|
OK Jrod I will join your city states initiative, they will collect all the taxes and then paygo to the USA DRO for military and regulatory assistance. I'm glad we could find something to agree on.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Did anybody catch this?quote:The discussion on secession a while back was confusing and ridiculous. You are so adamant that libertarianism is racist to the core that you cite any defense of the principle of secession as Exhibit A of said bigotry. Yet, as I routinely mentioned, if a group in South African or Northern Europe wanted to secede and break free of a large State, not only would that probably not be racist but I'd suspect you might even cheer on the foreign secessionists. Jrodefeld attempted to conceive of non-racist secessionist movements and he came up with northern Europe and South Africa. I assure you there are secessionist movements in both of those places jrod, why don't you look them up and see if they are racist or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did anybody catch this? By Northern Europe I'd bet a lot he's trying hamhanded to play off the recent vote in Scotland as somehow the model for really real secession (it's not), and I seem to remember him bringing up the totally reasonable and not at all ahistoric and laughable idea that secession was a valid alternative for oppressed black South Africans during Apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
"If those black South Africans found apartheid so oppressive why didn't they SECEDE like civilised human beings instead of terrorism like Nelson Mandela? Checkmate statists  Now let me apologise for the white South African government, they're doing the best they can with all the blacks they have to rule over!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Jrode, if the Free Market is so much better at providing, say, roads, bridges, clean water, or law enforcement, why don't we see these flourishing out in the real world? Where are the libertarian superhighways? Why does my free market water cost $1.20 a bottle in comparison to evil statist water at pennies per gallon? Why is the closest thing to decentralized law enforcement a KKK lynch mob, or a mafia extortionist, or a gang driveby? If your answer to this is "taxes," I'd encourage you to go a little farther than that, because of all the things we do agree the free market does better (e.g. building iphones), those people pay taxes too. Even in realms where the government competes directly with private industry (for instance cars vs. busses, or FedEx vs. USPS), taxes are payed by the competitors and they still come out on top. So if the Free Market can provide these services, and can do better than the government, why doesn't it, as it does in so many other places?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Oh and as to Kirkpatrick Sale. If you squint he seems like he might be an anarcho-syndicalist but he has defended the league of the south by saying "they call everything racist, there's racism in everything" so I guess he's either just another sucker, or just another white man who doesn't think racism matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Who is going to respond better to your concerns and care for your human rights? The Labour government thousands of miles away on some island at the head of a superstate, or the independent Rhodesian politicians right here at home?
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I adamantly support Secession as a principle, the breaking away of various communities from the central State not just in the United States but around the world. I want smaller, competing States instead of large centralized States. From these small States, we can then have different experiments in political organization. You could experiment with anarcho syndicalism if you like, and I could enact libertarian free market anarchism with a gold standard and private property rights. This isn't an original objection - people have posed it to you several times. You've handwaved at technology a bit, pointing out that distributed information systems make it possible to build voluntarist replicas of compulsory/hierarchical systems (e.g. replacing the FDA with Yelp; Bitcoin tipbots instead of taxation; electromagnetic homesteading rather than FCC spectrum-auctions). But the fact that such things are possible does not make them historically necessary; there's no guarantee that they'll prove more efficient (or more popular) than traditional systems based on intrusion and aggression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:But now you have a problem, because the plethora of microstates inhibits trade. Similarly, the free banking era created a lot of confusion and uncertainty for consumers and businesses. If you don't want a toll gate and money-changer every thirty miles then the states will need to join into cooperative blocs and adopt policies (toll, tariff, smuggling and contraband, immigration and commuting, minting, purity/contamination, product labeling, extradition, etc) which reflect a consensus or compromise among the experimental political ideas of those states. The Glorious Bitcoin Revolution of 2022 might destroy the banks and topple every federal government, but how do we prevent the inexorable logic of the markets from re-inventing them? There's that little snag about information tech being rather impossible instead of a forgone conclusion in libertopia. We've gone over that repeatedly though that libertarians seem simultaneously unable to parse a world without information technology nor answer how they would build it without a state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Another issue with "microstates will compete for citizens who can vote with their feet" is it assumes these states will be rational. But, of course, they won't be. Conservatives commonly suggest the solution to our so-called immigration problem is to encourage Mexicans to "self-deport" (ie, make life for them so miserable here that they move away). Independent Southern states are not going to go "Oh no, we're losing all our black people and Mexicans to other states, we need to start treating them better!" They're going to be like "poo poo yeah, the darkies and beaners and faggots are on their way out, let's make things worse for the rest so they get the same idea." Now jrod, you might go full HHH here and say "well that regrettable government coercion does have the upside of creating a beautiful patchwork quilt of human diversity" but I assume you won't say that because I think better of you then supporting ethnic cleansing. Although come to think of it, what exactly is the difference between "it's fine if seceding southern states set up racist gay-hating theocracies because minorities should vote with their feet" and ethnic cleansing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
It is curious, isn't it, that whenever libertarians post these "vote with your feet" things, it's always some group other than themselves who might have to pick up and move their whole lives. Can't imagine why that might be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Yeah I pointed that out before, because whenever jrod is told to leave America if he doesn't like democracy, we get "oh would you tell a business getting shaken down by the mafia that it's actually fine because they can just move? Of course not, that's grossly immoral, I have a right to stay here and live my life without being aggressed" but when it's pointed out that the federal government is only barely restraining Texas and Ohio and Alabama from gaybashing and disenfranchising minorities suddenly "oh well that's not a problem because they should just move away".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I pointed that out before, because whenever jrod is told to leave America if he doesn't like democracy, we get "oh would you tell a business getting shaken down by the mafia that it's actually fine because they can just move? Of course not, that's grossly immoral, I have a right to stay here and live my life without being aggressed" but when it's pointed out that the federal government is only barely restraining Texas and Ohio and Alabama from gaybashing and disenfranchising minorities suddenly "oh well that's not a problem because they should just move away". Man, I always feel like Ohio is more progressive than it is. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I pointed that out before, because whenever jrod is told to leave America if he doesn't like democracy, we get "oh would you tell a business getting shaken down by the mafia that it's actually fine because they can just move? Of course not, that's grossly immoral, I have a right to stay here and live my life without being aggressed" but when it's pointed out that the federal government is only barely restraining Texas and Ohio and Alabama from gaybashing and disenfranchising minorities suddenly "oh well that's not a problem because they should just move away". The only moral exile is MY...well, you get the idea. Honestly at this point it's not even really jrode arguing about how his ideas would be beneficial to society, it's literally just "if every country began to decentralize at once we would live in a wonderful Candyland utopia  " magical thinking. Which isn't surprising at all, really, as I pointed out a few pages back that he has very little interest in how his ideas would actually be implemented, and wistfully talking about how great it would be if every state abolished itself at once is the logical end-point of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The only moral exile is MY...well, you get the idea. I thought he established ages ago that utilitarian motives were wrong and wicked. all his arguments for supporting a libertarian test case (but sommalia doesn't count guys) seem to run pretty opposite to that
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The only moral exile is MY...well, you get the idea. All of libertarian thinking ("thinking") fits neatly in a Venn diagram of "magical thinking" and "secret knowledge."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:The only IMmoral exile is MY...well, you get the idea. Remember, telling libertarians to leave for more "free" pastures in untenable but telling literally everyone else to move out is just fine. Not an attack on you, just clarifying the hypocrisy of libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
It's funny because you don't even have to prove the League of the South is neo-Confederate to see why southern secession is a bad idea. If you were the most brilliant speaker on earth, and I were pretty drunk, like lovey-dovey drunk, you might be able to temporarily convince me the League of the South is not racist. But they don't run Texas, the Texas Republican Party does, and you will never convince me the Texas GOP is not racist and sexist and theocratic and anti-gay because they are right now passing laws to disenfranchise and harass and oppress all of those groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
quote:Austrian Economics Newsletter: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state? Well, at least Citizens United went some ways towards fixing the problem of not having votes according to your value productivity. Unfortunately people without property still have the franchise, and Sheldon Adelson can't
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Antares posted:All of libertarian thinking ("thinking") fits neatly in a Venn diagram of "magical thinking" and "secret knowledge." Right, but it's not even at the level of "if we just keep reducing taxes and decentralizing the state slowly Libertopia will form" anymore, it's "all governments globally need to both immediately decentralize and agree not to attack any other Libertopias or it's just not fair." It's gone from unlikely to literally impossible, and then even if you're a libertarian true believer what's the point? We're more likely to invent the replicators from Star Trek and move into a post-scarcity socialist utopia before every country on earth simultaneously agrees to the NAP. On a related note, how ironic is it that every Libertopian scenario relies on society collectively agreeing to abide by certain laws and moral imperatives 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have a few points I'd like to raise. I few days ago I asked what the political views were of the majority of posters. It comes as no surprise to me that most seemed to be entirely Marxist or mostly Marxist. In other words, most of you think that Capitalism is inherently immoral and flawed and in a perfect world it would be replaced with some socialist or egalitarian variant. First off, not everybody answered your question genius. I don't think capitalism is inherently immoral, but it's when it is unrestrained that it becomes the monster that we see today. There are things that the market does very well. But the market is not good at running civilizations or providing people with security. quote:This puts you in a very tiny minority of Americans who think this way. I also subscribe to a school of thought that is in the distinct minority. However, it should be said that libertarianism is considerably more popular than Marxism, at least in the United States. As I've said before, the popularity of an idea has little bearing on its merits. The vast majority of people will merely end up as products of the propaganda and messaging that they are surrounded with. I'd argue that the general ignorance of any given population is one of the best arguments against democracy as a form of government. Maybe by name. But it's funny - most people don't really believe in Libertarian values. Most of my friends who call themselves Libertarians fall into two schools. The idiots who drank the kool-aid you're guzzling, and people who think that Libertarianism means don't interfere with people's private lives if it ain't hurting anyone. But when pressed on matters social matters and the like, they are definitely closer to socialism than they'd realize. It's like with the ACA. You call it Obamacare, and people hate it. You go and say "Are you for a law" that does the things Obamacare does, and they love it. Socialism has a bad name in America. It means people are less likely to embrace something that's called socialist, even though they actually might agree with it. quote:The truth is that both myself and you all have thought about these issues in a deeper way than most and we've come to the conclusion that the best and most moral system of political organization is one that is not supported by the majority. We in essence favor radical change to the status quo, albeit in very different directions. Don't think too highly of yourself. Given your facile arguments, you haven't thought about it more deeply, you've just talked about it a lot more. quote:The major problem is that you envision a whole host of terrible consequences to implementing a libertarian society. The claim is that the poor will die in the streets, the elderly will suffer without medical care, wealth disparity will be worse, and society will crumble into violent chaos. Now, this is merely a speculation on your part. You cannot point to a very recent society that was governed by ideological libertarians with a non-interventionist foreign policy, a gold standard or commodity money, law based on the non-aggression principle and a night-watchman State or no State at all. History repeats itself. People don't really change over time. Many of the same things we're bitching about, people were bitching about all the time. I'm sure back in the middle ages, there was some version Cemetry Gator lamenting that he could not get a date. Also, the reality is that many of these issues we talk about aren't back in the old days when cars were attached to horses. They happened in our lifetime, or in our parents lifetime, or in our grandparents's lifetime. Many of the powers the FDA had came about due to things that happened in 20th century. As I've said before, Libertarianism is really a new-age cult, but around this idea that people will change and evolve. It's the only way it will work. But we're looking at behaviors today, and we're saying "look, if these restraints were removed, do you really think people would stop where they are." We're looking at what you're proposing, and asking, based from logical assertions based on prior observations that people will behave in this manner, and show how your proposed society would be powerless to stop it. After all, who's going to care if I murder somebody if nobody can pay for the investigation. quote:Just imagine how the internet has and could aid in consumer decision making and worker solidarity and organization. It would be far more difficult in today's age for an economic organization to take advantage of consumers or workers when the free flow of information and competition gives us the tools to both make informed decisions and grants us far more options. Jrodefeld. Stop. The comet isn't going to come and take us away to a magical new planet. The kool-aid you're drinking has been laced with poison. I am calling you a crazy cultist because you are. You are believing in endless hope that people will just be good and everything will be perfect. I've said this a million times before - but what's to stop these things from happening right now? Seriously. Why aren't people more informed. Why did 47% of the country vote for Romney, when he clearly showed his policies weren't in their favor. My brother honestly believed his "47%" comment was taken out of context. People are less informed today than ever. There are websites out there dedicated to making fun of people who post Onion and other satirical news articles on Facebook and not realizing they're fake. There are websites dedicated to defrauding people. People still fall for phishing attempts and Nigerian scams. People still are uninformed because guess what - it's not in most people's natures to be informed. They don't have the time, they don't care, they don't know. Take medicine. My dad inherently trusts doctors. I once asked my doctor if I could go on a cheaper medication, and my dad was angry. He thought I shouldn't be questioning my doctor. My dad is a pretty smart guy. However, that's one area where he falls into one of the many psychological traps that people fall into. Also, more information doesn't mean better informed. There are plenty of websites out there that have flat-out wrong information and lie. People don't seek or want the truth. They want to hear what they want to hear. The reality is that many companies still take advantage of workers and consumers. Look at how many lawsuits there are for unpaid wages. Look at how many class action suits there are for false advertisements. You want to know why we don't listen to you? It's because you don't look at the world right now and just argue from potential. Potentially, I could be the next loving Elvis. That doesn't mean I'm a rockstar. quote:I'm sure it it similar for Marxists who are constantly criticized. I have openly asked on this very thread how someone could support Marxism when worldwide Communism has proven itself to be a total failure. The Soviet Union didn't fall because the United States beat them with our military might. They fell due to their own internal economic and social problems. We're not Marxists, and the Soviet Union really wasn't communist. It was more totalitarian with two classes. quote:For most of you, it won't matter one bit whether or not the theory of libertarianism is correct, moral, consistent or logical. You, and many others, will never be convinced unless and until you see a reasonable sized society based on these principles that is successful on utilitarian grounds. You would be persuaded if all the horrors you speculate will happen if State monopolized functions are privatized prove to NOT happen. Once again, you're arguing from potential, not from reality. Past behavior predicts future performance. We live in a society where people can't loving drive without screwing that up. People drive in illogical manners that don't really save them time. We gently caress up driving at the same speed in the same direction! I mean, our highway system is so hosed up partially because people don't drive ideally! People will control a 2 ton automobile going 70 miles an hour while texting or talking on a cellphone or being distracted in general. Are you telling me that people who don't realize that they are careening towards death in their mobile death machines could possibly be successful in starting a libertarian society that did not collapse into a massive mess where people are unhappy and down-trodden? quote:We SEE this. The unseen is what that money might have been spent on had the State not confiscated it? What alternatives could potentially exist to protecting the environment, providing security services and all these other sorts of problems? Once again, you're arguing from potential. Give me specifics! Give me real answers that are based upon factual observations. I can't argue with what might be. You won't be convinced, because there always exist a possibility to you. quote:For society to progress, it is not just libertarianism which deserves a chance, but Marxism, anarcho syndicalism, Georgism and other notions of political organization. How else can this be accomplished but through decentralization? Thanks, for throwing us a bone. But that's just not realistic. Because you see, people want people to live like they do. What's going to happen when these bubbles rub up against each other. Here's a hint - they're going to pop. quote:People in my view should be able to be convinced of the moral correctness of the Non Aggression Principle simply as a matter of logic and consistency of ethical principle but I am resigned to the fact that that is insufficient to persuade most people. This right here is your biggest problem. When you think that people should agree with you because you think you're right, you don't argue convincingly because you don't consider that maybe the opposing arguments have some merit. And so you underestimate the opposition. And you ignore what they might have to say. And then when you talk, you're not addressing their concerns or the reality that they perceive and you're left looking like a fool thinking "But they should agree with me." You can see it in your arguments. You give facile arguments that are light on substance and meaning. You don't consider what other people have to say. Hell, I've said the same thing to you many times. You're going around in circles because you don't consider our arguments. You instead just keep repeating yourself, hoping that this is the time where we say "Hey, this thing you said five times before but we rejected, it really makes sense the sixth time." Why don't you actually listen to what we have to say and consider it. And then argue against us. But don't just come in with the assumption that we're wrong and we don't have any value to provide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
So this was a fun one from the Reddit An-Cap forums today. I need to mine there for comedy more often:quote:Good question raised by pocketknifeMT. For those of you who don't know prediction markets, they are things like the former InTrade which are frequently illegal these days that allow you to bet money on outcomes through a variety of fashions and formulas. So for example, I could bet 20,000 that Obama would win the election, while people opposite me could bet 40,000 that they win and so forth, with the money being split between participants. The suggestion here is that basically you could put an NAP legal hit on someone by saying "I bet eight million dollars that Joe Biden will be dead before new years" and assuming that someone, somewhere out there is desperate or stupid enough to guarantee their winnings. This is hilarious to me. I mean most of the comments are "It would be way more efficient to simply have bounties for assassination markets" which means they are of the "Paying someone to kill someone else doesn't violate the NAP because the balls don't touch." variety, but it is still comedy gold to realize that there is a viable, legal way to have someone assassinated in a libertarian society where there would arguably be no legal recourse against the person who paid for the hit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
The day after we have our microstates those states are going to start fighting each other over access to fresh water, btw. I meant to have this big long post detailing why decentralization in the US would be an utter nightmare but I'm actually super busy right now, so I'll just leave you with the most important one. So unless you want to see the People's Republic of Greenville fighting the Archbishopric of Tennessee over water access, I suggest keeping the Feds around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
The Non-Aggression Principle in action:quote:My position is that Money does not give you Power over others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Look, democracy is impossible because people today are too ignorant to be able to choose politicians. Now let me tell you how the internet has made people today more informed than ever before and banished ignorance to the past now that reddit and yelp and webMD has made everyone qualified to inspect their medicines for adulteration with antifreeze, check their food's entire supply chain, and second-guess their doctor on whether they need an MRI and whether vaccination or colloidal silver is the way to prevent measles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:"If those black South Africans found apartheid so oppressive why didn't they SECEDE like civilised human beings instead of terrorism like Nelson Mandela? Checkmate statists "Eugene Terreblanche isn't a racist, he's a secessionist!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
God libtard, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging just means "resistance movement" and it's the right of all of us to resist communism and big government and racial political parties like the ANC. How can you be against resistance? I'm sure you supported the French Resistance in their attempt to re-establish their corrupt and decadent democracy and overthrow the Defenders of Western Civilization who had liberated them from the horrors of liberalism. And our swastika only has three arms, you discredit yourself by trying to link our red-and-black three-armed swastika flag to Nazi imagery. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
"Well I don't see anything to suggest that [THINLY VEILED WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP/INDIVIDUAL] is racist and you've not provided anything to show that it/he is. Why do you Marxists always try to discredit these influential libertarian groups/thinkers with tired accusations of racism? Is it because you can't counter their logically correct arguments?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:"Well I don't see anything to suggest that [THINLY VEILED WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP/INDIVIDUAL] is racist and you've not provided anything to show that it/he is. Why do you Marxists always try to discredit these influential libertarian groups/thinkers with tired accusations of racism? Is it because you can't counter their logically correct arguments?" Now let me tell you about how Keynes said a few racist things about the jews and how that is totally equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Now let me tell you about how Keynes said a few racist things about the jews and how that is totally equivalent. I heard from a totally reputable source that LBJ once said the word "friend of the family!" So much for the Great Society!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Also don't forget about this racist LBJ quote of dubious authenticity that proves the Civil Rights Act was lipservice that purposely does the minimum possible for blacks to trick them into voting D, and for some reason this means rather than passing real effective Civil Rights legislation we should abandon it forever and go back to segregation. e: fb! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also don't forget about this racist LBJ quote of dubious authenticity that proves the Civil Rights Act was lipservice that purposely does the minimum possible for blacks to trick them into voting D, and for some reason this means rather than passing real effective Civil Rights legislation we should abandon it forever and go back to segregation. Beaten like a civil right protestor in Bull Conner's jurisdiction. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I heard from a totally reputable source that LBJ once said the word "friend of the family!" So much for the Great Society! "I have personally never read anything by any libertarians where they have said the word "friend of the family", but I have heard a few friends who say they 'think Marxism is pretty ok or whatever' and also said 'a Mexican once stole my bike'. Why does Marxism have such a racist agenda against Middle- and South-Americans?!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Caros posted:The Non-Aggression Principle in action: Dear god. How does someone try to use logic and fail so badly? The funny thing is, in both scenarios, the one where his friend flips the light-switch and the other where he says "I'm having a sandwich" both fall into A causes B. You gave the command, the command was either followed or ignored. Seriously. How does this guy have a conversation with anyone when according to him, it's by pure chance alone that we are having a coherent conversation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Beaten like a civil right protestor in Bull Conner's jurisdiction. Those protestors should vote with their feet and move to another state instead of causing trouble in our peaceful Christian community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Dear god. How does someone try to use logic and fail so badly? How are contracts even enforceable according to this uh I'll be generous and call it "reasoning". If I sign a contract for delivery of goods in one week's time, and you give me money, that's clearly just coincidental because you could have used your free will to not give me the money after I sign the contract. Since it's just a coincidence that you gave me money and cannot in any sense be said to have been caused by the contract, then surely you don't have any cause of action against me if I fail to deliver the goods, as you obviously could not have been relying an arbitrary sensory input like words on a paper when you gave me money. Maybe you just did it out of the goodness of your heart, how can we ever know?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld, you saw two replies saying "yeah I'm somewhat socialist or Marxist" and in your head that means:jrodefeld posted:I few days ago I asked what the political views were of the majority of posters. It comes as no surprise to me that most seemed to be entirely Marxist or mostly Marxist. In other words, most of you think that Capitalism is inherently immoral and flawed and in a perfect world it would be replaced with some socialist or egalitarian variant. Two replies, out of probably about 20 posters, most of which didn't even respond to the question, was sufficient to lead you to believe that a majority of the people in this thread are entirely or mostly Marxist. This is but a single example demonstrating why libertarians are accused of being intellectually bankrupt. You guys misinterpret data like this all the loving time. It's tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrodefeld, you saw two replies saying "yeah I'm somewhat socialist or Marxist" and in your head that means: Ah, but Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc.... err... wait. Fun aside, anyone else notice he finally stopped using that to make himself sound smart? He used it like twenty or thirty times when he came back to the thread and stopped using it when he was mercilessly made fun of. Progress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Ah, but Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc.... err... wait. "Since everyone else in this thread are clearly admitted progressives, I can assume you're all basically Stalinists and therefore dismiss any and all criticism because 1000 trillion dead due to communism."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Caros posted:Ah, but Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc.... err... wait. The question is whether he is learning to reason better, or just adjusting his evangelism to the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 04:31
|
|
