creates a system of forced integration and hardship for private property owners whose tax money is stressed on social services provided to new immigrants and mandates which required individuals to associate with people that they would prefer not to associate with. This is also a rights violation that some libertarians recognize. Okay, I had a much more eloquent version of this post written up before I found out that command + Q on my mac does not add quotations but is in fact the quit command, even though command + B is the bold command, so I'm going to make this short and sweet. JRodefeld, I don't think you are personally a racist. You quote people who say a LOT of racist things but I do not believe that you personally harbor racists beliefs, in large part because you have avoided saying racist poo poo in these threads. That said, to realtalk at you for a moment, you need to fix this before it becomes something that you consistently use as a talking point, because this time you are personally being racist. What do I mean? Well the whole thing above reeks of racism, its got all the conservative talking points, thieving immigrants taking your money through social services, hardship through taxation for property owners, and of course forced integration, but its that last one I want to focus on. Here are some of the things HHH says about forced integration: quote:The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing "quality" concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism). quote:Through non-discrimination laws – one cannot discriminate against Germans, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Hindus, homosexuals, etc. – the government will want to open even the physical access and entrance to everyone’s property to everyone else. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the so-called "Civil Rights" legislation in the United States, which outlawed domestic discrimination on the basis of color, race, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, etc., and which thereby actually mandated forced integration, coincided with the adoption of a non-discriminatory immigration policy; i.e., mandated inter-national desegregagtion (forced integration). To be Anti-Forced Integration, as you appear to be, is to be pro-segregation. When Hans Hermann Hoppe complains about forced integration he is complaining about desegregation, and the fact that he (and others) are not allowed to eject people from their neighbourhoods, towns, cities or states based on the color of their skin, their religion, sexuality or any number of other categories. He is saying that intolerance is a virtue because it keeps out the "masses of inferior immigrants". You've been really good about avoiding support for some of the vile stuff that your idols say, and I think you really need to take another look at forced integration before you go around spewing it, because by calling for it you are calling for a return to the segregation of the 1960's. That is hosed up beyond any and all belief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Welfare's bad for black people. But don't take my word for it, ask this black! Anti-suffragettes exist therefore the vote is bad for women and restricting the franchise to men is not misogynist at all because see a woman supports it too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the first place, many of the great thinkers of libertarianism have indeed spent a great deal of time answering such criticisms at length. What I don't understand is how left progressives think that the masses of the people can be educated enough to vote in a responsible way to ensure wise State policy to effectively police private economic power but these same people can't effectively use boycotts, lawsuits, free competition and the like to punish bad economic actors in a free market. It's the difference between "vote for competent full time representatives managing centralized regulatory organizations" versus putting the burden on individuals and relying on decentralized organization. There is a gulf of difference between these things. Sometimes decentralized organization is fine or better (like the host of things the market is good at). Sometimes it's not. Complex policing of monopoly regulations is better suited to the former. I'm not a fan of braindead anit-market rhetoric myself, but if you think monopolies are unlikely in state absence you're mistaken. This is where I'll remind everyone that while you waste our time trying to argue that your policies will actually work, you don't actually care. You'd support them on moral grounds alone. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
noted leftist, affirmative action policy, the war on drugs started by that icon of progressive policy, Reagan also, because it is bad, welfare and safety nets are bad, since both are government policy you worthless piece of human garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Boycotts are very hard to make stick. Take the number of regulatory fines issued in any given year and compare it with the number of successful boycotts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is where I'll remind everyone that while you waste our time trying to argue that your policies will actually work, you don't actually care. You'd support them on moral grounds alone. Libertarian policies self-evidently work. That's how you determine which empirical evidence is reliable and which is flawed: by comparing that evidence against the predictions made by Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What a ridiculous assertion. If you own private property, you have the inalienable right to transfer ownership to any person you want or to invite whoever you please onto your property. It is true that communities can voluntarily agree to contracts for behavior in such a community such that a person may agree not to use his or her property in a specified way. But this is not a violation of private property rights but an expression of them. It is like if I voluntarily agree to a contract that stipulates that I won't engage in hate speech in a public forum, that doesn't mean I don't believe in freedom of speech. People are merely expressing their rights through voluntary legal contract. In other words, it's okay to take away a person's rights so long as it's done with a contract that both parties "willingly" sign. That's a pretty loving awful position to take, dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Boycotts are very hard to make stick. Take the number of regulatory fines issued in any given year and compare it with the number of successful boycotts. Statism makes boycotts hard. But in a free market with no state, life's troubles are quick and easy to dispose of. It's a simple matter to sign up with a DRO; no troublesome taxes to pay! Only millions of pages of contract paperwork. Feel free to spend your newfound spare time doing research online, to find out if your local grocery store uses the meat of dead gays instead of beef!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:noted leftist, affirmative action policy, the war on drugs Yes, they are. Putting black men in cages should be left up to free market actors like the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Ludwig Von Mises posted:“Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.” Always wondered how Ancaps resolve their love of Mises with this...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Time needed to find facts does not factor into libertopia. The system was designed assuming perfectly informed rational actors and reality doesn't factor into any of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Time needed to find facts does not factor into libertopia. The system was designed assuming perfectly informed rational actors and reality doesn't factor into any of this. The system isn't designed. It's defined by a complete lack of design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:Always wondered how Ancaps resolve their love of Mises with this... I've asked jrodefeld repeatedly in this thread how he can rely on the reasoning of known statist Ludwig von Mises and how we can trust his rationalist derivations from First Principles when apparently he and von Mises can both start from the axiom Humans Act yet come to completely opposite conclusions regarding the morality of a state monopoly on force. He has so far refused to answer. But apparently his conclusions are as reliable as Euclidean geometry because mathematicians disagree all the time about whether the angles of a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 degrees or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:Always wondered how Ancaps resolve their love of Mises with this... This just in: Ludwig von Mises was a functional adult member of society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I love how Jrod's governmental system is wholly dependant upon the honesty and integrity of some of the most dishonest and least trustworthy people: The wealthy. As opposed to who, politicians?! These paragons of virtue and moral integrity, the politician and the bureaucrat. As an advocate of State power, those are the people your system is run by. The wealthy, like most groups, are comprised of good people and bad. But the distinction is that they have limited ability to run the lives of others. They have the ability to offer a product or service to consumers and a job to workers, both of which can be refused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This just in: Ludwig von Mises was a functional adult member of society. I feel like there is a Karl Rove joke here. That out of the way, I found a pretty good article about HHH called The Errors of Hans Hermann Hoppe. It does a pretty good job running down some of his more rediculous arguments, and I found this section from the end to be both new and especially telling. quote:Hoppe’s theory is a farewell to reality, but more than that it is also a farewell to classical liberalism. A few weeks ago he delivered a lecture here in Gummersbach under the promising title ‘Strategies of liberation’. Let me tell you what he said then. The first step towards a Hoppe-style liberation consisted of hating everyone who is supporting the state. First of all, this means hating the representatives of the state and the intellectuals at state universities. Hoppe said they needed the state as they would not find anyone in the free market who would buy their idiotic ideas, and only the state provided them with well paid jobs. He also suggested using popular prejudices against the intellectuals to incite hatred. Their books, for example, are most often not worth reading and we should tell this to the people – well, why not burn these books then, I was asking myself. In fact, why not burn the intellectuals?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the first place, many of the great thinkers of libertarianism have indeed spent a great deal of time answering such criticisms at length. What I don't understand is how left progressives think that the masses of the people can be educated enough to vote in a responsible way to ensure wise State policy to effectively police private economic power but these same people can't effectively use boycotts, lawsuits, free competition and the like to punish bad economic actors in a free market. Because once you put together a monopoly on force called the State, once it becomes colonized and controlled by private economic power, then the people really don't have much recourse. Unless you think the poor can somehow have the lobbying influence of Goldman Sachs. Dude, you're seriously back to the idea that war is never waged for profit? We already crushed that argument. You had no retort against the dozens of historical examples of private groups waging war for profit. Why are you bringing out this dead horse? The fact that you were caught plagiarizing other libertarians is why we accuse you of not doing your own thinking. It's because of the plagiarism. Do you know what that word means? Wait, is this another case of libertarians redefining a word? We also accuse you of not doing your own thinking because you refuse to engage in arguments for which you don't already have a canned response. That's why you keep ignoring paragon1's medical care questions. We also accuse you of not doing your own thinking because you clearly read the responses to your half-baked ideas but then you somehow convince yourself that we're actually agreeing with you. That's why you've brought back the idea that war is never waged for profit. I'm sure that in libertarian circles this is an uncontroversial statement, but in the real world it's easily disproven with countless historical examples. The fact that you've either ignored or somehow forgotten all of those examples indicates that you're not actually thinking about them or how they might influence your view of the world. BIG HINT: war existed without a state. Even chimpanzees go to war with each other you dipshit
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Now watch in real time as Mises' straightforward observation gets reinterpreted into Stephen Kinsella auto-babbling through the power of Austrian self-hypnosis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As opposed to who, politicians?! These paragons of virtue and moral integrity, the politician and the bureaucrat. As an advocate of State power, those are the people your system is run by. The wealthy, like most groups, are comprised of good people and bad. But the distinction is that they have limited ability to run the lives of others. They have the ability to offer a product or service to consumers and a job to workers, both of which can be refused. Actually... Well here, I'll let the quotes speak for themselves: quote:In a survey of 500 senior executives in the United States and the UK, 26 percent of respondents said they had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace, while 24 percent said they believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct to be successful. quote:if a stock trader suffers from some kind of emotional impairment -- that is, brain damage that prevents them from fully experiencing their own emotions -- it may allow them to make more profit on the market, since they can make decisions based more firmly in rationalism. quote:In multiple trials that involved both questionnaires and physical-response tests, the researchers found that young adults whose upbringing involved some degree of financial struggle were quicker and more likely to register signs of empathy than young adults who came from affluent backgrounds. quote:We found that people from a lower-class background—in terms of occupation, status, education and income level—performed better in terms of emotional intelligence, the ability to read the emotions that others are feeling. And so on. Studies have shown that the wealthy are actually more likely to lie, cheat and steal than the poor, and that instances of sociopathy are significantly higher among the wealthy than the poor. Also gently caress you and the horse you rode in on if you think the wealthy have less ability to run the lives of others. The VC who purchases a company so he can sell it off for parts will gently caress up thousands of lives. Even my boss dictates my day to day life by setting a work schedule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:16
|
|