|
jrodefeld posted:Getting gas or buying groceries is different because it is private property and the gasoline and groceries are the property of the store. Since they, the store owner, manager, workers, etc homesteaded and produced this product, if I just take it without their permission I am a thief. gently caress it. I'm tired of arguing with you. Might makes right. The politicians have the most might, and therefor, they have a right to everything you own unless you can successfully defend yourself against the full brunt of force that the United States can throw at you, including its police force, FBI agents, CIA operatives, military personal, and nuclear weaponry. Okay. That's why. I'm sure there are other legitimate reasons, but I'm too tired of you ignoring salient points so you can say the same weak-willed things. I strongly believe that if I can beat you up and take it, I have the right to take it. I came to this moral conclusion using logic and reason, and if you have enough reason to know what's good for you, and using logic, you can deduce what will happen to you when you ignore a threat, you will see that my moral viewpoint is clearly correct and cannot be argued against. quote:What I am saying is that there is no coherent reason why those who work in government today have a better claim to my property or my salary that myself. Then why don't you loving move to a place with better tax laws and stop bitching about it.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By what right do the politicians claim property ownership over everything they feel the right to lay claim to? They assume they own my property when they tell me how I can use it, they claim ownership over my entire salary yet they permit me to keep a percentage of their choosing. There is no limit to this. There is no point where a democratic State says "we have no right to confiscate this property or bother these people. They own that property and not us." They recognize no firm limit on their ability to lay claim to all property. Politicians don't own anything via the government in the way you claim that they do. The government as an entity that represents all people does. Do you honestly think that when John Smith (R-VA) leaves office he gets to take five acres of public land with him? See, this goes back to my big thing about you dehumanizing and otherizing people who are employed or otherwise represent the government until they are sub-humans at best and non-entities at worst. Not only that, but you've made up these fictions in your head and now honestly believe them to be real. Now it's some shadowy group of unnamed "politicians" who take a look at your personal salary and decide amongst themselves whatever pittance they please. Putting aside the fact that there's no way in hell you actually make enough money to be giving up such a substantial amount of gross pay, you also have it backwards. Taxes are not done by taking everything and then giving a portion back. But rather you earn it first and then as payment for services rendered you pay the debt that you owe to the government. If someone came and fixed your plumbing and you didn't pay them, what do you think they would do? If you said "eventually seek to have my wages garnished" then good job! You owe a debt, and so it is collected. Same with taxes, you owe a debt to the government for their work on your behalf. By advocating not to pay for it you are effectively stealing from the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I have absolutely cut ties with people for being only a small bit as racist and homophobic as the bigots you continue to defend. The free market advocates I know would never defend bigotry or try to legitimize it the way you do, nor would they show such a blatant disregard for the poor. So no, I disagree that I know people who are as terrible as you. Your continued defense of the indefensible makes you a loving monster, and society would be better off if you simply voluntarily excised yourself, either by moving to Somalia, or by shotgun. I don't defend bigotry. Most of the libertarian authors and commentators that I listen to spend an inordinate amount of time explicitly advocating for civil rights reforms and policy repeals because of the continued institution racism that persists. And seriously, and I've mentioned this before, your ideology has been shared by overt and outspoken bigots. The entire Progressive movement from the beginning of the 20th century until at least the early 1970s was comprised of horribly overt racist attitudes and White supremacism. These same people are the ones who transformed the United States from a pseudo laissez faire economy on the gold standard to the mixed economy with the social welfare state that you so cherish. This doesn't make you all racists obviously. And I completely understand that the modern progressive movement is NOT comprised of racists the way it once was. But for decades there were many high profile racists and white supremacists who shared much of your policy ideas, specifically socialism, economic regulation, Keynesian economics and a welfare state. This whole topic is stupid. I know you all are not racists but you continue to try and imply that I am one because of what Rothbard said at one point, or the sorts of people that Hoppe discusses ideas with at some conference. You are desperately trying to prove that the ideology of libertarianism is inherently racist and would absolutely have racist outcomes. If we want to compare the history of classical liberalism and libertarianism over the past two hundred years with progressivism and socialism on the other hand and see which movement has been more hospitable to racists then I think the answer is clearly progressivism. Seriously, go back and read some quotes of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Lyndon Johnson. John Maynord Keynes once said: "[Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs … It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains." Now I know what sort of response I will get. You will concede that he held some reprehensible views but his economic theory was really valuable and it is his academic work and not his regressive social views that are valuable. Yet if I say that I found Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics persuasive or Rothbard's "For A New Liberty" to be enlightening as a primer on libertarianism you will claim that of course I must endorse every social view these men ever uttered. This is a double standard and one of convenience. When many of the forefathers of modern progressivism and socialism were blatent racists and anti-semites, you can freely separate their economic and political views and contributions from their social views. But if you find a few paragraphs or associations that an Austrian economist or libertarian author has that you feel are racist, then anyone who appreciates any theory or economic concept they contributed MUST be a closet racist as well. Whatever one thinks of the "Bell Curve" race and intelligence research stuff or the phrasing of Rothbard when speaking on certain civil rights issues, the alleged racism of libertarians pales in comparison to the racism of LBJ, or Woodrow Wilson or of many other Progressive forebears. I am looking for what I consider to be the truth, which arguments make sense to me. I listen to what Rothbard has written because I want to consider his arguments as an economist and historian, not because I am particularly concerned with all his social views. Similarly I listen to Gary Chartier who has been as outspoken on racial issues as anyone and who is one of the leading left-libertarians. I bolded a remarkable assertion. You claim I have a "blatant disregard for the poor". You are just making things up because I never said anything like that, quite the contrary. You assume that libertarians must not care about the poor and are projecting your stereotype onto me. I have concern for the poor and I genuinely believe that a market economy, a commodity money, the division of labor and the non aggression principle would lead to much better outcomes than would socialism. You can tell me I am wrong to believe this, but don't tell me I don't care about the poor. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
You don't. You've deluded yourself into thinking you do. You human shitpile. E: also liberalism was full of racists are you loving joking you don't even know the history of your own stupid bullshit. gently caress off and die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't defend bigotry. Most of the libertarian authors and commentators that I listen to spend an inordinate amount of time explicitly advocating for civil rights reforms and policy repeals because of the continued institution racism that persists. You defend people who say bigoted things. We have quoted multiple Libertarian scholars that you use as sources saying EXTREMELY bigoted things. Therefore, you defend bigotry. Holy gently caress do you defend the poo poo out of it too. jrodefeld posted:And seriously, and I've mentioned this before, your ideology has been shared by overt and outspoken bigots. The entire Progressive movement from the beginning of the 20th century until at least the early 1970s was comprised of horribly overt racist attitudes and White supremacism. These same people are the ones who transformed the United States from a pseudo laissez faire economy on the gold standard to the mixed economy with the social welfare state that you so cherish. And now you directly promote a group that shares those racist values. Well done. jrodefeld posted:You are desperately trying to prove that the ideology of libertarianism is inherently racist and would absolutely have racist outcomes. If we want to compare the history of classical liberalism and libertarianism over the past two hundred years with progressivism and socialism on the other hand and see which movement has been more hospitable to racists then I think the answer is quite clearly in favor of liberalism. No, its inherently racist because it, and its founders, promoted racist and bigoted ideals. That is like saying you joined the KKK to clean up their act, its still the KKK. jrodefeld posted:I bolded a remarkable assertion. You claim I have a "blatant disregard for the poor". You are just making things up because I never said anything like that, quite the contrary. You assume that libertarians must not care about the poor and are projecting your stereotype onto me. I have concern for the poor and I genuinely believe that a market economy, a commodity money, the division of labor and the non aggression principle would lead to much better outcomes than would socialism. The very people you promote have advocated for the ideals of discriminating against, even exiling the poor and 'undesirables' from their 'communities' How the gently caress do you say you CARE about the poor while promoting those who would advocate shunning them? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Lol jrod another pro tip: Progressivism isn't a real thing, it's a catchall term for a number of groups in America who frequently find themselves aligned in common cause against conservatives and the occasional market liberal. So every time you invoke the progressive "movement" you look loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
I have suspicions that the guy who said that universal healthcare keeps people poor because they need financial incentive to make more money doesn't really regard poor people as, well, people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think you honestly make some good points. I always self reflect and I will continue to do so. Tone is important and I agree that it is important to convey what your values truly are. If I start going on and on about "States rights" some southern neo-confederate and pro segregation racist might get the impression that I am on his side. And I most certainly am not. I think it is important to convey the anti-racist values that I hold. This is all nice and idealistic, but you aren't paying attention to what's actually going on in the real world. We just had a major court case with a huge media firestorm around it over a private business's "right" to discriminate against gays. People want to keep gays out of their businesses and schools and neighborhoods, loudly and openly. Attempts to protest or boycott them resulted in bigots rallying around them and preventing them from going under. Why would that mindset evaporate if we suddenly let them do whatever they wanted? Or does that just not count because it's not specifically against blacks? This little line deserves special attention though: quote:Let's suppose that tomorrow libertarian property rights were respected and people could do whatever they wanted with their property provided they didn't initiate force against others. The thing is, you're always referencing how great things would be when government is abolished, which is noticeably different than "libertarian property rights being respected." It's a little slight of hand that you pull constantly: how are you going to get people to respect property rights without the ultimate backing of "or else I will hurt you"? To borrow the old libertarian Men With Guns argument: you claim a piece of land as your homestead, with a little forest out back for hunting or birdwatching or whatever you like. It's all very idyllic, until I decide to homestead in that forest, unaware of your claim. You tell me to leave because I am trespassing. I respond that the property was clearly unused and you're just trying to scoop my claim now that I've finished building my cabin. You call in your DRO to negotiate, and I do the same with mine. Each of our DROs backs their clients' claims, because they want to keep customers by winning cases. No agreement can be reached, and I won't leave. So your choices are either surrender your territory to me, or get your DRO to bring in men with guns!!! to kick me off your land. So ultimately the only thing keeping your claim intact from any practical perspective is exactly that threat of violence if I don't fall in line with your society's rules. Is this case any different than the old "refuse to consent to taxation, refuse to show up to your IRS audit, refuse to answer the court summons, refuse to cooperate when the police come to your house, oh poo poo men with guns" story?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Look jrodefeld the reason we keep nagging you about how this or that Libertarian thinker is racist is because you keep bending over backwards to justify it when it really should not be this hard to say "This guy is a racist but he makes a few good points about the inherent evil of government." As an example from my own political ideals and a show of good faith: I hereby declare that I believe Paul R Ehrlich is a racist. His views on overpopulation are thinly veiled "get hosed brown people" screeds disguised as environmentalism. That does not mean I think we should throw out every sustainability plan scientists put forth, and if him being a racist is a negative mark on environmentalism it is not a big one. Like I said, this shouldn't be so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Look jrodefeld the reason we keep nagging you about how this or that Libertarian thinker is racist is because you keep bending over backwards to justify it when it really should not be this hard to say "This guy is a racist but he makes a few good points about the inherent evil of government." Nah I disagree with this. Any policy point a racist puts forth is suspect because of their racism. If someone came up and said Ehrlich may be racist but he had good points I'd tell them to gently caress off. If jrod didn't rely on racists for pints maybe this wouldn't be s problem. After all there are plenty of non racist environmentalists. But he relies on a shitton of racists to bolster his point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Nah I disagree with this. Any policy point a racist puts forth is suspect because of their racism. If someone came up and said Ehrlich may be racist but he had good points I'd tell them to gently caress off. If jrod didn't rely on racists for pints maybe this wouldn't be s problem. After all there are plenty of non racist environmentalists. But he relies on a shitton of racists to bolster his point. When you put it that way yeah, proving that Ehrlich is an outlier is relatively easy, while proving that the dominant voices in anarcho-capitalist thought have views that do not reflect the majority of ancapism is pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't defend bigotry. Most of the libertarian authors and commentators that I listen to spend an inordinate amount of time explicitly advocating for civil rights reforms and policy repeals because of the continued institution racism that persists. Now that we've come to the consensus that you are absolutely wrong about everything you've discussed with respect to health care you can get back to what's truly important: Arguing how much of a racist you aren't!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
 Holy gently caress, how did I miss that?Oh right, he advocates for racists, kinda just assumed he was one as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I am looking for what I consider to be the truth, which arguments make sense to me. I listen to what Rothbard has written because I want to consider his arguments as an economist and historian, not because I am particularly concerned with all his social views. Similarly I listen to Gary Chartier who has been as outspoken on racial issues as anyone and who is one of the leading left-libertarians. How can any of this make any sense to you? I mean it. You do a terrible job of presenting your arguments. You present arguments that are so logically unsound that if they were a rope bridge, they would literally just be a piece of rope next to a chasm. You make attempt to sound like an expert on how various markets work, such as healthcare, and then any one with five minutes of googling and a little bit of knowledge is able to rip them to shreds. When it comes to your tax policy, you've yet to move us beyond "Who has the right to make me pay," despite the numerous times we've told you what you are paying for and why taxation is set up the way that it is. Given that you are doing such a terrible job arguing your viewpoints and philosophy, there are three possibilities at play. The first is that we are all wrong. However, every time we come up with facts and figures to show how your assertions don't work the way you say they should, you just resort to saying "Well, I'd still be right" in response to our counter examples. So that's off the table. The second is that you're just really bad at arguing. But at some level, something you said should have stuck at this point if you were right. I mean, 166 pages in. You're bound to have said SOMETHING that might get us to reconsider our viewpoints. Or the third possibility - your position is so utterly and intrinsically wrong that it is unsupportable, and your attempts to argue it are the natural conclusion to any argument from this position. I implore you to consider the third possibility. Maybe Rothbard, Mises, Triple H, and Molyneux, along with anyone else I might have forgotten, maybe they are all just wrong and their views on the world just don't reflect reality. Seriously. Have you ever won any converts to your side? Also, you can have the decency to respond to the posts that me, Caros, Quarkjets, and various others have made in which we take your argument and rip it apart. But nope. You rather keep telling us that you're not a racist. Seriously, it's annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Oh boy... Jrod is off on a Very Special Tangent tonight isn't he. I could join in the dogpile, but since people were praising me earlier I feel compelled to actually try and pull this discussion away from the fact that JRod is becoming more and more dogwhistle racist in this thread. That said, Jrodefeld, I'm answering your retort on the OSC and I'm eager to hear your views!jrodefeld posted:I don't think that is a sufficient answer. Caros seems to be contorting himself in order to discount and discredit a very real and successful libertarian alternative to the current status quo in medical care. Caros admits that the prices are indeed lower but makes excuses as to why that is the case. I am not contorting poo poo. I'm putting out facts as to why the OSC is a very small scale ideological test case that cannot in any way be scaled up to cover the nation, making its specific successes largely irrelevant. I admit that prices are lower only because they are a business that has structured itself around doing one specific thing, accepting cash payments in exchange for surgeries that target a specific subset of clients that would be profitable. I'm sorry if you think providing evidence for why its prices are misleading at best is considered 'excuses' but around here we call them 'important facts'. quote:The most revealing portion of his response is "So yeah, you can have a successful surgery center when it is run by ideological libertarians who cherry pick their patients and avoid most overhead. Its the same system used to make charter schools look good. " Okay first off, here is specifically what I said: "So yeah, you can have a successful surgery center when it is run by ideological libertarians who cherry pick their patients and avoid most overhead. Its the same system used to make charter schools look good. If it was as good as you suggest, it wouldn't be nearly unique." Now I'd like to ask you to address that last part. Why is the OSC more or less unique in the US? You oft tout the idea that if there is a massive underserved market that some John Galtian entrepreneur will swoop in to fill the niche being opened. But in reality OSC is among the only Ambulatory Service Center to have adopted this model. Why is that? Well I can propose a few reasons, and I will! Medicare and Billing The OSC does not accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. At all. Their stated reason is that Medicare and Medicaid prohibit the posting of prices on line but this is (shockingly) a lie. Medicare pays ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) based on an administrative pricing system. ASC rates are typically lower than hospital inpatient rates for the same procedure, which is part of the reason there has been a big shift to freestandign and outpatient ASC providers in the US since the 1990's. The government doesn’t pay the posted rate – they have a fixed price. But various fraud and abuse regulations prohibit giving or paying anything of value to induce someone to use a particular Medicare service or provider. You can’t attract Medicare customers by offering, say, $1000 to the patient, that would be a kickback. In a similar vein, providers (such as ASCs) can’t routinely waive the copays and deductibles that Medicare beneficiaries are required to pay. There is a reason for this, co-pays, deductibles and other cost sharing mechanisms exist to give the patient some incentive to ration, which is of course something the government would never care about, but nevertheless it appears they do it reality. There is nothing wrong with the OSC posting their prices online. Legal troubles would begin if they used the lower posted fee as the basis for calculating copays and deductibles, while charging Medicare the larger fee proscribed by the government. In all honesty I suspect their reason is more ideological than anything else. That said, I've mentioned many times that the elderly are among the single largest healthcare users in all of the United States. If you want to know why the OSC model isn't being expanded nationwide, you really don't have to look past the fact that they don't accept medicaid or medicare patients. There simply aren't enough healthy, wealthy people able to pay out of pocket for medical care to open up the option for multiple OSC style businesses. The Oklahoma Surgery Center wouldn't let roughly 150 million americans in the front door, and that is not a model that could be scaled nationwide. Profitability The OSC strategy is really simple, charge everyone what they would charge a big insurance company. If you asked me to sum it up in a simple phrase that would be it. And it works for them. The overall amount of business the OSC has received has gone up since 2009, and so long as they continue to charge an amount that goes above their expenses they are going to continue making money. That said, it is important to understand what this means in context. The Oklahoma Surgery Center is staying in profitability by going out of their way to undercut the prices of nearby hospitals, and to advertise that they are doing such. It is a strategy that works on the individual level of a couple of centers, but not one that can be expanded nationwide. The OSC is an Ambulatory Surgery Center, meaning that they don't treat emergency patients, long term patients, serious patients or basically anyone who would actually be severly expensive to treat. They don't deal with homeless patients who've been hit by a bus for example. Part of the reason that local hospitals have higher prices than the OSC is that they do deal with patients who ultimately cannot pay, and that hit is factored into the prices that the rest of us ultimately pay. Hospitals nearby the OSC have taken to posting their prices online, and if you go to look, those hospitals still have significantly higher prices because they have significantly higher costs. If every hospital and business cut their prices to OSC levels, you'd have a lot of places losing money or going out of business, including the OSC as they'd no longer be benefiting from their sale strategy and would not be able to make up the difference in prices with volume. The short version is that the OSC is only profitable because it found a niche. It found a good niche, and bully for them, but you can't pretend that you can take a business' who's entire plan is to undercut nearby competitors and expand that nationwide and somehow expect that this will lower overall healthcare costs. It wont. I used the comparison to a charter school earlier and I think it remains apt, if you can cherry pick your patients, slash your overhead and otherwise get the perfect circumstances then things work out fantastically. In any other circumstance I do feel like I'm not explaining this part right, if anyone else wants to go over it more clearly, be my guest. Ideological Finally, the OSC is largely one of its kind because it is ideologically driven. They are a privately owned business, so finding their records is difficult, but I'd be willing to believe that this sort of business practices may ultimately be hurting their bottom line, or that they'd be willing to do so to get across the message. If you go to the OSC facebook page you can read up on how the owners think that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, for example. The reason you don't see OSC style businesses popping up everywhere is that there are not enough ideologically driven people willing to damage their businesses or reputations in the pursuit of an ideological goal. This is the weakest of my three points, but it is there. quote:What will undoubtedly be continually asserted is that "the libertarians that move there are ideologically driven and fairly well off so this can't possibly translate into a larger and more complex society." You know what, I don't want to fill up this post, so could you do me a favor and just imagine that this ironicat is expanding? Thanks.  Seriously, you want to argue about who ignores proof? You want to be the one that says we aren't willing to accept facts? It took you over a hundred pages and several months to admit that Hans "Hosts white supremacist conferences" Hermann Hoppe miiiiight be a bit racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Hey Jrod maybe you should concern yourself with Rothbard's views considering, you know, he's your loving avatar. You are literally using his image and views as part of the identity you are presenting to us and anyone else who sees you post, and not in any sort of ironic or humorous way. Maybe you should change it if you don't want his words and beliefs associated with your own?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
I still say that if everything went Libertarian property rights tomorrow, today would be full of theft. I thought the Keynes one was that literally everyone in olden times was hella racist, but it's really off to be like an old-timey racist these days? Plus, I like to think that power bloc has been pretty well purged, what with the Political Correctness police running around everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Caros has given you a substantial, well-thought-out response, Jrod, and now I shall give you a succinct one: you don't care about the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes but look at the public outcry and anger. Of course the people who killed Eric Garner were agents of the State who have systematically isolated themselves from culpability for their actions through their influence and lobbying. The problem of police brutality and misconduct is a serious one. Jrodefeld. Stop. Seriously dude. Just loving stop this. I'm not entirely sure what it is in this recent bout, but first you were on about the "Forced Integration" and now you're on about this, and you need to stop. Up until this point I have been one of your most vocal defenders, but I need you to go back and read what you just wrote here. Read it slowly. Read it carefully. Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer (by choke hold, not shooting by the by) for the crime of being black while standing on a street corner. I know you don't want to believe this, but that is essentially what happened. If you'd like some reading on the subject and also to fall into a depressed state for roughly two days I recommend Matt Taibbi's "The Divide" which is a book that talks about the racial divide for justice both from an income and racial inequality stance. A good example of this is NYC police stop and frisking black males, or issuing citations simply for walking home, knowing that an impoverished person will not attempt to fight the issue in court. The reason these crimes struck a chord isn't because of people 'exploiting' these tragedies, its because they are loving tragedies. A cop shot an unarmed teenager dead in the street and didn't even go to trial, wasn't even arrested for weeks. A police officer choked a man to death using a hold that the NYPD was not allowed to use and he will never see the inside of a court room. Meanwhile, white people do not face 'violence' in anywhere near the same numbers or intensity despite your hosed up claim. For example a Tennessee woman drove around shooting and is taken alive by the police. If you want to make bullshit claims like this back them up. My suggestion however, is that you re-examine the hosed up believes that allow you to think that people are 'grandstanding' or making too big a deal out of the murder of young black men. Seriously Jrodefeld. Just stop. You're being racist and you need to think about it because I feel really bad for you right now. Cemetry Gator posted:Caros, you beautiful motherfucker. I don't understand how you are so able to utterly destroy his ideas without succumbing to abuse like I do. And I don't destroy his arguments like you do. You go to town. You're like a Patrick Bateman of Libertarian arguments. Me, I'm just some punk who breaks into a home and shoots the argument in the head, but you, you leave no identifiable traces left for the person to scrounge up. VitalSigns posted:I actually learn a ton from Caros' posts. It's like a primer on health care policy, his arguments and references should be collected somewhere. Thanks guys, always nice to be loved. I've considered a blog truth be told, but I do my best work while arguing, and a blog isn't exactly condusive to that sort of thing. That said, I did open up the Let's Debate Thread yesterday, so all of you who were saying I should... well I have. Maybe come in and we can discuss a topic for a debate at some point and make it less about Goku Vs. Superman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I still say that if everything went Libertarian property rights tomorrow, today would be full of theft. And Keynes was a classist dick who was wrong about a lot of things. Keynes is just more palatable than the suggestion of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't defend bigotry. You do, and every post you make defending it further cements your reputation as an idiot, bigot, and coward who is unable to conceptualize more than one fundamental basic of economics at once. I wish it wasn't that way, for your sake, but it is becoming blindingly obvious that you are simply too stupid to understand why you are wrong—not too stupid to agree, too stupid to even understand the criticism. Why continue arguing about the nature of demand for essential goods when you can just keep tooting your own "no, seriously, I love backwards natives of all colors, they're totally equal in my eyes to natural social elite captains of industry like myself" horn? It's so much easier. After all, you're getting a lot of practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yet if I say that I found Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics persuasive or Rothbard's "For A New Liberty" to be enlightening as a primer on libertarianism you will claim that of course I must endorse every social view these men ever uttered. Everyone else is going to rightfully rip you apart for the rest of that post, but I'm going to focus in on this, because holy poo poo you actually think Argumentation Ethics is a persuasive argument? I figured it's one of those fringe ideas that got quietly dropped by his followers, like Pauling with his vitamin C obsession. I've used it as a joke with my friends because it's so self-evidently preposterous. Here's a brief summary of the argument I grabbed off of wikipedia, for those who aren't familiar with it: Wikipedia posted:Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties. So to summarize, if you non-violently argue a point, you're implicitly rejecting violence as a means of solving problems. Similarly, when I walked to the store the other day, I implicitly rejected motorized transport as a way of travel, except that I didn't do that because that's insane and stupid. I think that one sentence does a good job of showing the problem with his reasoning, but libertarians seem to love giant walls of text, so I'll break down the logical errors here as I find them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Even if Keynes did say that and never recanted it (which seems questionable because he was a strident anti-Nazi and explicitly condemned their treatment of the Jews), but for the sake of argument let's say Keynes really did hate the Jews. This may not affect his writings on economic policy, but if in his economics he "proved" logically that a well-functioning economy would smash Jewish shop windows and drive them out as a matter of course (like Hoppe imagines his Covenant Communities would do with blacks, gays, environmentalists, democrats, etc), then we might want to take a second look at that and consider whether the author's anti-semitism just may be influencing his "kick out the Jews" reasoning, no? Like, if Hoppe said the sky is blue, I'm not going to go "well he is a racist so he is probably lying". But when he says that an integrated society is a dysfunctional society, and the white social elites need to require the sponsorship of another white man and the approval of the community HOA before letting in immigrants to make sure they're not Mexican or Muslim or Chinese, then yeah I'm probably going to keep "remember, this guy is a huge racist" in mind when evaluating his argument for sources of bias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Like I said upthread, I think that jrodefeld is correct, and that Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Nevada state university professor, is an agent of statist disinformation. Who on earth would want to associate with libertarians if Hoppe could be counted among them? …oh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Everyone else is going to rightfully rip you apart for the rest of that post, but I'm going to focus in on this, because holy poo poo you actually think Argumentation Ethics is a persuasive argument? I figured it's one of those fringe ideas that got quietly dropped by his followers, like Pauling with his vitamin C obsession. I've used it as a joke with my friends because it's so self-evidently preposterous. Here's a brief summary of the argument I grabbed off of wikipedia, for those who aren't familiar with it: Frankly I think it that it is funnier that the wikipedia page only includes responses from his libertarian collegues. People outside of the libertarian circle jerk can't even give enough of a gently caress to refute argumentation ethics on an academic scale because it is stillborn for anyone who isn't a libertarian. That said, while I was looking for something worth adding to this discussion, I came across a fun youtube video! Also this in depth debunking, but the video is more fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNAsRBCI3M StandardVC10 posted:Like I said upthread, I think that jrodefeld is correct, and that Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Nevada state university professor, is an agent of statist disinformation. Who on earth would want to associate with libertarians if Hoppe could be counted among them? To be clear, this isn't a Jrodefeld idea. Hoppe himself believes that anyone who works at a state university is not to be trusted. How he believes that without bleeding from the eyes and nose is the real mystery as far as I am concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:To be clear, this isn't a Jrodefeld idea. Hoppe himself believes that anyone who works at a state university is not to be trusted. How he believes that without bleeding from the eyes and nose is the real mystery as far as I am concerned. Doublethink is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Argumentation Ethics is one of the most hilariously bad ideas I've seen, ever. "Let's debate, but remember that ~*logically*~ the ground rules say I'm right because of reasons." and "People aren't engaging in aggression when arguing, therefore anyone who argues is admitting I'm right. Also my definition of aggression is insane." I'm glad someone put together a full philosophical debunking, but the whole concept is just so blatantly facile that it shouldn't be necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:Frankly I think it that it is funnier that the wikipedia page only includes responses from his libertarian collegues. People outside of the libertarian circle jerk can't even give enough of a gently caress to refute argumentation ethics on an academic scale because it is stillborn for anyone who isn't a libertarian. Yeah, it's astounding that internet libertarians tend to focus around cranks who are rightfully ignored in philosophy and economics circles, when there are other libertarian thinkers out there who are actually able to make arguments I can't dismantle in five minutes. Like, I doubt we'd be having all this racism and basic logic talking if jrod were citing someone like Nozick instead of Hoppe, but now that I say that I'm sure someone (Caros) will be able to find something embarrassing on him. And just for the record, it is possible to disagree with someone and still respect them! Robert Nozick is able to put out arguments that actually follow basic reasoning, and he's pretty open about what assumptions he's working from instead of starting with something like "humans act" and slipping his assumptions in when you aren't looking. He comes to conclusions I disagree with, because I disagree with those assumptions, but I wouldn't be calling someone a shithead moron for citing his work. Caros posted:To be clear, this isn't a Jrodefeld idea. Hoppe himself believes that anyone who works at a state university is not to be trusted. How he believes that without bleeding from the eyes and nose is the real mystery as far as I am concerned. Hoppe doesn't count because he speaks against those who he would be bribed to support with government statist fiat tax theft money. So as with all things, bias can be completely avoided if and only if you have sufficient devotion to the ideology of an-cap libertarianism. Guilty Spork posted:Argumentation Ethics is one of the most hilariously bad ideas I've seen, ever. Yeah, there's always something magical about arguments that boil down to "anyone who disagrees with me on literally anything is wrong by definition." I think Rand's A=A worked a similar way, but I couldn't find a good summary of it to double-check. And I agree, it shouldn't be necessary to refute it, but here we are. I hadn't posted on it before because I gave jrod the benefit of the doubt and assumed he knew the issues with it. I'd like to say "that's the last time I give him the benefit of the doubt on anything," but I fully expect him to sink to unimagined lows pretty soon if the past week has been anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes but look at the public outcry and anger. Yes but also look at the browbeating and rationalizing. You're trying to say that racism in the US is insignificant, but it's alive and well in many regions here. Are you making the assumption that racism is homogenously distributed, therefore racist institutions will die out because the 1 racist that frequents it isn't enough to keep it going? That's a really bad assumption to make and just goes to show that you're working from a naive worldview. jrodefeld posted:Getting gas or buying groceries is different because it is private property and the gasoline and groceries are the property of the store. Since they, the store owner, manager, workers, etc homesteaded and produced this product, if I just take it without their permission I am a thief. Public roads and highways are public properties that you use and pay for via taxes. Using that land without paying taxes would make you a moocher. The fact that you want to use that land without paying taxes makes you a wannabe moocher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
So apparently Ron Paul attended a secessionist rally in houston held by the Mises Institute that was totally not racist you guys. It featured such luminaries as Thomas 'Founding member of the League of the South' Woods, Lew "I don't know who wrote these newsletters" Rockwell, and of course Jeff 'I'm probably going to jail for bribing those people' Deist. Good times were had by all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Hey I for one wouldn't mind if Deist hosed off to Mexico to enjoy the freedom to be at the mercy of a drug cartel, which he doesn't enjoy here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also this in depth debunking, but the video is more fun. I protest! The article is pretty amazing: quote:The third
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I protest! The article is pretty amazing: Man, libertarian stuff is great brain teflon. Even debunking it causes my brain to just be like "Nope. Nothing you need to see there bub."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I protest! The article is pretty amazing: Holy poo poo it's like Monty Python's argument clinic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Holy poo poo it's like Monty Python's argument clinic. It's excellent. For the TLDR crowd, the crucial counterexample in the article is that of a noble at court, who has invited his subjects in for a lively debate: all present believe that the noble owns the subjects, and that they have no rights over their body, much less a right to speak—yet they do argue, for as long as the lord allows (or rather, commands) it. Even the premise alone goes a long way towards debunking, and other similar scenarios of obvious power imbalance (a parent arguing with a toddling child, or an Inquisition torturer arguing with a restrained heretic) pop immediately to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I protest! The article is pretty amazing: That reads like one of William James' ether fugues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That reads like one of William James' ether fugues. Or The Sickness Unto Death, which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. Søren Kierkegaard posted:A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way a human being is still not a self.... In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It's excellent. The boxing counterexample is a good one too. Boxing is conflict-free in the sense that both participants are cooperating in a boxing match under the rules, even if their aims within the match are, like arguers, opposed. But this doesn't mean that anyone who has ever boxed has now recognized the unlimited right of anyone else to punch him at any time and in any context. But apparently according to Hoppe, talking to someone instead of shooting them means I have to recognize their right to keep blacks out of the neighborhood. You can grant someone the liberty to hit you in a certain context without being logically compelled to recognize they have a moral right to do so in any context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Argumentation ethics seem like something that was thought up when the concept of a "gotcha question" was explained to them but they just didn't quite understand it. If I ever saw someone trying to actually use it in a real debate I don't know if I'd laugh or suffer from second-hand embarrassment. Possibly both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Re the Keynes anti-semitism question, our Libertarian friend actually mixed two quotations together as if they were one. The first part of the quotation is from an essay Keynes wrote when he was 17, in 1900. I encourage you all to think about how stupid the stuff you all believed was when you were 17, and then do the same again, but assume you went to Eton College and were inculcated with the cultural values of upper class Britain in 1900. It's a moral failure, to be sure, but a fairly ordinary one for its time. The second part of the quotation comes from a diary entry in 1926 (still very much pre-WW2, you'll notice) quote:He was the nicest, and the only talented person I saw in all Berlin, except perhaps old Fuerstenberg … and Kurt Singer. And he was a Jew; and so was Fuerstenberg. And my dear Melchior is a Jew too. Yet if I lived there, I felt I might turn anti-Semite. For the poor Prussian is too slow and heavy on his legs for the other kind of Jews, the ones who are not imps but serving devils, with small horns, pitch forks, and oily tails. It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains. I vote rather for the plump hausfraus and thick fingered Wandering Birds. But I am not sure that I wouldn’t even rather be mixed up with Lloyd George than with the German political Jews. See also: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4409262?sid=21105704419743&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4 Isiah Berlin posted:I mean that if Jews were persecuted anywhere, or an act of grave injustice was done to a Jew (as in the case of Dreyfus), people like Keynes would certainly have signed a note of protest, and feel genuine indignation - quite independently of the fact that they could avoid meeting them, or at any rate feel uncomfortable in their presence, feel them to be unsympathetic or alien or ungentlemanly in some way. This was true of Bertrand Russell, probably true of E M Forster (though I am sure he would have denied it - but there is a piece by him on an exhibition in, I think, the Royal Academy, where there was a portrait of the late Sir Philip Sassoon - and he expostulates that this oriental should have had anything to do with the way England was governed). In short, it is a kind of club anti-semitism, but it is not a deep, acute hostility to Jews - as in the case of, say Hilaire Belloc or Chesterton or, some would say, though I have no evidence of it myself, Kipling or Henry James - which went beyond social disdain or looking down on Jews as somewhat inferior people, vulgar, obsequious, aggressive, etc, which has been said against them, quite apart from greed, dishonesty, and so on. No doubt all forms of anti-Jewish feeling derive from common roots, but in the case of Keynes it was at once genuine and superficial Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 15:51
|
|
