|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Isn't it a pun reading of their name that translates to something foul Yes, it's basically like if you ran an organization that could be acronymized to NERDS with a little creativity. "Daesh" derives from how you can abbreviate their full name in Arabic if you wanted to be snarky.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Jrod why did the potential for negative publicity not outweigh the opportunity to save money by cheating people out of wages, and how would eliminating the minimum wage make businesses pay more than the minimum wage?BBC News posted:The government has named 70 companies that have failed to pay workers the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
This is a fun article about how trusting in market forces to fix the problems of a state-regulated economy actually just made things more medieval. http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/on-the-high-seas-of-the-hidden-internet/ quote:As Ulbricht transformed a free-flowing market into a structured hierarchy, he began to take a stronger hand in policing the system that he had created. Traders started to find themselves getting banned, for offences such as defrauding customers or trying to bilk the house of its commission. In this, Silk Road appears to have been following a well-trodden path. Game theorists such as Avner Greif and Randall Calvert have argued that this was how the decentralised medieval trading systems gradually gave way to more robust systems based on the centralised power of the state. Ulbricht – and other market builders like him – had recapitulated this developmental history by combining reputation-based incentives and centralised adjudication. quote:Ulbricht’s carelessness brought about the early demise of Silk Road. But if he hadn’t been stupid, the marketplace would have soon collapsed under its own weight, or become the creature of larger organisations with a far greater capacity for violence. The libertarian dream of free online drug markets that can magically and peacefully regulate themselves is just that: a dream. Playing at pirates is only fun as long as the other players are kids too. The trouble is, once adults with real swords appear, it may be too late to wake up. Ccs fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
The compelling thing about these posts is how the state has never committed annecdotal atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The compelling thing about these posts is how the state has never committed annecdotal atrocities. The difference being that that sort of thing happens literally every time somebody creates a new market and says "I will make this totally free and unregulated and there will be magic!" Like I'm serious. Anybody that has played an MMO from its earliest days has seen this. More importantly you need to keep coming up with new things on the "poo poo you aren't allowed to do" list because the scammers are always coming up with new ones. Once money is involved there are people who would murder their own children if it made them a few dollars. Like as fun as EVE Online was in its own way I would never, ever want the real world market to be run like that. Fraud, lying, misrepresenting goods, taking the money and running, lotteries that nobody ever won...this poo poo was rampant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
poo poo also happens literally every time somone created a state. The fact that you need to live with some poo poo, some of it from the state is an important point against libertarianism which thinks it can erase too much of it too easily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:poo poo also happens literally every time somone created a state. Do you understand either of these yet
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:poo poo also happens literally every time somone created a state. The difference is that we acknowledge that the state will have corruption and problems, and have an actual plan to deal with it (democracy.) It's not perfect, but we cop to it and work to make it better. Libertarianism's response to pointed out flaws is to shut its ears and go "LALALALALA free market invisible hand can't hear you LALALALALA." Admitting that there are limitations and working to improve them is incredibly important. Our ideology doesn't require perfection. Libertarianism does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:poo poo also happens literally every time somone created a state. And how states are set up and organized are improved over time. poo poo ain't perfect but we're working on it. When states go wrong we admit it and try to come up with better ideas or tweak the rules to fit the new problems. Libertarianism does not do this. It's just "well you didn't free market hard enough!" all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:poo poo also happens literally every time somone created a state. The proper observation here is that the events mentioned could and would have been prevented by a state. What state-committed atrocities could not have been committed without a state? All the worst that come to mind—the holocaust, Hiroshima, George Bush's art—could just as easily have happened in a stateless society, and indeed similar things have happened state-free all across history! Wow!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
The thing is, if humans were perfect moral, rational actors with perfect information, then no one would have a problem with a libertarian system. One of the most incorrect charges libertarians level at their critics is them being 'statists', as though we all get off on rules and enforcement for their own sake, and someone plotting to get rid of them inherently flusters us so we push back. The truth is we push back because we see libertarianism for what it is; blind idealism and faith in world that does not, and cannot, exist. The exact same reason we push back against Leninists\Marxists or theocracies, because they posit their system of government on self delusion, and that will always have consequences for people stuck under them. At least in my case, I won't presume to speak for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The compelling thing about these posts is how the state has never committed annecdotal atrocities. Its almost as if regulations appear out of thin air instead of coming about because some company decided to gently caress over its customers or employees for profit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Returning to Praxeology, how do you know that it isn't as good as scientific evidence? Empiricism also rests on a priori claims that humans can accurately experience reality. How do we know we're really observing anything without a priori arguments like the cogito? Scientism is quite circular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Returning to Praxeology, how do you know that it isn't as good as scientific evidence? Empiricism also rests on a priori claims that humans can accurately experience reality. How do we know we're really observing anything without a priori arguments like the cogito? Scientism is quite circular. I'm going to posit based on empirical observation that I can kill any praxeology believer by pushing them of a cliff. After testing that hypothesis in accordance with empiricism, they'll be free to derive a counter claim from pure reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
You can only use science to learn things. Who told you that, Science?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Returning to Praxeology, how do you know that it isn't as good as scientific evidence? Empiricism also rests on a priori claims that humans can accurately experience reality. How do we know we're really observing anything without a priori arguments like the cogito? Scientism is quite circular. Science is based on much more than merely human experience Also, are you claiming that an idea can be correct even if humans experience events that prove that idea to be incorrect? This is a pointless and self-defeating debate tactic And you're a retard if you believe that requiring a bit of proof before instituting public policy comes anywhere close to scientism
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Only millenial snark can combat the power of Daesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Science is based on much more than merely human experience QuarkJets posted:Also, are you claiming that an idea can be correct even if humans experience events that prove that idea to be incorrect? This is a pointless and self-defeating debate tactic What if the human experience of morality conflicts with the human experience of those events? At best you don't know which is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Have you ever taken a measurement or read a scientific study you didn't experience? Yes, many times. quote:What if the human experience of morality conflicts with the human experience of those events? At best you don't know which is true. You're making an irrelevant argument. If I claim something that is directly disprovable with a set of observations, then the claim that I made is wrong. If I then claim that I am actually right because we can't disprove an idea with an observation, then you can just make the same argument in reverse: if you can't disprove an idea, then you can't ever really prove it, either. The entire discussion is moot at that point Libertarians may claim something like "wars are only possible with fiat currency." Something like that is easily disprovable. If your counterargument is that observations can't be trusted and that you can only argue from pure principles, then I can just counter and say that your pure principles can't be trusted, either. Because why not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, many times. When you read that study you experienced that study and experienced the words on the page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Yeah, how can we, like, know anything, man?  Empiricism isn't unique in being based on a set of axioms. It's just that "reality is consistent and can be measured" is a pretty basic assumption, whereas those of systems like Praxeology are far more specific and far less explicit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
I cannot think of a more comically awful philosophical system than Mises-esque praxeology. The way they try to rope in Greek philosophy is truly vomit inducing.
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:When you read that study you experienced that study and experienced the words on the page. Science itself about experiences that are observable and repeatable. If your talking about the layman's interpretation of science that they didn't personally experience, it comes down to good information discrimination and subjective analysis of the quality of different sources. Observing consensus etc. The subjectivity involved at this level is why some people are quite bad at it. Yes at some level everything is a human experience. Didn't you go through this philosophical awakening at like age 14? But there is still a real difference between the differing subjective experience of say music and the certainty that an apple will fall down or that the light came on when I flipped the switch. Muscle Tracer posted:The proper observation here is that the events mentioned could and would have been prevented by a state. What state-committed atrocities could not have been committed without a state? All the worst that come to mind—the holocaust, Hiroshima, George Bush's art—could just as easily have happened in a stateless society, and indeed similar things have happened state-free all across history! Wow! "Prevented by" is still strong language and the state really has been the main actor in tons of bad things. The key is the idea of tradeoff. When you hand the government power you're looking for a better overall outcome. You hand the government power in areas like defense and justice that the market can't do or will do a terrible job at. The government will abuse its power in these areas for sure, but you're hoping for a better overall result. The thing that needs to be avoided is any implication of the simplistic "government good/market bad". That's as stupid and trivially disprovable as the opposite. Ron Paul Atreides posted:The thing is, if humans were perfect moral, rational actors with perfect information, then no one would have a problem with a libertarian system. I can't agree more. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Yeah, how can we, like, know anything, man? I invite you all to click on the little ? next to Owlbot2000's posts and witness him quoting statistical data at asdf32 a little while ago. Using "empirical analysis" I derive the hypothesis that he is not being entirely sincere. Witness the power of Science! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
The best thing about bringing up praxeology is that it helpfully reminds us that that bullshit is at the heart not just of Mises but a lot of Austrian economics more generally.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:I invite you all to click on the little ? next to Owlbot2000's posts and witness him quoting statistical data at asdf32 a little while ago. Using "empirical analysis" I derive the hypothesis that he is not being entirely sincere. The last post I remember him making was a defence of Marx's asiatic mode of production. Marxism itself being a great example of an ideology that's been swept aside in practice by academic consensus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"Prevented by" is still strong language and the state really has been the main actor in tons of bad things. The key is the idea of tradeoff. When you hand the government power you're looking for a better overall outcome. You hand the government power in areas like defense and justice that the market can't do or will do a terrible job at. The government will abuse its power in these areas for sure, but you're hoping for a better overall result. The thing that needs to be avoided is any implication of the simplistic "government good/market bad". That's as stupid and trivially disprovable as the opposite. Thanks for restating my statement more verbosely. However, that final statement is not what people were saying. I have empirically derived that your powers of intuition and understanding are feeble at best, so let me clarify, again, that people were saying "In this instance, market bad in way that government could prevent!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The last post I remember him making was a defence of Marx's asiatic mode of production. Marxism itself being a great example of an ideology that's been swept aside in practice by academic consensus. The reason Marxism can't happen yet is because scarcity still exists. Marx's question was "what happens after capitalism?" For the time being we're stuck with capitalism but the world overall is becoming more and more socialist as it becomes easier to cheaply provide everybody's needs. Marx's point was that there would come a time when it became so incredibly cheap to give everybody everything they need that capitalism would fall away and become unnecessary. Think of it this way; if we had a machine that could produce infinite food at no cost why would we not feed everybody?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:10
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The reason Marxism can't happen yet is because scarcity still exists. Marx's question was "what happens after capitalism?" For the time being we're stuck with capitalism but the world overall is becoming more and more socialist as it becomes easier to cheaply provide everybody's needs. Marx's point was that there would come a time when it became so incredibly cheap to give everybody everything they need that capitalism would fall away and become unnecessary. That is an incredibly rose-tinted version of Marxism, and a misreading. Marx does predict the revolution in the richest countries, but he believes it will stem from deepening crises and tensions, not the imminent arrival of utopia.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is an incredibly rose-tinted version of Marxism, and a misreading. Marx does predict the revolution in the richest countries, but he believes it will stem from deepening crises and tensions, not the imminent arrival of utopia. Well yeah the magic food machine would probably have to be taken by force before the rich let go of it but drat it let me dream of a (tremendously unlikely) velvet revolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The reason Marxism can't happen yet is because scarcity still exists. Marx's question was "what happens after capitalism?" For the time being we're stuck with capitalism but the world overall is becoming more and more socialist as it becomes easier to cheaply provide everybody's needs. Marx's point was that there would come a time when it became so incredibly cheap to give everybody everything they need that capitalism would fall away and become unnecessary. Honestly I think a fair criticism of Marxism is that it is somewhat deterministic in its views and assumes that you can logically derive the endpoint of society from observing its present and past state. Marx is much more specific in his predictions than you are suggesting, and nothing of what he foresaw was post-scarcity or an easy transition. Hell, Bookchin, who literally wrote the book on post-scarcity economics, was very critical of Marxism. Historical Materialism is much more useful as an analytic tool of society than it is a good blueprint for predicting the future IMO. Though you are somewhat correct in saying that a true social ownership of capital has never really occurred on a society wide scale. Central planning by a privilege bureaucracy is not really Marxism, it was always imagined as a transitory phase to true communism. E: Goddamit beaten again like a minority in a DRO community Political Whores fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The reason Marxism can't happen yet is because scarcity still exists. Marx's question was "what happens after capitalism?" For the time being we're stuck with capitalism but the world overall is becoming more and more socialist as it becomes easier to cheaply provide everybody's needs. Marx's point was that there would come a time when it became so incredibly cheap to give everybody everything they need that capitalism would fall away and become unnecessary. Actually I'm on the record saying that post scarcity leading to some form of socialism is very plausible, if probably distant. As you correctly point out, capitalism doen't work in a post scarcity world. I'm also on the record saying, as Disinterested pointed out, that such a result would have nothing to do with Marxism. A post scarcity end to capitalism is roughly as Marxist as an asteroid apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
asdf32 posted:Post-scarcity ending capitalism is as Marxist as an asteroid wiping out capitalism. No, I mean Marxism does require enormous productive capacity and a large quantity of wealth to share as part of its model. It just also thinks that this rise in productive power by capitalist means will body forth the very conditions that will lead to its destruction.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, I mean Marxism does require enormous productive capacity and a large quantity of wealth to share as part of its model. It just also thinks that this rise in productive power by capitalist means will body forth the very conditions that will lead to its destruction. Yes marx predicted wealth but also predicted tension, crisis and collapse which is wildly divergent from delivering utopia and gracefully exiting the stage. I still like my (slightly edited) asteroid analogy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
It's a dumb analogy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually I'm on the record saying that post scarcity leading to some form of socialism is very plausible, if probably distant. As you correctly point out, capitalism doen't work in a post scarcity world. I'm also on the record saying, as Disinterested pointed out, that such a result would have nothing to do with Marxism. A post scarcity end to capitalism is roughly as Marxist as an asteroid apocalypse. And that is exactly why Marx said that a revolution was basically mandatory to break out of capitalism. The problem with capitalism is that as individual workers can produce more and more they end up getting less and less for their class overall simply because fewer of them become needed to do anything. You can see this now with increased automation. The moneyed classes (i.e., the people that own everything already) are less inclined to give to the non-moneyed classes because there is no need to. As the production capacity per worker increases the supply of labor surpasses demand and you end up with decreasing wages and increasing poverty. That of course leads to unrest and the wealthy aren't inclined to share. It's possible to transition to increased socialism peacefully but there are some people that will resist that tooth and nail because there is profit to be made keeping capitalism going. In the magic food machine example even if it is infinite if there is only one there will be people trying to fight for exclusive control of it as that's the control of the food supply. If a person can control the machine they can control the world using the threat of starvation. Nobody can produce food more cheaply than free so they can undercut everybody else and be the only source. That's a problem inherent in capitalism that we're seeing now; you need land to produce food but so many people don't own land they have no hope of producing their own food and must rely on those with money to pay them to do things. The super rich control an obscene portion of the money supply and thus have an extreme amount of control over the working class. Things like income assistance, welfare, subsidized housing, and food stamps go a long way to reducing these issues but notice that lolbertarians and the right hate these more than anything. The end result of removing these is handing the food machine to the rich. With no social safety net and no alternate way to survive other than selling your time to somebody wealthier than you the wealthy can dictate the price of the time. The extremely wealthy can just say "well you'll make me wealthier or you will starve to death. Choose wisely." People don't like being told that's the only choice they have in life and become unruly. In that case the question is how long can the wealthy hold on to control of the infinite food machine. If they choose "gently caress you, do what I want or starve" you increase the likelihood of revolution. I'm also begging the question of "why should we not feed everybody" simply because it's an important thing to think about. If you're saying "we should not feed everybody if we are able" what you are saying is that whoever controls the food controls the poor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Honestly I think a fair criticism of Marxism is that it is somewhat deterministic in its views and assumes that you can logically derive the endpoint of society from observing its present and past state. Marx is much more specific in his predictions than you are suggesting, and nothing of what he foresaw was post-scarcity or an easy transition. Hell, Bookchin, who literally wrote the book on post-scarcity economics, was very critical of Marxism. Historical Materialism is much more useful as an analytic tool of society than it is a good blueprint for predicting the future IMO. Indeed. Of course, there's also the problem that once Marx had made his predictions, some effort was put into making sure they wouldn't come to pass.... which is the point of prediction and prophecy to begin with, really. A prediction on the development of society is always about "If X Goes On, Then Y Will Happen", usually to ensure that 'Y' either happens as planned, or is averted completely. But yes, Marx missed his mark and there are very, very good reasons to be sceptical of the predictions he - or anyone else, for that matter - makes. However, as you also noted, Historical Materialism is a very useful tool when analysing society, especially in the intersection and interactions of Capital and Labor, and I genuinely do believe that there is much in Marxist analysis that is fundamentally solid. Political Whores posted:Though you are somewhat correct in saying that a true social ownership of capital has never really occurred on a society wide scale. Central planning by a privilege bureaucracy is not really Marxism, it was always imagined as a transitory phase to true communism. Unfortunately, the main failing of Marxism/Communism was that it didn't account for the tendency of authoritarians to rise to the top and/or hijacking popular movements for their own purposes. Which is why I think that a democratic state is the best we can do at present, at least until we move into post-scarcity economics ( and I'm not holding my breath on that point ). The important part is to ensure that the state does its level best to rein in the undue influence of capitalism on government... And gods only know how you go about that in the long run. I do, however, know that you don't do it by abolishing the state and letting the Capitalist classes set themselves up as lords of the loving manor, as Libertarians want to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:50
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Unfortunately, the main failing of Marxism/Communism was that it didn't account for the tendency of authoritarians to rise to the top and/or hijacking popular movements for their own purposes. I think this is where you need someone like Rosa Luxemburg.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:
Take the Greek approach and ostracize/ritually murder your leadership every year
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
TLM3101 posted:
Marx+Gramsci all the way. TLM3101 posted:I do, however, know that you don't do it by abolishing the state and letting the Capitalist classes set themselves up as lords of the loving manor, as Libertarians want to do. Libertarianism (and "anarcho-capitalism"  ) is more than just anti-statism, which I can understand and sympathize with to a certain extent. If the Zapatistas want to break Chiapas off and turn it into a confederacy of mutually aiding communist villages, i'm all for them trying. The obsession with property and contractual relations in Libertarinism is what strikes me as fundamentally evil and alien, not their to opposition to the status quo It's philosophically built on legitimizing exploitation and depredation. Everything becomes transactional and voluntarist because ultimately it is constructed around a kind of solipsistic worldview that assumes the thinker is better than other people, and that they exist and matter solely in the way that they can benefit you. Take the view of Tilly (mentioned earlier) that the state forms initially as a strongman group extorting a subdued and coerced populace, and only later evolves away from that. What libertarians want is not an escape from this condition, but a return to its original form. Hell just look at Jrod. I said before that he's actually a good example of the toxic underpinnings of Libertarianism since he feels compelled to defend loving Nazis and white supremacists because his morality compels him to. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:14
|
|