|
jrodefeld posted:This is incredibly stupid and intellectually lazy. Now if Hoppe or any other prominent libertarian was actually a provable racist and white supremacist who promoted hate, then I genuinely would not listen to things they have to say because they have defined themselves based on hate speech. So, for instance, you are prepared to repudiate Rothbard for this reason?
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I totally missed this last bit. Wow. Add "actual wealth disparity" to the long list of things jrode knows nothing about. I don't give a gently caress about "income inequality" in the abstract. What concerns me is whether someone earned their wealth through voluntary trade on the market or through coercion. The implication of the income inequality argument is that there is some ideal equality of material possessions that is just and desirable and they way to get there from here is to use coercive means to take property from those who have more and give it to those who have less. For a libertarian, it is correct and proper to take property from someone and give it to another if and only if that property was stolen and the recipient of that redistributed property is the rightful owner. Have you heard of Pareto's Law? This was discovered by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He did exhaustive studies of all the other European countries and found roughly the same thing. This is known as the 80/20 rule. Throughout recorded history the distribution of wealth among a society never seems to deviate much from this principle. And this is regardless of what sort of political and economic systems are in place. But is such an unequal distribution of wealth just and fair? Pareto also found that for any given population of people, 20% contribute 80% of the productivity and output of the group. If people contribute more output than others, any rational concept of justice implies that they deserve a larger portion of the resultant wealth than those who contribute less. Rothbard wrote that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. People ARE unequal and there is nothing explicitly wrong with that. As I have said, it is HOW a person attains his wealth that is the critical point, not what the income "distribution" happens to be. If a person uses coercion and theft to attain wealth, then I agree that they don't deserve it and should be punished and their wealth confiscated and redistributed to those whom they stole from. But the fact remains that the Pareto Distribution of wealth is almost like an iron law of nature, one that is observed in nearly every society even studied. No society has ever existed where there was anything close to total equality of income. If 20% of a population are far more productive than 80%, it is natural that they will accumulate more wealth than the others. But in a market economy this extra productivity will uplift the group as a whole. The pie itself will grow and even the most idle and lazy among the population will reap the benefits to the total output and increased living standards that come from Capital accumulation and industrial progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Your underlying assumption is that that distribution is a result of a minority of people being more productive than a majority of people, when in fact it is the result of a small amount of people stealing from a large amount of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If 20% of a population are far more productive than 80%, They're not, dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you heard of Pareto's Law? This was discovered by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He did exhaustive studies of all the other European countries and found roughly the same thing. This is known as the 80/20 rule. Throughout recorded history the distribution of wealth among a society never seems to deviate much from this principle. And this is regardless of what sort of political and economic systems are in place. Are you kidding me? This statistic is so obviously bullshit I'm shocked even you are stupid enough to buy into it. Can you cite any empirical studies, not opinion pieces, that demonstrate this? Edit: Accidentally removed relevant portion of quote Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The market obviously provided employment for him. You know what? I'm going to take back some of my comments about "bureaucrats". My beef is not really with the average government contractor who is just trying to provide for this family. People have to survive in the system as it exists not as they would like it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But I can't accept claiming certain knowledge that ________________ without any proof whatsoever. Yet you claim certain knowledge about all sorts of things that you know nothing about, without any proof whatsoever: -- You claimed certain knowledge that private enterprise can never go to war because it is too risky with too little to gain, despite countless counterexamples -- You claimed certain knowledge that there was a precedent for countless large foreign armies being repelled by disorganized tribes, despite no evidence of this -- You claimed certain knowledge that HHH is definitely not a racist despite all of the quotes, citations, and evidence showing otherwise -- You claimed certain knowledge that government spending and leaving the gold standard lengthened the Great Depression, despite all evidence to the contrary -- You claimed certain knowledge that inflation is only "expansion of the money supply" and that self-defense is not a type of violence, despite being shown actual dictionary definitions of these terms that prove otherwise -- You claimed certain knowledge that extreme wealth is extremely transitory, resulting in wealthy families quickly falling to the middle class, despite the existence of American dynasty families (the Hearsts, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, the Vanderbilts, etc) that have existed since the 1800s -- You claimed certain knowledge that we were all secretly libertarians and just didn't realize it yet because we oppose the drug war, failing to recognize that progressives also oppose the drug war -- You claimed certain knowledge that the growth of US medical spending was due solely to Medicare and Medicaid, despite these costs growing worldwide amid exponential advancement in medical treatment -- You claimed certain knowledge that ancap libertopia would solve countless societal ills, yet when asked for proof you've thrown up your hands and stated that it's not your job to prove anything! etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you heard of Pareto's Law? This was discovered by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He did exhaustive studies of all the other European countries and found roughly the same thing. This is known as the 80/20 rule. Throughout recorded history the distribution of wealth among a society never seems to deviate much from this principle. And this is regardless of what sort of political and economic systems are in place. They are no more productive that the 80% actually doing the work under them. There is no link to the 'productivity' of the wealthy, they do not produce, they have others produce FOR them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't give a gently caress about "income inequality" in the abstract. What concerns me is whether someone earned their wealth through voluntary trade on the market or through coercion. The implication of the income inequality argument is that there is some ideal equality of material possessions that is just and desirable and they way to get there from here is to use coercive means to take property from those who have more and give it to those who have less. Much like power law distributions, the 80/20 thing appears common but often arises from attempts to force the data to fit that. Pareto did not make the claim you assert he did, certainly not that it was an "iron law". Go back and read him again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
I usually don't read jrodefeld's actual posts but I actually read that one through and it's mind-destroyingly stupid. No one can be that deluded without a serious learning disability or impairment. I'm not trying to insult jrodefeld or call him "retaded" but after reading more of his posts in the thread I absolutely think he has to be suffering from something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I usually don't read jrodefeld's actual posts but I actually read that one through and it's mind-destroyingly stupid. No one can be that deluded without a serious learning disability or impairment. I'm not trying to insult jrodefeld or call him "retaded" but after reading more of his posts in the thread I absolutely think he has to be suffering from something. Pseudointellectualism is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
jrod, your most recent post boils down so easilyjrodefeld posted:I don't give a gently caress about "income inequality" That's it, that's all you had to say to get your entire point across. We already know that you think that taxes are theft, stealing from the rich people who earned it and giving it to the poor leeches on welfare. We already know that you believe in the Just World fallacy, that people have what they deserve to have. The problem is that the game was rigged in the late 1800s, and that was the economic situation that produced the 80/20 rule in the early 1900s. You complain about crony capitalism, yet you don't complain about how it effects the 80/20 rule? Why would you support a system where activities that strangle a free market and actual violence was used to stomp out competition? The fact of the matter is that the 80/20 rule is not an ironclad law, but the fact that you want it to be is telling
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Wow, VitalSigns really did call it. You won't accept any evidence of Hoppe's racism unless he has statements that explicitly express overtly racist sentiments. Jrode, we both know that Hoppe is not a stupid man, and is intelligent enough to not make obvious gaffes beyond his offensive remarks regarding homosexuals which got him in some trouble with his university. It is not a leap to take his peculiar models of property rights and their enforcement and combine them with his obvious associations with racial realists and similar degenerate intellectuals and come to the conclusion that he may be hostile to other races in outcome if not intent. Although, let's be honest it is probably intent too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod, your most recent post boils down so easily Seriously, Jrod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain You speak of 'Aggression', but you fail to notice the historical records of PHYSICAL aggression that workers suffered under in the 1800s and early 1900s. Seriously, you are a terrible person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Malleum posted:What was that about jrod not being a racist? Because he's being pretty loving racist right now. No I'm not. I'm saying that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to accuse Hoppe of racism. I didn't advocate or reject any policy or positions but rather I explained what I think Hoppe and libertarians such as him mean when they make certain statements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I'm not. I'm saying that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to accuse Hoppe of racism. I didn't advocate or reject any policy or positions but rather I explained what I think Hoppe and libertarians such as him mean when they make certain statements. He hangs out and HOSTS white supremacists. You dense mutherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know what? I'm going to take back some of my comments about "bureaucrats". My beef is not really with the average government contractor who is just trying to provide for this family. People have to survive in the system as it exists not as they would like it to be. I.e. Yes you would take that job, morality of working for the great Satan be damned. Sorry to keep on with "you didn't answer this!" (Though you should answer the medicine/elasticity thing first) but: is the state an unfortunate thing we had to go through to get to libertarianism/ancapism, or is the state an aberration? Not a 'gotcha', I don't have a planned follow-up, I'm jut curious as to your view. E: drat you phone posting! Igiari fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Black people are only "statistically likely to increase the crime rate" due to racist as all hell housing policies and because the racist as hell police investigate them a billion times more than white people I don't think Hoppe said that blacks are likely to increase the crime rate. What he said was people would be within their rights to discriminate against people for a variety of reasons based on who statistically tend to increase the crime rate and decrease home values. I agree that housing policies and police policy have been totally racist and unjust. No argument there. But that has nothing to do with this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think Hoppe said that blacks are likely to increase the crime rate. What he said was people would be within their rights to discriminate against people for a variety of reasons based on who statistically tend to increase the crime rate and decrease home values. quote:The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic one-man-one-vote rule. Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently undemocratic, and antimajoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements [...] You are dense as hell. These are LITERALLY the talking points for white supremacist groups and racists. IN HIS OWN WORD. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Self-selected Natural Elite King Abdullah of House Saudpassed away at 90. All those free-thinkers who see the folly of democracy and admire his commitment to the ability to discriminate are sure to mourn him greatly. I'm curious if Jrod will just lump him in as anoither filthy statist, despite the whole country being basically a private feud. Old Man Saud mixed his labor with it nice and good, so now it belongs to his offsprings in perpetuity, and anyone who disagress can just keep walking and found their own covenant community. Ready to defend someone who really wore the 80-20% shirt, as you understand it, J?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Answer it you loving quarter of man. TLM3101 posted:Hello again, Jrode. Is it that time again? Glad to see the good fight is still being fought almost three months after I made this post. Jrode, I'm still interested in having this healthcare/elasticity discussion if you want. Given that demand for healthcare is inelastic, and individual willingness to pay is nearly infinite, what market forces will prevent medical practitioners from colluding to raise the cost of medical care significantly? Or, you could also just admit you are wrong on this issue, which would be much easier than attempting to alter the fabric of reality through deep praxeological magickes.  OR you could STILL keep responding to ad-hominem arguments about racism that have nothing to do with the validity of your ideas, and reposting mises articles with minor alterations, instead of actually trying to generate a thought of your own
Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I'm not. I'm saying that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to accuse Hoppe of racism. I didn't advocate or reject any policy or positions but rather I explained what I think Hoppe and libertarians such as him mean when they make certain statements. Honest question, but do you suspect he might be racist? I mean... lets use this as an example:  It is a duck analogy. Now lets say I tell you that is a picture of a duck. It sure looks like a duck, it has ducklike features and when you google the word duck this comes up... but is it really a duck? I mean really honestly? Have you DNA tested it vs some... I dunno, genetic duck exemplar to prove that it is in fact a duck? Is there sufficient evidence to call this a picture of a duck? Of course there is! Hoppe is no different, there are mountains of evidece that you are willfully ignoring because it doesn't absolutely, DNA evidence style prove that hoppe is a racist. So you know what, lets go with a different tact. Do you think it is reasonable of us to assume, based on his association with white supremecists, his distaste for desegregation or his talks about Natural Social Elites and so forth that he is probably racist. Is it reasonable for us to assume even if we cannot prove beyond a laser focused doubt? Oh, and while I'm at it, here is what Hoppe has to say about the topic: quote:Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I once deviated from my principle not to speak about my work until it was done. I have regretted this deviation. It was a mistake that I won't repeat. As for books, I recommend above all reading the major works of my two masters, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, not just once, but repeatedly from time to time. Their work is still unsurpassed and will remain so for a long time to come. As for websites, I go most regularly to mises.org and to lewrockwell.com. As for other sites: I have been called an extremist, a reactionary, a revisionist, an elitist, a supremacist, a racist, a homophobe, an anti-Semite, a right-winger, a theocrat, a godless cynic, a fascist and, of course, a must for every German, a Nazi. So, it should be expected that I have a foible for politically "incorrect" sites that every "modern," "decent," "civilized," "tolerant," and "enlightened" man is supposed to ignore and avoid. I personally worry about anyone who is bored by meeting someone who hasn't been called a racist, revisionist, extremist, homophobe etc. Hoppe is most interested in hanging around with people who have been called all of those things, which is no surprise. What I find more interesting is that Hoppe apparently starts his speeches by pointing out he is a racist. Do you think that Hoppe opening his speeches by saying he is a Racist, Homophobic anti semite perhaps suggests anything? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
If the landholders of the domain happen to come to the conclusion that their black population (10% of the local population and largely landless) need to be expelled from the land when they form the community covenant on Libertopia Day Zero this is apparently just property rights being enforced regardless of the motivations of said landholders. Is this an accurate statement, jrodefeld?
AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:If the landholders of the domain happen to come to the conclusion that their black population (10% of the local population and largely landless) need to be expelled from the land when they form the community covenant on Libertopia Day Zero this is apparently just property rights being enforced regardless of the motivations of said landholders. Is this an statement, jrodefeld? Approved and proposed by HHH himself! Also: Jews, Catholics, Athiests, etc. The poor 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
I hope the free market grinds you into the dust jrod
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Not the 80/20 rule, god. Only bullshit management consultants use that. The Pareto Principal is just a power law distribution. Pareto himself never suggested that this was evidence of productivity, that was a much later invention. Pareto was enamored with the idea of a natural law of social elites. That's why fascists love him so much.
Political Whores fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Jrod, please acknowledge the quotes from HHH's own book, and explain. I seriously need a laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Not the 80/20 rule, god. Only bullshit management consultants use that. The Pareto Principal is just a power law distribution. Pareto himself never suggested that this was evidence of productivity, that was a much later invention. What's this? Jrod blatantly misrepresented something, either from lazy ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or both? I need to sit down, this is blowing my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't give a gently caress about "income inequality" in the abstract. What concerns me is whether someone earned their wealth through voluntary trade on the market or through coercion. The implication of the income inequality argument is that there is some ideal equality of material possessions that is just and desirable and they way to get there from here is to use coercive means to take property from those who have more and give it to those who have less. You're wrong, but I'm afraid you've also missed the point. I wasn't specifically talking about the injustice of wealth inequality here, I was talking about how the wealthy literally own so much that your belief that the majority of wealth is transitory is transparently false just by looking at the numbers. If you're born a multimillionaire, you're almost certainly not going to lose it anytime soon because the system was designed to allow you to continue easily hoarding wealth. You don't have to be the brilliant inventor your grandfather was when you own half the country and all the laws are on your side. CommieGIR posted:He hangs out and HOSTS white supremacists. You dense mutherfucker. Look, he would've been just as happy to associate with and promote Black Panthers in the interests of open debate, it's just a coincidence that he didn't invite any and that only white supremacists seem to feature heavily in events he sponsors. It's also a coincidence that he only either discusses his philosophy in the abstract or applies it to keeping out undesirable minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Look, he would've been just as happy to associate with and promote Black Panthers in the interests of open debate, it's just a coincidence that he didn't invite any and that only white supremacists seem to feature heavily in events he sponsors. It's also a coincidence that he only either discusses his philosophy in the abstract or applies it to keeping out undesirable minorities. Its not that he dislikes the Black Panthers, he just finds sharing the same viewpoint as the KKK more agreeable to his palate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What's this? Jrod blatantly misrepresented something, either from lazy ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or both? I need to sit down, this is blowing my mind. All of the records Pareto studied were literally from feudal through to capitalist European societies. From this he derived his idiotic axiom of social ordering. Pareto was an rear end in a top hat but did contribute a lot to economic thinking, however some of his beliefs are pretty in keeping with Jrod, the only difference is that Pareto was more open about how little he cared about the poor: This is from Benoit Mandelbrot's Misbehaviour of Markets: quote:That something, though expressed in a neat equation, is harsh and Darwinian, in Pareto’s view. At the very bottom of the wealth curve, he wrote, Mandelbrot explains it pretty well quote:Pick a group of people to study—say, everybody making more than the U.S. government’s $5.15 minimum hourly wage, It's ridiculous to think it's a universal law beyond basic math. It's been turned into a bunch of idiotic rules of thumb by business executives and management consultants. E: Also Jrod, the fact that you tried to quote this makes you a bad person, and proves how disingenuous everything you say about caring for the poor and downtrodden is. LIbertarianism is a cancer on society, you have convinced me of this. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know what? I'm going to take back some of my comments about "bureaucrats". My beef is not really with the average government contractor who is just trying to provide for this family. People have to survive in the system as it exists not as they would like it to be. Don't lie to us, jrod. We aren't stupid, and you will not for a single second actually excuse or exempt anyone who dares take a dime of taxpayer's money from being anything other than pure evil. Now, I know you'll object and say that this isn't true and you might even believe that it isn't, but I assure you that you're wrong. How can you be wrong about your own thoughts and feelings? Well, I'll tell you. The reason is simple: you don't believe people who work for the government are actually people at all. You have completely dehumanized government employees in your own mind, as evidenced by your language. You hiss out the word "bureaucrat" in the same disgusted manner most people reserve for saying "pedophile". Even the word choice itself is telling, it's meant to reduce people to nonentities, faceless yet malevolent unthinking drones working witlessly at the behest of the overmind known simply as "the state". It's a fabrication deliberately constructed by the libertarian philosophers you try to emulate. It's easy to hate and despise someone you don't know or have never met, and easier yet to hate something that isn't even human at all. Ask yourself, outside of Libertarian writings, have you ever heard anyone refer to a government employee as a bureaucrat? My wife works for the State of Michigan, but her Position Description doesn't have that word anywhere in it. Nor does she work with a single bureaucrat, rather she works with Field Rangers, Conservation Officers, Park Services Liaisons, etc. You also refer to government employees only as a plurality, another dehumanizing tactic that strips away the ability for an individual to exist. RuanGroucho forced you, and probably for the first time, to actually reconcile the idea that bureaucrats are made up of individual people. He is one singular person directly addressing you after all, so you couldn't reduce him to a non-entity like you usually do when discussing government employees. And this made you uncomfortable which is why you preface your response to him by admiting that what you were about to say would sound pretty drat awful, because you understood that he as an individual couldn't be held responsible for all the supposed evils of the government. And yet you did anyway, all but accusing him of personally holding a gun to some person's head in order to take their wallets as his paycheck. Now obviously that's pretty drat insane, not to mention immoral, to accuse him of that. Not to mention ironic since you won't entertain the notion that one of your heroes is a racist but you'll say Ruan is an awful human being with certainty. But even someone so deeply brainwashed as you was able to realize that. So you gave this halfhearted reversal of your position. But I guaran-loving-tee that in less than three months time you will be using the exact same language to say the exact same things. Because you aren't honest and more importantly because dehumanizing the State is necessary for you ideology to even function. Hopefully someday you'll realize this because that'll likely be your first step towards realizing how abhorrent and morally bankrupt libertarianism really is. Edit: clarity and typo cleanup Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:jrod, you mentioned several times during your posts last night that you hold debate to high importance, especially when it comes to discussing issues like the ones being brought up. So have you considered taking up the offers to have a live debate? I know Caros has a standing offer to debate you on healthcare and I want to debate you on whether or not the Non-Aggression Principal is moral. I'll reiterate that I'm willing to let you choose the style of the debate, either free form or structured with opening statements, rebuttals, timed question segments, and closing statements. I'll even allow you to pick the moderators, if any. I'm willing to give you literally every advantage, and I'm willingness to bet Caros would to. Nolanar posted:If you really do want to have a substantial debate on other topics, here's a short summary of debate topics I would love to get into with you. Most have been brought up in the thread previously. Just a reminder for jrod in case these get lost in the shuffle: there are several of us offering to have good-faith discussions with you over things other than how racist your idols are! It is a shame that you somehow accidentally missed them in favor of responding to low hanging fruit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:12
|
|
Libertarianism of this variety is in the same vein as bullshit conspiracy theories, a kind of bizarre form of pseudo-intellectualism that gets off on  ing about secretly getting what the sheeple don't, and also relies on the belief that in the event of anarchy one would be the sort of ubermensch to prevail.In short, it rests on vanity, and is fairly impervious for that reason. Also, there should be a debate thread, sounds great.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The thing is that I know enough about libertarian literature and philosophy to understand that these phrases are NOT the dog whistles you think they are. Libertarians like Hoppe hold private property rights to be sacrosanct and the cornerstone of their system of ethics. If a libertarian society ended up with private property owners discriminating against whites or against Catholics or against almost nobody, it wouldn't matter according to libertarian principles. I'm sure Hoppe would defend the rights of private property owners to allow whoever these please on their property and to reject anyone they please. Hey knucklehead, listen up. I'm about to clue you in on some heavy poo poo. If you stick to your principles when it becomes apparent that the implementation of your principles results in systemic racism, that's incredibly racist. It makes you a hard-core racist to do that. Savvy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
jrod: 1) Do you personally believe that discrimination based on race--not the right to discriminate, but the actual practice--is morally good? 2) Why do you believe that many libertarians, such as Hans Hoppe as well as the many avowed white supremacists/"race realists", derive a society with increased race-based discrimination from their first principles? Is an increase in racial discrimination objectively proven from libertarian first principles, like the rest of praxeology, or is this one issue uniquely the result of some fallacious thought process among these libertarians? 3a) If increased discrimination is an objective and unavoidable result of libertarian axioms, how do you square this view with your oft-repeated claim that libertarianism is the greatest hope for anti-racism? (Note that the idea that other races will be happier in some way if forcibly separated and excluded from white society--especially in a paradigm where white society owns the vast majority of the world's resources--is explicitly racist.) 3b) If the push for discrimination is in fact a mistaken belief, what do you believe has caused this particular error in thinking? Is there a reason I should believe that Hoppe et al made this specific error for some reason other than an existing desire to justify discrimination against other races? 4) Why is libertarianism much more popular among white supremacists than anti-racists, especially minorities? Are all these people (both the libertarian racists and the anti-racist non-libertarians) simply not smart enough to realize that libertarianism is in fact an anti-racist ideology? What is it about libertarianism that makes it uniquely attractive to the exact opposite people who "should" be attracted to it? e: Bonus: Are you aware that race is a social construct rather than a biological trait?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
I'm beginning to think Jrod is a vaccine for Libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Grognan posted:I'm beginning to think Jrod is a vaccine for Libertarianism. I have to think that while many posters in this thread are former libertarians, none of them can hope to have matched jrodefeld's sheer verbiage during their libertarian "phases."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Jrod, are you feeling some kind of existential crisis between your want of libertarianism and your desire regarding the equality of mankind? It would explain why you can't let the topic go like you can with healthcare spending, WWII history, great depression responses, and the like. Join us Jrod. Free yourself from the shackles of atomization and be one with your brothers and sisters in glorious equality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
If it makes you feel any better JRod, if I noticed that a lot of socialists I meet keep saying things like "We need to seize the means of production to keep them out of the hands of the negroids" and if socialism seemed to be an ideology that only appealed to white dudes, I would probably start questioning my support for it pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:35
|
|
