|
Sephyr posted:Jrod, please elaborate on how corporations in a free market would never buy/endorse fake science for their own benefit. but you see, I can look at their scientists' Yelp reviews and know whether I should trust them
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
You need a PhD in something technical-sounding first. Then just scope out what industry needs a fig leaf to keep profits high/regulations away and adjust your line of bullshit. Of course, in Libertopia actually investigating anyone's ties to industries and interest groups would be a grave breach of privacy and violate the NAP coming and going, so you don't even need to worry about being exposed. Then again, in Libertopia any bozo with a diploma from HailMary Bible College can claim to be as much of an expert as you, so it'll be a fiercely competitive market in bullshit-slinging, so bring your A game and expect low pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Jrod, please elaborate on how corporations in a free market would never buy/endorse fake science for their own benefit. You know drat well what Jrod is going to say. He's going to puke up some word salad in which he says "Well, it wouldn't happen because it would not be rational for it to happen, and anyone caught doing that would be dealt with depending on what libertarian bullshit I'm going to pull out of my rear end." And then we rip his argument to shreds, but one of us makes the mistake to attack him or one of his heroes, and instead of talking about our arguments, he instead tries to defend the slander, but claims he doesn't want to talk with it. And then he'll go away. And then he'll come back and do it all over again. He's quite predictable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Why can't I be given over a million bucks to talk a lot of poo poo? I do that anyway, why am I not getting paid for it? You can, just find a way to take the shame out of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:You know drat well what Jrod is going to say. He's going to puke up some word salad in which he says "Well, it wouldn't happen because it would not be rational for it to happen, and anyone caught doing that would be dealt with depending on what libertarian bullshit I'm going to pull out of my rear end." He would say "Corporations wouldn't exist without the state" BRINGING THE TRUTH DOWN ON YOU ALL 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He would say "Corporations wouldn't exist without the state" Which is of course, hilariously untrue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Why can't I be given over a million bucks to talk a lot of poo poo? I do that anyway, why am I not getting paid for it? You need to be an expert in something first. Being an expert at sucking down mountain dew and cheetos doesn't count
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
 Ron Paul fankids are either adorably clueless, or exactly the kind of disgusting fucks who are mad about the Civil Rights Act and whatnot. Guess we'll see which camp this guy falls in, though he's Afghan so I doubt he's a white supremacist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:Which is of course, hilariously untrue. Wait how is it untrue? A corporation is an artificial person for the purposes of holding assets and liability That doesn't sound like something can exist without the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Wait how is it untrue? The difference between a corp and a religious body is their tax forms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
In jrodefeld's world, the corporation as defined by government laws wouldn't exist, but what's to stop one of the privatized court systems from making them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Wait how is it untrue? Corporations don't need government enforcement when they can afford their own troops to enforce for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:In jrodefeld's world, the corporation as defined by government laws wouldn't exist, but what's to stop one of the privatized court systems from making them? No customers would do business with those courts because everyone believes in a full liability society Nintendo Kid posted:Corporations don't need government enforcement when they can afford their own troops to enforce for them. They'd back down after I made some angry comments on their Facebook page. By which I mean my bathroom wall, since there's no public internet anymore now that the government is gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Also did jrodefeld ever give any reason for, say, how the collapse of government power, like in Syria and Iraq, wouldn't lead to marauding bands of murderers like Valhalla DRO or Daesh filling the void?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
He has always ignored or deflected any and every question about Daesh because it's pretty obviously fatal to his theories that war is (a) never profitable, (b) only capable of being waged by pre-existing sovereign states with fiat currency, and (c) powerless agains freedom-loving libertarian yeoman farmers who can totally win against everything (except against an actual state, no matter how small or poor, with an army or at least a military band)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He has always ignored or deflected any and every question about Daesh because it's pretty obviously fatal to his theories that war is (a) never profitable, (b) only capable of being waged by pre-existing sovereign states with fiat currency, and (c) powerless agains freedom-loving libertarian yeoman farmers who can totally win against everything (except against an actual state, no matter how small or poor, with an army or at least a military band) Not sure what Jrod's response will be but from what I heard the official Libertarian party line right now is that Daesh is totally a state because people in occupied territories pay taxes now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Also did jrodefeld ever give any reason for, say, how the collapse of government power, like in Syria and Iraq, wouldn't lead to marauding bands of murderers like Valhalla DRO or Daesh filling the void? No, and it's basically the most important question. DarklyDreaming posted:Not sure what Jrod's response will be but from what I heard the official Libertarian party line right now is that Daesh is totally a state because people in occupied territories pay taxes now. Heh, no poo poo but to a libertarian system states are cancer. Cancer which they have absolutely nothing to stop the spread of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Not sure what Jrod's response will be but from what I heard the official Libertarian party line right now is that Daesh is totally a state because people in occupied territories pay taxes now. Yeah, a new state that sprung up after the old states ruling its territory collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
But...but... No! But you have to have a plan to keep that from happening! It doesn't exactly do me much good when Daesh or the mafia is shaking me down to go "ah but look on the bright side: Libertarianism is blameless because you see, this gang is acting just like a state"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Someone posted an article or a study or something a few months ago showing that government intervention reduces the cost of healthcare. Anyone have a link?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But...but... When most of your arguments eventually devolve into "Well nothing similar to this has actually been tried but if you just have a little faith in the Non-Aggression-Principle you'll see how much of a utopia it really is" declaring counter-examples as actually the result of statism makes a stupid kind of sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
It's the political and philosophical equivalent of a child on a playground insisting that, no, their imaginary shield is the kind that CAN'T be broken: no, not EVEN by unbreakable-shield-breaking lasers: NO, not EVEN by—
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
It's absolutely stunning to me that (presumably) a fully functioning, adult male, would naive enough to think that people won't rob, rape, or murder in the absence of a state. We currently have laws that punish people with imprisonment and even death, and yet despite that, there are still people who are willing to rob, rape and murder. Why would those people suddenly stop if you removed laws that prevent and punish that sort of thing? I'd say it's comparable to a child's thinking but even that's not accurate. Even children realize there are bad people in the world that you shouldn't talk to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You need to be an expert in something first. Being an expert at sucking down mountain dew and cheetos doesn't count Okay so I've still got lonely masturbation! I'm good!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Of course there'll be guardians of safety once the state is abolished. Prior even to the state being abolished, Ayn Rand says the capitalist pirates will restore appropriated gold. Pirates:  "it's my pleasure to restore to you, your stolen gold"Capitalist: "I'd say thank you, but I've moved beyond base impulses like thankfulness"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I used to play cards for a living, and earlier today I was thinking about this in terms of an-cap ideology. Imagine a poker game (say five card draw) on a desert island, with no authority governing the game. The rules of poker remain: ante, cards get dealt, bet, discard cards, bet some more, flush beats straight, etc. But in the absence of governance, the meta-rules disappear, e.g., no dealing from the bottom of the deck, no hiding cards up your sleeves, no collusion between players. You might, for a brief time, get compulsive gamblers and suckers to sit down in such a game. But they'd be fleeced so quickly that there'd be a strong disincentive for anyone but an accomplished cheater to ever sit at the seats vacated by the suckers who lost all their money. Then the problem is that you only have accomplished cheaters sitting at the table. The best cheater walks away with the most money, of course, but such a game suffers from a real lack of capital influx. Good poker players make their money from bad poker players, but in a game like the one described, all but the stupidest gamblers would migrate to roulette or blackjack to get their adrenaline fix. No new money enters the table, so even the sharks have little reason to play anymore. Soros and Goldman Sachs might briefly end up in a high stakes head-to-head match for ego's sake, but the point is, the game quickly ceases to exist. The house creates the game. Whether it's a casino, or just a guy providing beer and a poker table at his house, in the absence of someone willing to kick out players who keep aces up their sleeves, or wink to their friends as a means of extracting big losing bets from other players, no rational agent will play the game. The SEC is toothless enough as it is, due to years of being hollowed out by neoliberalism and indifference, but a world without the SEC and related institutions is one with no more stock market, no more bond market, no more commodities markets. Jesus, maybe there's something to be said for an-cap philosophy after all, inasmuch as it would destroy all of capitalism. Perhaps instead of revulsion, socialists out to patronize them as useful idiots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I used to play cards for a living, and earlier today I was thinking about this in terms of an-cap ideology. Imagine a poker game (say five card draw) on a desert island, with no authority governing the game. The rules of poker remain: ante, cards get dealt, bet, discard cards, bet some more, flush beats straight, etc. But in the absence of governance, the meta-rules disappear, e.g., no dealing from the bottom of the deck, no hiding cards up your sleeves, no collusion between players. You're kinda glossing over the fact that the corporations would be free to use the lack of rules to just straight up enslave people or enserf people. Bob the CEO of Goldman Sachs can easily use his existing wealth to take over some land and be the new baron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're kinda glossing over the fact that the corporations would be free to use the lack of rules to just straight up enslave people or enserf people. Bob the CEO of Goldman Sachs can easily use his existing wealth to take over some land and be the new baron. As far as my flippant comment about socialism at the end, yeah. As others have noted (and has been borne out by history) feudalism is the natural result of the lack of a strong central state. I stand by the more substantive part of my post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Yeah, in Libertopia every game will be rigged, but that doesn't eliminate the needs people have that an economy has to provide, so the gamblers in your analogy would just have to sit down at the least-sleazy-looking table and hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Yeah, in Libertopia every game will be rigged, but that doesn't eliminate the needs people have that an economy has to provide, so the gamblers in your analogy would just have to sit down at the least-sleazy-looking table and hope for the best. Would they, though? I mean, capital markets are essential to the workings of modern capitalism, but without effective external governance, would you put any money into a 401k? There would probably still be corporations whose bonds you could buy with a high level of confidence, but bank deposits? CDs? The amount of research the average person would have to do to be convinced to contribute to the liquidity of the capitalist system would be substantial, and inasmuch as most people have training in neither probability nor finance, even those with the best intentions would too often suffer bad results. I strongly suspect that in a libertopian future faith in various financial markets will asymptotically approach zero as time goes on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:
When I think of people that I respect deeply and feel that they have valuable insights on both politics and their chosen career, Vince Vaughn comes to mind immediately. I want my rich movie-stars telling me that hey, the world would be better without a government. After all, do I want to live in a world where the government could prevent Vince Vaughn from trying to star in a movie? The only way to prevent that is to have no government!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Would they, though? I mean, capital markets are essential to the workings of modern capitalism, but without effective external governance, would you put any money into a 401k? There would probably still be corporations whose bonds you could buy with a high level of confidence, but bank deposits? CDs? The amount of research the average person would have to do to be convinced to contribute to the liquidity of the capitalist system would be substantial, and inasmuch as most people have training in neither probability nor finance, even those with the best intentions would too often suffer bad results. I strongly suspect that in a libertopian future faith in various financial markets will asymptotically approach zero as time goes on. You don't have to suspect, just look what happened before we had the FDIC. The ordinary person had no way of knowing whether their bank is sound or not, and if bad banks started failing everyone ran to withdraw their money and even healthy institutions collapsed. Of course, the Libertarian answer to this is that fractional reserve banking is a fraud that should be outlawed and the only banks should be high-security storage vaults for your gold that charge a monthly fee and aren't allowed to lend it out. I'm not exactly sure where banks actually get the money to lend out for new businesses or homes or what-have-you under this arrangement (do they issue non-callable bonds? I don't know) but there you have it. I guess what I am saying is: I need a jrod wall-of-text or von mises copy-paste to clear this up for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're kinda glossing over the fact that the corporations would be free to use the lack of rules to just straight up enslave people or enserf people. Bob the CEO of Goldman Sachs can easily use his existing wealth to take over some land and be the new baron. In this scenario, represented by the bully from the Charles Atlas cartoons walking up and bludgeoning the dealer to death, then telling everyone the new game is give me your money or I do that to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:18
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:As far as my flippant comment about socialism at the end, yeah. As others have noted (and has been borne out by history) feudalism is the natural result of the lack of a strong central state. I stand by the more substantive part of my post. Ironically, 'feudalism' (this is now an extremely disputed piece of terminology in medieval history) is also the beginnings of a state. So you just accomplish a circular movement back in to the past, but this time with better technology. I suspect this is why a lot of libertarians like to think about post-apocalyptic worlds: it's the only scenario where societal collapse is imaginable.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Ironically, 'feudalism' (this is now an extremely disputed piece of terminology in medieval history) is also the beginnings of a state. So you just accomplish a circular movement back in to the past, but this time with better technology. I'm not a medievalist by any stretch of the imagination so perhaps I'm just not up on their current arguments, but in what way is "feudalism" now a disputed concept? That post-Roman strongmen/warlord types granted feudums to their armed followers in exchange for military service, particularly in the face of outside invaders, I thought was pretty solidly established.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 13:55
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm not a medievalist by any stretch of the imagination so perhaps I'm just not up on their current arguments, but in what way is "feudalism" now a disputed concept? That post-Roman strongmen/warlord types granted feudums to their armed followers in exchange for military service, particularly in the face of outside invaders, I thought was pretty solidly established. I could effortpost a bit harder but wikipedia gives the jist: quote:Since the publication of Elizabeth A. R. Brown's "The Tyranny of a Construct" (1974) and Susan Reynolds's Fiefs and Vassals (1994), there has been ongoing inconclusive discussion among medieval historians as to whether feudalism is a useful construct for understanding medieval society. The argument in the historiography is essentially this: 'feudalism' is a ex-post facto constructed idea that had no basis in medieval life. In the way it's normally used feudalism describes totally different and contradictory systems of government; at best, our modern stereotypical idea of feudalism might explain just, say, one area of medieval France. So the idea of using 'feudalism' as a catch-all piece of terminology is disputed. If you see a modern medieval historian using the word 'feudalism' uncritically they are either making a statement or are ignorant of the debate (which is scarcely possible). That said, many of the historians who are against feudalism on a case by case basis will talk about feodalite, feudal, or manorialism. Feudalism is the word under siege.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Not sure what Jrod's response will be but from what I heard the official Libertarian party line right now is that Daesh is totally a state because people in occupied territories pay taxes now. Any entity that violates the NAP is, by definition, a state. QED. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Daesh is fine you guys. Just pay their DRO fees and abide by their TOS and you're good. If you don't like their privately adopted legal code, just start your own superior service and outcompete them for subscriptions and enlistments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Daesh is fine you guys. Just pay their DRO fees and abide by their TOS and you're good. The first rule of Daesh is that you don't call them Daesh! They'll cut off your tongue for using the term Daesh, for some reason or another. I don't know why they hate Daesh so much, but I guess only Daesh knows why we shouldn't say Daesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The first rule of Daesh is that you don't call them Daesh! They'll cut off your tongue for using the term Daesh, for some reason or another. I don't know why they hate Daesh so much, but I guess only Daesh knows why we shouldn't say Daesh. Isn't it a pun reading of their name that translates to something foul
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:39
|
|