|
Political Whores posted:What, it took 12 deaths for people to have to be told not to buy them. It's like the quintessential example of why consumer products need to be regulated because people will not rationally assess every good they purchase. Are you kidding me? Do we need to start talking about bikes, furniture and water? What the gently caress does 12 deaths mean? I assume you've already calculated the comparable risks by analyzing the statistics of time, units sold and by making applicable comparisons to alternate yard entertainment right. Surely "12 deaths!" Isn't enough to get you to enact government policy right? Or are you just some anti-intellectual hack who could be sold anti-vaccine jargon, or over react to a terrorist threat if it better lined up with your ideology? asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Feb 8, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Vaccines and furniture have a benefit though, which makes cost-benefit analysis possible, The benefit of throwing javelins around the yard is  Oh and we do have laws that backyard pools need to be fenced in to prevent young children from wandering into your backyard and drowning. In fact there are tons of laws around water safety, what the gently caress point are you making?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted: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 There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians and utilitarian defenses made in support of the ideology. Even among those who find utilitarinism lacking and instead are deontologists who derive their ethics from logic and reason, this does not at all imply that they don't also believe that the consequences of their ideology would be "good" for society in a utilitarian sense. Mises was a utilitarian of sorts, though not in the sense that you might think. It was Murray Rothbard and later libertarians who have largely abandoned Mises' utilitarianism. Rothbard and many classical liberals before him subscribe to the theory of "Natural Rights" as a foundation for an ethical system. Hoppe, as we know, proposed an alternative for establishing the basis for ethical behavior, which he termed "Argumentation Ethics". However, it is still the case that most libertarians believe that the consequences of a libertarian society will be desirable to most people. It is predicted, with appeals to economic theory, that private property rights and punishment for property rights violators based upon restitution will lead to a minimum of conflict and violence. It is predicted by libertarians that a free market economy will produce greater general prosperity and reduce poverty to a greater extent than any system of organized coercion. Even to a deontological, natural rights-believing libertarian, these consequences of libertarian policy are important. They just don't take precedence over Natural Rights or the first principles that we subscribe to. Like I've explained previously, using Utilitarianism as your principle standard for ethics is very dangerous. How can the "utility" of something be realistically measured over a complex society? How can you quantify concepts such as "happiness" or "goodness"? Sure you could use statistics like economic data. You could say "society A has an economy with a GDP of X and a median income of Y while society B has a GDP of W and a median income of Z" but what does this prove exactly? Apart from the problems of the accuracy of arbitrary economic statistics (especially GDP as it is currently calculated) who is to say that having more money equates to more happiness? What if society Y has more general prosperity but more inequality than society Z? What if the key to happiness is to be less materially prosperous and more spiritually content which comes from eschewing money and wealth? Utilitarianism can quickly become an ad hoc metric that can be twisted to fit anyone's objective standard of desirability. And it can be used to justify atrocities. I believe ethics should be much more concrete and universalizable. Our First Principles must be logically deduced and consistently applied. Natural Rights theory accomplishes this as does Argumentation Ethics. If we claim that due to Natural Rights, each person owns themselves then that can be a universalizable first principle. Each person can have self ownership at the same time without necessarily violating the equal rights of anyone else. We can say that murder is deontologically unethical because the murder victim owned himself and by definition he or she didn't consent to you taking his or her life. Now, there are indeed consequences to libertarian policy that most people would find desirable in my opinion. A higher general prosperity level, less conflict, and the ability to lead a meaningful and productive life in communities that are safe. But this belief of the positive outcomes of libertarian policy does not make me a utilitarian. Most people don't have any robust, principled ethical system that they subscribe to. I believe that most people think primarily "what is in it for me?" If people are considering various social and political reforms, most will adopt one or another position out of thinking how their life will be affected by the change. Will I having a higher standard of living or a worse standard of living? Will I be safe and secure? Will the change be disruptive? Many of you here are adamant that following through on libertarian reforms would lead to a hyperbolic hell on earth that would surely collapse into chaos and violence. Frankly, before most people can be converted to a belief in Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle they need to accept the real world feasibility of a radical libertarian society. If a reasonably sized libertarian society (or even something close) emerges from a State that has seceded and it proves to be safe and relatively prosperous, then this fear mongering about the danger of a free society can be put to bed. If we continue to live under the rule of these massive central States and military empire, propaganda about how terrible competing alternatives would be will perpetuate through the population. It is not just libertarians who should see this problem, but advocates of any radical or heterodox ideology. As another posted noted, there are only two endgames if we want to change the system in a radical way. Either revolution or secession. And revolutions are dangerous and seldom result in long term reform of a ruling class. Those of you who think we can reform our States through the democratic vote are fools, in my opinion. You might get some short lived victories or the cessation of the worst policies for a time, but long run social reform is exceedingly unlikely. So no, I am not becoming a utilitarian all of a sudden. I am merely acknowledging that we must in some way demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to social and political organization to sway the majority of the public to consider radical alternatives to the status quo. Marxists should understand this and agree with it if they were true to their ideology. If you are interested, here is a link explaining Mises's use of utilitarianism, http://mises.org/library/defense-misess-utilitarianism
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Oh hey you're back. Why should I want to abolish the Supreme Court which is currently restraining bigots in Texas from violating my human rights, and support secession so the heterodox ideology of fag-bashin' and abortion-banning can be given a chance? Shouldn't an anti-democratic Libertarian like you appreciate that there's a body of elite officials restraining democracy and oppose making my rights subject to directly-elected Texas judges? And why is it mafia-talk when you're advised to "vote with your feet" if you hate American democracy so much, but it's just the free market of ideas if I have to vote with my feet and abandon my home for a state that doesn't criminalize sinful sinful sexy gay sex? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh hey you're back. Why should I want to abolish the Supreme Court which is currently restraining bigots in Texas from violating my human rights and support secession so the heterodox ideology of fag-bashin' and abortion-banning can be given a chance? Well obviously the STATE has given minorities like you and me a sense of entitlement, that we can rely on the state to secure our rights instead of convincing red-blooded WASPs that we deserve to be treated like human beings. I see the light of libertarianism now 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are you kidding me? Do we need to start talking about bikes, furniture and water? What the gently caress does 12 deaths mean? I assume you've already calculated the comparable risks by analyzing the statistics of time, units sold and by making applicable comparisons to alternate yard entertainment right. Surely "12 deaths!" Isn't enough to get you to enact government policy right? Or are you just some anti-intellectual hack who could be sold anti-vaccine jargon, or over react to a terrorist threat if it better lined up with your ideology? There are actually statistics for lawndart injuries but I forgot who I was responding to and how much I hope you mainline a syringe full of bleach. E: Also gently caress you JRod for ignoring all the arguments in favour of responding to a single sentence, once again trying to take the moral high ground. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The original box had an accurate depiction of the device and the tag line "missle game". Yeah... you're wrong. I didn't really go in depth last time because it was more of an off the cuff comment, but lets throw some facts around. In the early 1950's Lawn Darts (Also known as Jarts... I guess for Javelin Darts?) were released as an offshoot of pool room darts. While initially unsuccessful, a second run of the product marketed as quote "Fun for the whole family" held slightly stronger overall sales numbers until they were banned in the mid sixties, and remained banned until a court battle caused the Consumer Product Safety Commission to find a compromise position wherein they could be sold provided they were not marketed to children. Of course, at the time of the 1988 ban, the congressional investigation found that: quote:When the commission collected 21 different lawn dart sets from 14 manufacturers, they also found that most of them weren’t complying with the warning requirements. A survey of 53 retailers likewise found that many weren’t following the regulation, and in a third of the stores, lawn darts were displayed in toy departments or with toys and sporting equipment intended for kids. Mind you these were the compromise standards. These were the "We will let you sell your product but don't market it to kids and put some safety warnings on them" and the fuckers still didn't bother to comply. Moreover, in the eight years between 1980 and1988 they committee found 6,100 injuries requiring emergency room visits involving lawn darts, along with three confirmed deaths. These deaths, combined with the pre-1970's ban and the coma of a girl the week the ban was being instituted add up to nine deaths as far as I can see, so I will walk back my earlier claim from twelve to nine. These companies had no regard for the very real damage that was being done by selling weighted throwing darts as children's toys, and it took an act of congress to get them to cut that poo poo out. In almost sad irony the companies involved began releasing fully safe, plastic variants as early as 1989, the year after the ban.  Pictured: Something not at all marketed as a toy. quote:Are you kidding me? Do we need to start talking about bikes, furniture and water? What the gently caress does 12 deaths mean? I assume you've already calculated the comparable risks by analyzing the statistics of time, units sold and by making applicable comparisons to alternate yard entertainment right. Surely "12 deaths!" Isn't enough to get you to enact government policy right? Or are you just some anti-intellectual hack who could be sold anti-vaccine jargon, or over react to a terrorist threat if it better lined up with your ideology? Just to be clear, there have been zero deaths and a fraction of a fraction of the injuries related to metal lawn darts since the introduction of plastic lawn darts. Your argument reeks of the same stupid logic that asks why people worry about shooting deaths when automobile deaths are way higher! Lawn dart injuries and deaths were entirely preventable, and in fact have been dropped to zero since the passage of the law that banned their sale. Caros fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Only 6100 hospitalizations? That's like practically free I bet. But of course Caros the flighty chicken little wants to impose the huge huge costs of government policy on us in response. A shameful introduction of red tape into an industry like the toy industry that certainly isn't already a subject of longstanding safety regulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, it is still the case that most libertarians believe that the consequences of a libertarian society will be desirable to most people. It is predicted, with appeals to economic theory, that private property rights and punishment for property rights violators based upon restitution will lead to a minimum of conflict and violence. It is predicted by libertarians that a free market economy will produce greater general prosperity and reduce poverty to a greater extent than any system of organized coercion. Wow that sounds really ironclad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wow that sounds really ironclad. Not to beat the greasy smear still lingering from the long-since vanished dead horse's corpse, but "it is predicted" smacks more than a little of religious prophesy talk, which isn't that surprising since, as all right-thinking people in this thread have concluded more than once, libertarianism is essentially a religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Need forums code that changes "it is predicted" to "it shall come to pass"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are you kidding me? Do we need to start talking about bikes, furniture and water? What the gently caress does 12 deaths mean? I assume you've already calculated the comparable risks by analyzing the statistics of time, units sold and by making applicable comparisons to alternate yard entertainment right. Surely "12 deaths!" Isn't enough to get you to enact government policy right? Or are you just some anti-intellectual hack who could be sold anti-vaccine jargon, or over react to a terrorist threat if it better lined up with your ideology? Yeah, I don't think that it makes sense to compare a lawn chair (furniture? really?) to a box of sharp metal darts that are marketed as being fun for kids to throw around the yard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Ooh, me, me! I'm not a Marxist! I'd love to see democratic Communism though. Maybe everyone should pick a single issue and then everyone post the same question just to see if it gets dodged? Surely that wouldn't get ignored. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Maybe everyone should pick a single issue and then everyone post the same question just to see if it gets dodged? Surely that wouldn't get ignored. People did this with health care and it still took like four months.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:People did this with health care and it still took like four months. Yeah, but not all at once. There were still things he could selectively reply to. I'm fully aware it's a futile idea, I just think it would be funny to see 30 copies of the exact same question in a row, followed by a typical "NO RACISM HERE, GUYS!" post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Really? This is what you chose to reply to?  jrodefeld posted:There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians and utilitarian defenses made in support of the ideology. Even among those who find utilitarinism lacking and instead are deontologists who derive their ethics from logic and reason, this does not at all imply that they don't also believe that the consequences of their ideology would be "good" for society in a utilitarian sense. Can I just go out of my way to say how much of a condescending prick you come off as every time you argue that your morals come from logic and reason? Because lets be honest you know what you are implying by that, that everyone who disagrees with you is illogical. Its a passive aggressive attack on anyone who disagrees with you, allowing you to discredit them right off the bat because you're using LOGIC to derive things. Your morality is derived from a series of possibly (but unlikely to be) true statements that you then build upon and build upon. I've pointed out repeatedly that I could 'logically' design a totally logical moral system that tells me slavery is the best thing for everyone so long as I start from an a priori assumption that black people are inhuman scum. Your system of morals is just as irrational as anyone else, get off your high loving horse. quote:Mises was a utilitarian of sorts, though not in the sense that you might think. It was Murray Rothbard and later libertarians who have largely abandoned Mises' utilitarianism. Rothbard certainly had abandoned it by the time he said it would be okay to let your child starve. quote:Rothbard and many classical liberals before him subscribe to the theory of "Natural Rights" as a foundation for an ethical system. Hoppe, as we know, proposed an alternative for establishing the basis for ethical behavior, which he termed "Argumentation Ethics". Both of these things are a pleasantly made up fiction. Go back a few pages and you'll see people point out why argumentation ethics is bunk, for example. quote:However, it is still the case that most libertarians believe that the consequences of a libertarian society will be desirable to most people. It is predicted, with appeals to economic theory, that private property rights and punishment for property rights violators based upon restitution will lead to a minimum of conflict and violence. It is predicted by libertarians that a free market economy will produce greater general prosperity and reduce poverty to a greater extent than any system of organized coercion. But you don't care. See that is really important. Our goal is the best outcomes for the most people. Your outcome is ideological purity which you assume would lead to good results. But if it doesn't you don't really care. Your 'ethics' are an end unto themselves, and while you might (for some deontological reason) be bothered that black people can't eat at the counter or gay people have to flee for their lives and happiness, that is a cost you are willing to pay so long as you get to live in your pure 'ethical' society. quote:Even to a deontological, natural rights-believing libertarian, these consequences of libertarian policy are important. They just don't take precedence over Natural Rights or the first principles that we subscribe to. Does this not bother you? You believe that rights are ultimately more important than the standard of human life. If a natural rights libertarian society resulted in one king among men with all the property cackling as he did whatever he wanted to the pitiful plebs that had to clamor at his feet for survival this would be equally as good an outcome to one where everyone lived in relative peace, security and happiness. If push comes to shove and your 'ethics' are more important than human life or happiness I think you need to re-evaluate your life choices. quote:Like I've explained previously, using Utilitarianism as your principle standard for ethics is very dangerous. How can the "utility" of something be realistically measured over a complex society? How can you quantify concepts such as "happiness" or "goodness"? Sure you could use statistics like economic data. You could say "society A has an economy with a GDP of X and a median income of Y while society B has a GDP of W and a median income of Z" but what does this prove exactly? Apart from the problems of the accuracy of arbitrary economic statistics (especially GDP as it is currently calculated) who is to say that having more money equates to more happiness? What if society Y has more general prosperity but more inequality than society Z? What if the key to happiness is to be less materially prosperous and more spiritually content which comes from eschewing money and wealth? So because it is difficult we shouldn't try? Because that is what your argument seems to be boiling down to. We can't figure out what ideal happiness is, so gently caress it lets just all worship property rights and let the chips fall where they may. quote:Utilitarianism can quickly become an ad hoc metric that can be twisted to fit anyone's objective standard of desirability. And it can be used to justify atrocities. Your deonotological view of natural rights does not at all care about any objective standard of desirability. It only cares whether people are abiding by the arbitrary rules set by you and those like you. Is this supposed to be better? quote:I believe ethics should be much more concrete and universalizable. Our First Principles must be logically deduced and consistently applied. Natural Rights theory accomplishes this as does Argumentation Ethics. If we claim that due to Natural Rights, each person owns themselves then that can be a universalizable first principle. Each person can have self ownership at the same time without necessarily violating the equal rights of anyone else. We can say that murder is deontologically unethical because the murder victim owned himself and by definition he or she didn't consent to you taking his or her life. Okay, hold the gently caress on. So two different 'ethical' systems are producing universalizable ethical systems... does that not seem at all problematic to you? Because even though I'll grant you that they are similar, they clearly have differences. If Argumentation Ethics is 'correct' then how the gently caress does natural rights work when the two intersect? Which of your bullshit theories holds true. And more importantly, if you admit there are two separate theories that can serve as a moral and ethical basis for humanity, then you are admitting that these systems are not at all objective and that all morality is subjective. If morality is subjective (and it is) then it really doesn't matter how we derive it, whether it be from logic or just general human agreement, or because the loving moon spirit tells us to. Seriously, how do you reconcile the fact that you have two different, exclusive ethical systems that you admit are both plausible? quote:Now, there are indeed consequences to libertarian policy that most people would find desirable in my opinion. A higher general prosperity level, less conflict, and the ability to lead a meaningful and productive life in communities that are safe. But this belief of the positive outcomes of libertarian policy does not make me a utilitarian. Oh so you're just going to assert that things are better under your system because 'clearly' they are. Since this subject is in contention might I suggest actually admitting that you believe this to be the case rather than stating it as fact? quote:Most people don't have any robust, principled ethical system that they subscribe to. I believe that most people think primarily "what is in it for me?" If people are considering various social and political reforms, most will adopt one or another position out of thinking how their life will be affected by the change. Will I having a higher standard of living or a worse standard of living? Will I be safe and secure? Will the change be disruptive? Yay! Lets insult the ethics of most of our fellow human beings everyone. Only people who are libertarians really have ethics, everyone else is just greedy little motherfuckers trying to get what is best for themselves! Jrodefeld, this is true of you as well. If you truly believed in your heart of hearts that our current system was as bad as you suggest it is, you'd get the gently caress out of here. If taxation is so morally reprehensible that it is without any defence you'd pack your poo poo and move to they empty quarter or that weird triangle of land we talked about up thread. But you don't because you are making these exact same choices that you are accusing so many people of making. Because you are a meat computer who enjoys creature comforts as much as the next person. quote:Many of you here are adamant that following through on libertarian reforms would lead to a hyperbolic hell on earth that would surely collapse into chaos and violence. Frankly, before most people can be converted to a belief in Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle they need to accept the real world feasibility of a radical libertarian society. We do think that, because most historical evidence and basic knowledge of human psychology suggests it to us. I mean, look at the single largest libertarian experiment in the last decade, Bitcoin. Look at it. Look at it! It is a colossal failure of greed and stupidity run amok that emulates every human failure in economics in 1000x speed for our enjoyment. quote:If a reasonably sized libertarian society (or even something close) emerges from a State that has seceded and it proves to be safe and relatively prosperous, then this fear mongering about the danger of a free society can be put to bed. Oh, so we're back to fairyland where we pretend like secession is a thing that can or would happen in the modern united states. Cool. Go read our posts on why secession is stupid. Highlights include: Impracticality, The theft of 'statist' resources in the form of government developed infrastructure, Natural barriers that make it difficult (the idaho problem), and the fact that no one other than southern racists has any interest. quote:If we continue to live under the rule of these massive central States and military empire, propaganda about how terrible competing alternatives would be will perpetuate through the population. You know I've asked you this before, but how do you expect this to work. Like you do expect texas to just say "Yeah, we're leaving" one day and have everyone just shrug? Do you understand the monumental effort that would be required for all the changes involved? I mean don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to give you guys a few thousand square miles to watch the show and put the idea of libertarianism to bed forever, but right now you're just jacking off on some fantastical idea that really is terrible and impractical. quote:It is not just libertarians who should see this problem, but advocates of any radical or heterodox ideology. As another posted noted, there are only two endgames if we want to change the system in a radical way. Either revolution or secession. And revolutions are dangerous and seldom result in long term reform of a ruling class. Or incremental social change. You keep forgetting that one because your ideas are so unpopular that they will never catch on in the general public. quote:Those of you who think we can reform our States through the democratic vote are fools, in my opinion. You might get some short lived victories or the cessation of the worst policies for a time, but long run social reform is exceedingly unlikely. And you're not? How the gently caress do you think you're going to get any sort of land area to seceed from any modern government without the hammer of god wrecking your poo poo? For your ideology to work will require millions of people to be invested in its success, and you know what, if you have that many people it is not only possible, but likely that you will have the support to democratically change minds rather than with some bullshit idea about how you're going to declare yourselves Liberkings of Texas and the US is just going to shrug and hand you the keys. quote:So no, I am not becoming a utilitarian all of a sudden. I am merely acknowledging that we must in some way demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to social and political organization to sway the majority of the public to consider radical alternatives to the status quo. Marxists should understand this and agree with it if they were true to their ideology. How? You aren't offering any practical solution! You're offering a loving pipe dream that amounts to "Wouldn't it be great if we just stopped paying taxes?" If you have enough people for secession to have an effect you don't need to loving secede!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Yeah, but not all at once. There were still things he could selectively reply to. For some reason I just have Jrodefeld in a Dark Knight Rises Bane mask saying this like stuck in my head. "Oh no Batman, there is No Racism here..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There are plenty of utilitarian libertarians and utilitarian defenses made in support of the ideology. Even among those who find utilitarinism lacking and instead are deontologists who derive their ethics from logic and reason, this does not at all imply that they don't also believe that the consequences of their ideology would be "good" for society in a utilitarian sense. STOP WITH THE "I DERIVED THIS FROM LOGIC AND REASON" BECAUSE THAT MEANS NOTHING. You can derive a lot of things from logic and reason, because A plus B can equal whatever you want as long as you control what A and B are. That's why your views are facile at best and lacking in any real substance. You can't back up what you say, you just simply use logic and reasoning derived from a faulty premise doesn't mean anything. And dude, your premises are as faulty as the day is long. quote:However, it is still the case that most libertarians believe that the consequences of a libertarian society will be desirable to most people. It is predicted, with appeals to economic theory, that private property rights and punishment for property rights violators based upon restitution will lead to a minimum of conflict and violence. It is predicted by libertarians that a free market economy will produce greater general prosperity and reduce poverty to a greater extent than any system of organized coercion. Okay, and what if we don't believe in Natural Rights? You're argument assumes that I believe in natural rights and I interpret them the same way that you do. quote:Like I've explained previously, using Utilitarianism as your principle standard for ethics is very dangerous. How can the "utility" of something be realistically measured over a complex society? How can you quantify concepts such as "happiness" or "goodness"? Sure you could use statistics like economic data. You could say "society A has an economy with a GDP of X and a median income of Y while society B has a GDP of W and a median income of Z" but what does this prove exactly? Apart from the problems of the accuracy of arbitrary economic statistics (especially GDP as it is currently calculated) who is to say that having more money equates to more happiness? What if society Y has more general prosperity but more inequality than society Z? What if the key to happiness is to be less materially prosperous and more spiritually content which comes from eschewing money and wealth? Well, sir, deontology is dangerous since how do you know that your principals are correct? How do you know that you're not just getting garbage in and out with your "logic and reason?" And while having more money doesn't equal having more happiness, necessarily, there are a lot of people who basically belong to the working poor. They have to decide do they eat this month or pay the power bill, and what about the rent? These are decisions people have to make every day. And Johnny needs braces. And Linda needs a new dress for her school's play. And you got cancer. Saying "Hey, everybody should be provided for or able to provide for themselves reasonably while working a minimum wage job" is not some loving dangerous slippery slope. You can measure the "utility" of something by so many various factors, such as the amount of homeless people, or poverty levels, or even through surveys and poo poo that looks at happiness. Because, unlike you, we live in the real world where saying "Hey, don't violate my property rights" doesn't do a whole lot to create a functional world where people are safe and able to lead happy lives. But as long as you don't have to pay taxes! quote:Utilitarianism can quickly become an ad hoc metric that can be twisted to fit anyone's objective standard of desirability. And it can be used to justify atrocities. The same can be said about most moral systems. I would say letting someone die of an easily treatable disease because you refuse to create a system that ensures everybody has access to healthcare is an atrocity. quote:I believe ethics should be much more concrete and universalizable. Our First Principles must be logically deduced and consistently applied. STOP WITH THE WHOLE LOGIC THING! You know about as much about logic as a rock knows about the career of the Beatles. quote:Natural Rights theory accomplishes this as does Argumentation Ethics. If we claim that due to Natural Rights, each person owns themselves then that can be a universalizable first principle. Each person can have self ownership at the same time without necessarily violating the equal rights of anyone else. We can say that murder is deontologically unethical because the murder victim owned himself and by definition he or she didn't consent to you taking his or her life. But what if I don't say that I own myself? What do you do then? What if I say that property is not the most important right of all? What do you do then? Because you don't own yourself, because ownership of yourself is unlike ownership of anything else. Simply put, you can't transfer it. I can transfer ownership of my computer, my car, my house, my record collection, my copy of Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn on widescreen VHS, but I can't transfer ownership of myself. Meaning your principals are not logically derived. Meaning Libertarianism is false. Thread finished! quote:Now, there are indeed consequences to libertarian policy that most people would find desirable in my opinion. A higher general prosperity level, less conflict, and the ability to lead a meaningful and productive life in communities that are safe. But this belief of the positive outcomes of libertarian policy does not make me a utilitarian. Prove these consequences. Show us how these consequences would happen not by saying they will, because we have shown YOU time and time again how YOUR PHILOSOPHY WILL NOT LEAD TO THE GOOD OUTCOMES YOU PROPOSE WILL HAPPEN. quote:Most people don't have any robust, principled ethical system that they subscribe to. I believe that most people think primarily "what is in it for me?" If people are considering various social and political reforms, most will adopt one or another position out of thinking how their life will be affected by the change. Will I having a higher standard of living or a worse standard of living? Will I be safe and secure? Will the change be disruptive? Well, this is a meaningless thing to say. First off, your philosophy is not robust since we can easily destroy it by creating so-called "lifeboat scenarios" which you said yourself your ethical viewpoints can't handle. That's not really robust. My Catholic morality is much more robust. We have an answer for everything. Coincidentally, it's always a sin and you should feel bad. But it works! The other thing is that people should care about "what's in it for me?" People want to lead happy, productive lives. They don't want to hungry, starving, and all that. They don't want to put in all the suffering while somebody else gets all the benefit. quote:Many of you here are adamant that following through on libertarian reforms would lead to a hyperbolic hell on earth that would surely collapse into chaos and violence. Frankly, before most people can be converted to a belief in Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle they need to accept the real world feasibility of a radical libertarian society. Can I ask you a question? Do you think about what you say? Do you think about possible counter-arguments when you post. I've asked you this a lot, and you always fail to answer me. Because this is laughably easy. Since the radical Libertarian society would require a massive shift in human behavior, the only way it can function is if people believed in the NAP and Natural Rights already. And given that current behavior shows that people don't really care for the NAP or believe in Natural rights and would not likely follow such rules and behavior, we can say the radical libertarian society would collapse. quote:If a reasonably sized libertarian society (or even something close) emerges from a State that has seceded and it proves to be safe and relatively prosperous, then this fear mongering about the danger of a free society can be put to bed. Jrodefeld, this is what people who have any knowledge in logic and how arguments actually work would call a tautological statement. Yes, if a libertarian society was a successful society and did not collapse into the post-apocalyptic world we claim it would, then I guess we'd be wrong. This is why you seriously need to stop talking about logic. I suggest you read some books on logic. Anybody care to recommend Jrod a good book on logic that he can read? https://bookofbadarguments.com/ This is one I suggest. It's to your level since it's a picture book. Yes, I am calling you an idiot. But that's because when you talk about deriving your philosophy from logic and reason and you make a tautological statement, I think it's safe to say you are a relatively simple person. quote:If we continue to live under the rule of these massive central States and military empire, propaganda about how terrible competing alternatives would be will perpetuate through the population. Is it propaganda? I mean, I'm telling you it can't work because I'm observing current human behavior, and you're assuring me that everything will be fine. You're like the used car salesman who tells me that the missing door is there to decrease drag. quote:It is not just libertarians who should see this problem, but advocates of any radical or heterodox ideology. As another posted noted, there are only two endgames if we want to change the system in a radical way. Either revolution or secession. And revolutions are dangerous and seldom result in long term reform of a ruling class. Hey, Jrod. I hate to break this to you, but MOST OF US ARE NOT loving RADICALS! Many of us are proposing solutions that have been proven elsewhere (like Universal Healthcare), or are in line with previous actions people have taken and fit within the normal means of our society. You don't understand your audience. Do you? quote:Those of you who think we can reform our States through the democratic vote are fools, in my opinion. You might get some short lived victories or the cessation of the worst policies for a time, but long run social reform is exceedingly unlikely. Social change and reform doesn't happen through the democratic process. It happens through people changing and seeing things in a different light. 20 years ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. A large number of people would say not think that gay marriage was a reasonable position to take. Today, you're a backwards cretin if you're against gay marriage. It didn't happen through the democratic system. quote:So no, I am not becoming a utilitarian all of a sudden. I am merely acknowledging that we must in some way demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to social and political organization to sway the majority of the public to consider radical alternatives to the status quo. Marxists should understand this and agree with it if they were true to their ideology. Did you ignore the part where we told you that we are not Marixsts. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON HAVING A PRETEND CONVERSATION WITH US? I mean, I might as well say whatever I like because you don't really need our input. I'll talk, and you'll hear whatever you want to hear. quote:If you are interested, here is a link explaining Mises's use of utilitarianism, Well, I'll end on a good note - THIS IS HOW YOU USE ARTICLES! You didn't rely on the article to make points for you. You just said "Hey, if you want more information, check this out." So, maybe there is hope for you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If a reasonably sized libertarian society (or even something close) emerges from a State that has seceded and it proves to be safe and relatively prosperous, then this fear mongering about the danger of a free society can be put to bed. Shouldn't Somalia qualify as an ancap libertarian society? The government there essentially has no power. That's what you want, right? You want a society with no government, yes? In Somalia there is no tyranny of taxation, regulation or big government deficits, which are all of the things preventing a society from truly prospering, yeah? quote:Those of you who think we can reform our States through the democratic vote are fools, in my opinion. You might get some short lived victories or the cessation of the worst policies for a time, but long run social reform is exceedingly unlikely. Okay. Is there some reason that we should not count any of the previous major social reforms that came about in democratic societies? quote:So no, I am not becoming a utilitarian all of a sudden. I am merely acknowledging that we must in some way demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to social and political organization to sway the majority of the public to consider radical alternatives to the status quo. Marxists should understand this and agree with it if they were true to their ideology. This is definitely several steps above the typical praxeology dribble that libertarians usually espouse, so well done on at least acknowledging this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Many of you here are adamant that following through on libertarian reforms would lead to a hyperbolic hell on earth that would surely collapse into chaos and violence. Frankly, before most people can be converted to a belief in Natural Rights and the non-aggression principle they need to accept the real world feasibility of a radical libertarian society. Ironically, I actually arrived at this conclusion by reading your descriptions of an ideal libertarian society. You described what was essentially an Orwellian nightmare, apparently without realizing it
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:Rothbard certainly had abandoned it by the time he said it would be okay to let your child starve. No no no, he didn't say it would be okay. Rothbard said that would be morally wrong, but it needs to be permitted to prevent the real moral offense of the courts rescuing the child by violating my property right over another human being. Totally different! QuarkJets posted:Shouldn't Somalia qualify as an ancap libertarian society? The government there essentially has no power. That's what you want, right? You want a society with no government, yes? In Somalia there is no tyranny of taxation, regulation or big government deficits, which are all of the things preventing a society from truly prospering, yeah? No, Libertarians have an explanation for this: Somalia is just proof that black people can't handle liberty which is why we need to ship them all back to Africa if we want a free liberty-loving America to work. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No no no, he didn't say it would be okay. Rothbard said that would be morally wrong, but it needs to be permitted to prevent the real moral offense of the courts rescuing the child by violating my property right over another human being. Totally different! Which is funny because where is he getting the idea that it is morally wrong for the child to of starvation? As far as I can tell the NAP doesn't make any moral statements about human starvation for good or for ill. I can leave you to starve, and so long as I'm not forcing the starvation onto you I've done nothing wrong, nor have I done anything right. Its almost like Rothbard was making a deontological statement that had nothing to do with the only real source of morality in the universe, Property Rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Shouldn't Somalia qualify as an ancap libertarian society? The government there essentially has no power. That's what you want, right? You want a society with no government, yes? In Somalia there is no tyranny of taxation, regulation or big government deficits, which are all of the things preventing a society from truly prospering, yeah? To be fair the Somalia argument was never very convincing to me as a libertarian. It was a wartorn shithole before government, and unsurprisingly it was a wartorn shithole afterwords. If anything there is some small argument to be made that Somalia has seen improvement in some sectors over the past couple of decades through general economic improvement. Saying "Somalia! HA!" isn't really all that different from Jrods "Soviet Russia, HA!" argument, the prevailing factors at the time really have a lot to do with success or failure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Jrodefeld. Stop. If everything you said here is true, then you should be absolutely opposed to democracy. If people are truly as ignorant and incompetent as you claim, then you should never want such people to have a say in government policy. If people cannot be trusted to run their own lives because of incompetence why should we assume that these same people will make informed decisions regarding who gets elected to public office and, by extension, what policies are enacted by the government? You even cite statistics about Romney voters and people who vote against their own self interest without realizing it. I agree with you. But then how can you expect generally good results from government policy when it is predicated on the will of the people who have elected these representatives who run it? This is a contradiction that has been pointed out a great many times by not just me but many liberal intellectuals through the centuries. People certainly act irrationally. However, people have a greater incentive to act in their self interest when the effects of their actions are immediately apparent. Remember that value is subjective. When a person goes in to Best Buy to buy a new television or computer, they will buy what they want, which product satisfies their criteria best. And the market will react to reflect that. A lot of people make consumer choices that I think are stupid but what position am I in to say whether these people made the "right" choice? The most important point though is that if people make mistakes as a consumer, they risk their own capital and not anyone else's. If you honestly think that people make MORE informed decisions on who they vote for and which ballot initiatives they support than they do on what sort of consumer products they buy or which jobs they take, then you are living in another world. That is not how people act in this society. People are unconscionably ignorant when it comes to voting. All the polls reflect this. I never understood why people like yourself think that showing examples of people behaving irrationally somehow amounts to proving a fatal flaw in libertarian theory, yet you support democracy where the ignorance of an individual voter can and does have society wide detrimental effects. There is no "human nature" argument that comes out favorably for democratic government. If people are inherently good and rational, then the State is not necessary as people will self organize into functioning private societies where the needed functions of civil society will be funded privately. If people are inherently evil and irrational, then the State is FAR too dangerous to tolerate as this amounts merely to granting some of these irrational and dangerous citizens power to violently dominate the others. The only coherent position you could take, following your line of thinking, is if you supported the lifetime rule of a wise and enlightened monarch who will force wise and good policy on everyone else. And I'm sure you don't support such a thing because "enlightened" rule is a myth. We all know power corrupts and giving any one man or group of men unlimited power and expecting them to act selflessly with wisdom and compassion is absurd. In reality people are a mix between good and bad, rational and irrational. But value is subjective and trusting people to make judgments in their own self interest, risking their own property, to improve their lives and satisfy their desires is a lot more rational than expecting these people to learn enough about the complexity of politics and the workings of government institutions and the platform of different candidates to make informed and rational decisions most of the time to ensure wise policy is completely irrational. Cemetry Gator posted:
I consider what you have to say. I am unlikely to be persuaded but it is not impossible. I have and do change my political views. I've put forward a more rational means of waking people up to consider radical alternatives to social organization. It is not just arguing from potential. There are real world examples of societies that reform in the direction of liberty with predictably beneficial results. The liberalization of markets, and the diminishing of State controls and central planning has and continues to allow middle classes to emerge amid a torrent of rising prosperity and capital investment in nations that once were unbearably impoverished. The fact that these nations aren't complete, Stateless libertarian paradises doesn't mean that we don't have real world evidence that lends empirical credibility to libertarian reforms. We really are at an impasse. Because of various "human nature" arguments, many or most leftists see a catastrophic failure for a libertarian society. The best way, therefore, to move in the direction of a freer society is to work to decentralize existing States. We live under a crusty, stagnant and outdated political order in my opinion. If we must have States, it would be an improvement to have more choices in terms of which political jurisdiction and rules we want to live under. I think this should have appeal across the ideological spectrum. Yes there is a chance that some small political jurisdictions could enact very oppressive laws. And decent people everywhere should oppose such injustice. But on the other hand, other political jurisdictions could enact radical and revolutionary reforms and policies that create great prosperity and high living standards. On balance, I believe human liberty will flourish more in a decentralized world than one with few, highly centralized and all-powerful States. You can disagree of course. That is the whole point of having these discussions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:Which is funny because where is he getting the idea that it is morally wrong for the child to of starvation? As far as I can tell the NAP doesn't make any moral statements about human starvation for good or for ill. I can leave you to starve, and so long as I'm not forcing the starvation onto you I've done nothing wrong, nor have I done anything right. If I remember the essay right, Rothbard reconciled this issue by reasoning that the statist fears of child neglect would never happen because anyone who didn't want or give a gently caress about their child would find it much more profitable to sell it to
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, it is still the case that most libertarians believe that the consequences of a libertarian society will be desirable to most people. It is predicted, with appeals to economic theory, that private property rights and punishment for property rights violators based upon restitution will lead to a minimum of conflict and violence. It is predicted by libertarians that a free market economy will produce greater general prosperity and reduce poverty to a greater extent than any system of organized coercion. Sooo, a couple things. You're doing that thing again where you use words in a way that's really obviously not what most people use them to mean. Like, how the gently caress are you logically deducing your first principles? First principles are where you start your deductions. That's why they're, y'know, first. Same deal with things you're predicating: those are just assertions. You build your argument around them, so they need to be unobjectionable for your argument to be convincing. On another note, I would actually disagree that the average person's sense of right and wrong is based around "what's in it for me?" They might not be spending time trying to shore up inconsistencies in their philosophical outlook, but the vast majority of people will refrain from doing things that would benefit them "because it's wrong." They're just basing it off of a mishmash of a million different systems of ethics that show up in our society, from Old Testament condemnations to Christian teachings to enlightenment ideas of liberty to utilitarianism and on and on. All that said, I'm actually with you on utilitarianism being a flawed system, and for some of the same reasons. That's why I'm not a utilitarian. As I and other people have pointed out before, there are other options beyond "your idea" and "one specific idea you disagree with." In my case, I see Rawls' "justice as fairness" doctrine to be a very good one to build a society around. Any comments on his philosophy, which has been brought up on multiple occasions before and is considered one of the most important works in political philosophy in the past century? And before you begin, I would like to point out that Justice as Fairness is an actual term with a specific meaning and not just those three words in a row. And if we're finally in the mood to talk about philosophical underpinnings, that's wonderful! I've actually posted a bullet point list of discussions I'd love to have with you, but you did not respond. I suspect this is because I took care to be non-insulting and neutral in my presentation of the various topics, while you prefer to respond to the more acerbic posts in order to complain that we need to be non-insulting and neutral in our presentations. I consider this a lesson learned on my part, so I will take care to rewrite my series of calm discussion topics into a series of rude assertions. To Whit: Argumentation Ethics isn't an ethical basis, it's a stack of logical fallacies wearing a fancy hat. I can use praxeology to logically disprove the existence of mosquitoes. Self-ownership is straight-up gibberish as a concept unless people can sell themselves into slavery. An unbiased application of the NAP can only result in the conclusion that property is theft. Anarchist societies will inevitably coalesce into states, just like they did the first time. Libertopia is built on a basis of violent threats to the exact same extent that statist societies are. Covenant communities will undergo a complete meltdown as soon as inheritance comes into the picture. Please let me know which of those statements you find most offensive, so I can expound on them at length!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Hey jrod, the fact that people who are not experts in a subject are bad at evaluating risk even when it personally concerns them is exactly why we put medical experts in charge of regulating the quality of food and drugs instead of just assuming the average person has the tools to test their toothpaste for ethylene glycol and hoping companies with a financial interest in selling a product are honest in their marketing materials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If we must have States, it would be an improvement to have more choices in terms of which political jurisdiction and rules we want to live under. There are 196 countries on this earth, choose one. Here's a list of them for you in a form I think even you can understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
This was an excellent post on what systems of ethics actually do. Naturally I didn't see jrodefeld address it in any meaningful way, so here it is again.Cemetry Gator posted:Then what's the loving point of your moral system? Morality exists to provide us guidance in those difficult times, when right and wrong isn't easy and clear. For example, I don't need a moral system to tell me that pulling a gun on a little child who won't give me a piece of his candy is wrong. It's easy. But it's when times are hard that we need those moral systems the most, because that's when we really need to try and get things right. If your moral system collapses the minute the stakes are high, then what good does it do? TLDR is that if we can't trust libertarian ethics to provide a man dying of thirst with water when someone owns the well, why should we trust it with anything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There are 196 countries on this earth, choose one. Here's a list of them for you in a form I think even you can understand. Come on man, moving to a different country is a huge hassle fraught with legal obstacles in getting residency, work visas, permissions, etc. I shouldn't have to do all that just to get away from immoral taxation and integration. Now as I was saying, if only the United States were a complex patchwork of competing, feuding microstates, why it would be so easy for you to vote with your feet and move to a freer country!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:So this was a fun one from the Reddit An-Cap forums today. I need to mine there for comedy more often: This is a weird hypothetical question for sure. But I'll answer this one personally. No, it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to bet on when a person will die. The act of killing that person is illegal and should be punished harshly. This is not the same as saying "I am paying to assassinate someone" unless there is evidence that such an agreement was explicit and the participants knew or expected that someone would kill that person. If someone DID kill such a person and there was a large bet on when that person would die and the date of the assassination was very close to the predicted date, then it would amount to a clear and explicit paper trail for police and investigators to follow to apprehend and punish the killer. Furthermore, there would be clear evidence and reason to investigate the participants to rule out conspiracy. If the people who had bet knew that they were paying for an assassination, then they are guilty of conspiracy to murder. Furthermore, if such bets on the death day of a person become known as an "assassination loophole" then it removes any reasonable doubt about the intentions of those who participate. This is not a hard question for libertarians to answer. Such a bet would leave a trail right to the assassin, who would be punished harshly. If there was ANY knowledge or expectation on the part of the betters that they were paying for an assassination, then they DID violate the non-aggression principle and should be charged with conspiracy to murder. If there are any decent and honest people who bet on such a thing who did NOT expect or want an assassination, then the very news that the person whose death date they bet on was murdered (rather than died of natural causes, hit by a bus, drown, etc) would immediately raise suspicions that the person who won the bet had committed the murder. And the reasonable person would probably inform the police who would investigate. A few years ago there were a group of people online who ran a website where people could predict the day and year people thought Amy Winehouse would die. This was predictably seen as insensitive and offensive. In a libertarian society, betting of this sort would certainly be legal. There was no intention or thought of someone committing murder. The minute such an intention is made clear, even if it is a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" kind of understanding, these people have violated the non-aggression principle and could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Come on man, moving to a different country is a huge hassle fraught with legal obstacles in getting residency, work visas, permissions, etc. I shouldn't have to do all that just to get away from immoral taxation and integration. Well, right up until the Heimdall department of Valhalla DRO gets hired to prevent
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The day after we have our microstates those states are going to start fighting each other over access to fresh water, btw. Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. Why would people eschew peaceful trade and embrace violent conflict? I'm not saying that States won't ever wage war on one another, but it won't be any more likely than it is between existing States.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If everything you said here is true, then you should be absolutely opposed to democracy. If people are truly as ignorant and incompetent as you claim, then you should never want such people to have a say in government policy. All of us are smarter than some of us. The big difference between your proposed society and our current one is that we have layers upon layers of protection against many of the things that he is talking about in that post. The legal system, regulations, consumer protections and so forth. Your proposed society puts the onus on the individual. quote:If people cannot be trusted to run their own lives because of incompetence why should we assume that these same people will make informed decisions regarding who gets elected to public office and, by extension, what policies are enacted by the government? Because those same people tend to be among the more successful for starters. And they typically have staff numbered in the double digits, with hundreds of fellow colleagues that can help mitigate the risk of any one supreme idiot doing anything really bad. quote:You even cite statistics about Romney voters and people who vote against their own self interest without realizing it. I agree with you. But then how can you expect generally good results from government policy when it is predicated on the will of the people who have elected these representatives who run it? He isn't saying it is perfect, he is saying it is much better than the unworkable system that you propose in which every single person in humanity is required to make these sort of choices constantly. quote:This is a contradiction that has been pointed out a great many times by not just me but many liberal intellectuals through the centuries. So are you going to ignore the substance of his post entirely? Because he was replying to your post where you asserted (wrongly) that the internet and other modern tools make us so drat smart that we just won't fall for any of these stupid things, despite the loving mountain of available evidence to the contrary. quote:I never understood why people like yourself think that showing examples of people behaving irrationally somehow amounts to proving a fatal flaw in libertarian theory, yet you support democracy where the ignorance of an individual voter can and does have society wide detrimental effects. Because your ideology relies entirely on people acting rationally in some fashion or another for it to function. Here is an example. In my society the government says "You have to vaccinate your children if you want them to go to school." Which means that Vaccination rates stay really high which is a good thing. When idiots promote fearmongering about vaccines to make a quick buck causing a dip in vaccination rates the government starts talking about upping that standard and just saying "You have to vaccinate your children." Period. Full stop. My system assumes that people will be irrational and works towards the public good in dealing with that irrationality where it arises. Your system, by contrast assumes that everyone will 'rationally' get their vaccines. But people aren't rational, on the individual level they can be shockingly dumb. Which means that your system can lead to a repeat of serious and deadly infectious diseases reoccuring in the modern day. This is a problem that seeps through just about every level of your ideology, because for your system to function people have to be 'rationally' acting. quote:There is no "human nature" argument that comes out favorably for democratic government. If people are inherently good and rational, then the State is not necessary as people will self organize into functioning private societies where the needed functions of civil society will be funded privately. If people are inherently evil and irrational, then the State is FAR too dangerous to tolerate as this amounts merely to granting some of these irrational and dangerous citizens power to violently dominate the others. And if people are just a jumble of self serving meat robots that can't be easily defined into one group or the other the government comes out well ahead because it allows people who know what the gently caress they are doing to suggest and enforce common agreed upon behaviours that are good for everyone! quote:The only coherent position you could take, following your line of thinking, is if you supported the lifetime rule of a wise and enlightened monarch who will force wise and good policy on everyone else. And I'm sure you don't support such a thing because "enlightened" rule is a myth. We all know power corrupts and giving any one man or group of men unlimited power and expecting them to act selflessly with wisdom and compassion is absurd. You are the only one supporting enlightened monarchs an the natural social elite in this thread. I do get a kick out of you admitting that this is the case though, if I weren't on my laptop I'd hunt down the post where you extolled how much better an enlightened dictator would be than a democracy. quote:I consider what you have to say. I am unlikely to be persuaded but it is not impossible. I have and do change my political views. Considering what it took for you to flip on HHH and your refusal to flip on Stefan 'Boomerang Vagina' Molyneux I really doubt you consider a lot of what we have to say or have changed your political views in any significant way recently. quote:I've put forward a more rational means of waking people up to consider radical alternatives to social organization. It is not just arguing from potential. There are real world examples of societies that reform in the direction of liberty with predictably beneficial results. The liberalization of markets, and the diminishing of State controls and central planning has and continues to allow middle classes to emerge amid a torrent of rising prosperity and capital investment in nations that once were unbearably impoverished. The fact that these nations aren't complete, Stateless libertarian paradises doesn't mean that we don't have real world evidence that lends empirical credibility to libertarian reforms. Along with the above discussion of 'logic' I want to point out that the Libertarian usage of liberty is hilariously offensive. Don't agree with us, you're against Freedom and Liberty! Also you are again mixing up industrialization with capitalism. Most of the improvements that you are attributing to these things aren't improvements because of capitalism, but because of industrialization. Industrialization does not have have to come at the hands of capital, even if it has historically done so, and once it is complete the countries do not need to remain capitalist to retain the benefits. Social democracies blow any of the 'ideal' capitalist states out of the water by just about every metric you can imagine after all. quote:We really are at an impasse. Because of various "human nature" arguments, many or most leftists see a catastrophic failure for a libertarian society. The best way, therefore, to move in the direction of a freer society is to work to decentralize existing States. We live under a crusty, stagnant and outdated political order in my opinion. If we must have States, it would be an improvement to have more choices in terms of which political jurisdiction and rules we want to live under.  I'm really looking forward with when you catch up to the present so you can explain how your fever dream is supposed to work. quote:I think this should have appeal across the ideological spectrum. Yes there is a chance that some small political jurisdictions could enact very oppressive laws. And decent people everywhere should oppose such injustice. But on the other hand, other political jurisdictions could enact radical and revolutionary reforms and policies that create great prosperity and high living standards. On balance, I believe human liberty will flourish more in a decentralized world than one with few, highly centralized and all-powerful States. Why? Why on earth do you think "dismantle our current economic system to throw scatershot at the wall and hope something new sticks" would have appeal across the ideological spectrum. It basically only appeals to people who are incredibly deluded (such as yourself) or incredibly disenfranchised to the point where anything seems like an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Illegal by what law and on who's authority? Who is paying for this investigation? Who is prosecuting them? What, do you think these things just happen magically like on Law and Order? Is Ice T gonna kick down the door and cuff the bet taker while cracking wise about having his chatroom transcripts that totally nail his punk rear end? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You even cite statistics about Romney voters and people who vote against their own self interest without realizing it. I agree with you. But then how can you expect generally good results from government policy when it is predicated on the will of the people who have elected these representatives who run it? Dude, the entire loving point of democracy is to elect representatives who are the most qualified. One can trust a representative to be knowledgable and competent on a subject, even if one is not knowledgable on this subject themselves. In fact, people do this literally every single day—every time you order a hamburger, you trust about a dozen people ranging from ranchers to meat inspectors to transportation workers to chefs to servers to be good at their jobs. This is what people who bother actually learning facts call "division of labor," and it's one of the fundamental underpinnings of civilization. quote:The most important point though is that if people make mistakes as a consumer, they risk their own capital and not anyone else's. This is actually a bad thing, because only through risk can innovation occur. Humans are naturally risk averse, preferring to be impoverished and alive than rich-or-dead, and if they stand to lose a lot, they will risk less. A robust system of universal mincome would dramatically increase innovation, as people would be more likely to attempt new and risky things, rather than sticking to the status quo. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. Because it's cheaper in the long run. Not only do you get the natural resources for free but now you get to profit off them too. You know, the reason almost every war of antiquity was ever fought?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
In fairness to jrodefeld, I don't think it's productive to demand that he defend The Dumbest poo poo A Libertarian Ever Posted On Reddit® Especially considering he the stuff he actually does post, like the Molyneaux essay on the joys of defeating crime with 24/7 "voluntary" surveillance of every citizen by DROs, already describes a horrific Shadowrun dystopia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why wouldn't they just sell the water? Or sell the rights to fresh water access? Those States that have greater access to desired natural resources will be sitting on a goldmine and they'll want to export that natural resource to others. Other States might have more forests and thus more lumber production, or more oil production or whatever. Free trade will be the most profitably way to improve everyone's standard of living. Not willing to pay, not enough to go around, seller wants the potential buyer to be in a weaker position at other negotiating tables, seller hates the buyer, buyer wants exclusive control of that resource and thinks they can easily take the seller in a fight. etc. Take your pick. People fight other people for access to and control of resources happens all the time for the reasons I listed and more. Water is one of the most important resources that exists and is hotly contested among the states even today. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Caros posted:To be fair the Somalia argument was never very convincing to me as a libertarian. It was a wartorn shithole before government, and unsurprisingly it was a wartorn shithole afterwords. If anything there is some small argument to be made that Somalia has seen improvement in some sectors over the past couple of decades through general economic improvement. Saying "Somalia! HA!" isn't really all that different from Jrods "Soviet Russia, HA!" argument, the prevailing factors at the time really have a lot to do with success or failure. I'm fine with accepting Soviet Russia as a historical example of communism, the UK as a historical example of progressivism, and Somalia as a historical example of ancap libertarianism. That's basically what they are. History colors all situations. But despite all of that, I still recognize that Soviet Russia is one example of a communist society. So when jrod says "there have been no examples of an ancap society", why is it unfair to point at Somalia as one such example?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 05:55
|
|