|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm not really spoiling anything here when I say that is exactly what will happen. Jrod can't not try to turn every conversation he has into evangelizing his market god, zealous missionary that he is. Yeah, a part of the motivation for my post was curiosity as to whether he's actually capable of talking about anything else, or if he'd compulsively turn a discussion on dogs into a rant about how the statist AKC can't stop him from breeding double-merles.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
JRod, you have actually taught me something new that I had not known before. I honestly had no clue how reliant Libertarian thinkers such as Rothbard relied on outright lies concerning political history and philosophical alignment. At first I just thought this was benign rhetorical tricks, but now I see that Rothbard et al have fabricated human history and philosophical development. This is a grand insight indeed.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:States rarely arise in the beginning because the masses of society spontaneously rise up and agree that for practical or utilitarian reasons they must have an expansive State comprised of rulers who dominate them. States emerge in the beginning because there is a class of society who benefit from the power and cover to engage in naked exploitation that the State mythology provides. It is, in short, an effort to monopolize, cartelize and protect the immense wealth and property of powerful individuals that usually provides the impetus to form a State and subsequently expand political power over society. Jrod, you post stuff like this that just starts you from a faulty premise. It's like you don't have a grasp for the varied ebb and flow of history, the complexities of human existence, the power of culture, tribe, and identity. And while it is cynical, which is okay, there is no room for gray or complexity. It's just - states started so that a few people could terrorize everyone else, and even when masses of people joined in that revolution, they really just voted for a few people to rule them with an iron fist. No. Just no. Yes, in some cases, it was maybe that simple, looking back, but those things didn't happen in a vacuum. The people who rose to power in the midst of movements, collapses of other states, economic uncertainty, wars, and so on still (often) offered something that people wanted - security, stability, a better economic system, representation, etc... Scotland just had a referendum on independence. Was it entirely motivated by a few people who wanted to "engage in naked exploitation that the State mythology provides"? What about ISIS? They might better fit your cynical definition, but some local people in Syria and Iraq, maybe out of fear but sometimes out of necessity, are open to such a radical group because of a lack of stability, a lack of services, a lack of identity. And what about a overbearing nation like Sweden who obviously mythologizes exploitatively their State-ness to the tune of being one of the happiest nations on earth? Your definitions do not account for any of this complexity, and so you start from faulty premises time and time again.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:22
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I actually had meant to ask what you all thought I ought to read. If you're being serious about this I am happy to recommend things. For starters, I don't think you come across as if you have done the own side of your argument due credit. If I was you I would begin by making a serious effort at properly understanding the anglophone liberal tradition of thought. The optimum way for you to do that, of course, is to read the works of the primary thinkers involved. Here it would be useful but by no means necessary to have read works in the classical tradition. I think it would be best to begin like this: 1. Hobbes -Leviathan. Buy a good edition (e.g. Cambridge history of political thought blue book, and read the introduction). -Also you can listen to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9l1 2. Locke -Two Treatises of Government, particularly the second, and -A letter concerning toleration. 3. (You can here put Hume if you wish but it's not absolutely obligatory) 4. Adam Smith You of course should read -The Wealth of Nations but you must also have read -The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 5. Jeremy Bentham Bentham requires you to read around his writing, you don't need all of it at all. -A Fragment of Government. -An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 6. John Stuart Mill -On Liberty -On the Subjection of Women -Considerations on Representative Government -Principles of Political Economy 7. Hayek -The Road to Serfdom -Individualism and Economic Order etc. 8. Isiah Berlin -‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ 9. Rawls -A Theory of Justice -Political Liberalism 10. Nozick (order for these last two doesn't matter too much) -Anarchy, State and Utopia and -The Examined Life For a very general summary of definitions of liberty in this tradition, I would also go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECiVz_zRj7A. In each case I would also suggest reading the wikipedia for each of them thoroughly and then the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy's entries about them, though they are not uniformly good in both cases. Bold is for things I think you would benefit from most. I don't exclude continental philosophy here because I think that that is the correct thing to do. I do it because I think you would benefit more from understanding your own tradition better. It's quite apparent to me that you aren't fully on the ball with this stuff. If you're going to go continental and try to expand your horizons a little bit, I can give a detailed list, but essentially you are going to want to go: Kant -> Hegel -> Marx -> Nietzsche And at that point a very wide world is open to you, but I would at least consider after that touching upon: Lenin & Trotsky The Frankfurt School (especially Benjamin & Adorno, and then on through to Marcuse and Habermas) You will also want to read thematically as well as historically, but you probably at this point should acquire a rounder understanding of the state, including Weber etc. What I think you'll find is that people like Rothbard have usually taken a pretty low road philosophically or have bastardised other thinkers in a very ineffective way, which is why they're not particularly highly thought of as intellectuals. There are more effective ways to make the kind of arguments you make in these thinkers than in those you rely upon (for example, Nozick's use of the non-aggression principle is very effective; Mill has probably the best articulated idea of 'interference'.) Ya - I was taught by Quentin Skinner who is the person who writes most prolifically, probably, about the history of Hobbes's thought. Though Hobbes's period really never was my bag. L. Foisneau, ‘Omnipotence, necessity and sovereignty’, in P. Springborg ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan (2007) Appears to be on the reading lists these days and though I haven't read it, may be on your point here as well. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:37 on May 28, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Just a heads up guys, its not an authentic Jrod post. I got bored and wanted to troll so I guessed his password. Turns out it was hoppedidnothingwrong. Jokes aside, I know what I'm doing on my lunch break!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I actually had meant to ask what you all thought I ought to read. I am actually being sincere here. I get criticized for posting links to articles or suggestions for books I think you should read. I'd genuinely like to know what books you recommend would convert me to your way of thinking. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
If you want some advice, jrod, I suggest you try actually sticking around instead of making GBS threads the thread and then running the second you get the substantive replies you say you want.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
So about that watermelon
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod, do you stand by your previous misogynistic statement and assertion that there are women who do nothing but birth children from multiple "baby-daddies" in order to live high on the government dole? I know you like running from substantive arguments, Jrod, but I think I speak for everyone itt when I say I'd like to see your response to both this post and the one about healthcare inelasticity which someone who isn't phone posting will hopefully link.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
No I wouldn't. Just read it. Trust me, I'm a doctor.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:If you're being serious about this I am happy to recommend things. Summer reading list found. (I'm appallingly behind on my reading on Anglophonic liberty beyond the early modern period) E: Oops for the double post.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Here are some fun books you should definitely check out if you haven't already: The Jungle by Upton Sinclair The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck (okay really just about anything by Steinbeck) The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad Though I'll be very surprised if everyone here hasn't read them already, but hey you never know.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Jrod how do you feel about the recent events surrounding FIFA?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:33
|
|
BUG JUG posted:Summer reading list found. (I'm appallingly behind on my reading on Anglophonic liberty beyond the early modern period) Just read Rawls and Nozick if you're pressed for time and that's hey presto most of it, a lot of the rest is mostly interesting either for seeing how you got there (although you really need Kant for this as well) or what didn't make it. Also the video I linked to the genealogy of liberty.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why do I continue to post here? That is a question I sometimes ask myself. In the first place, I think that it is good practice to write on a regular basis. On the second hand, I find it fascinating the sort of people who post here. It can be hard to turn away from such a spectacle. Jrod, dear, the reason we don't understand your beliefs is that you've never really presented them. You come in, post something that somebody else said, and then when we try to hold you to it you go "Oh, but I don't agree with everything they wrote." Even in this essay that you wrote, you had to end it with this: jrodefeld posted:But there is VERY little in "Markets Not Capitalism" that I can disagree with. What exactly do you disagree with, and can we assume that you actually agree with everything else that you don't disagree with? Please be specific. Jrod, we want to argue with you and tell you that you're a racist douchbag, not Rothbard or Mises or HHH. You're not making this fun for us. Quotes are fine as evidence. Copy/pasting somebody else's work is decidedly not. Nolanar posted:While I'm at it, maybe loosen up a little? I know it's a cliche, but this is an internet comedy forum. A more conversational posting style, and maybe a couple solid burns on other posters, would do wonders to humanize you. Also very much this.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I actually had meant to ask what you all thought I ought to read. I am actually being sincere here. It's been brought up in this thread before, but Debt: the First 5,000 Years is a great primer on the history and origins of money and markets. I can't in good conscience ask you to read Rawls' A Theory of Justice after all the crap we've given you for asking us to read long dry essays, so I guess find a good primer on his ideas? Nozick too, even though I don't agree with him, since he'll have more direct things to say about your beliefs and idols.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I actually had meant to ask what you all thought I ought to read. The screenplay to The Matrix has deeper philosophical aspirations and ideas than any of the authors that you've quoted so far, maybe start there
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:07
|
|
Nolanar posted:I can't in good conscience ask you to read Rawls' A Theory of Justice after all the crap we've given you for asking us to read long dry essays, so I guess find a good primer on his ideas? Nozick too, even though I don't agree with him, since he'll have more direct things to say about your beliefs and idols. Although Nozick rowed back from his Libertarianism some way in later life, tbf.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Did Jrod ever respond to the contradiction between the NHS being so successful and his ideas about healthcare in the United States?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:It's been brought up in this thread before, but Debt: the First 5,000 Years is a great primer on the history and origins of money and markets. I really need to start this but I haven't yet finished Barbarians at the Gates: The Call of RJR Nabisco yet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
A reminder:sudo rm -rf posted:Wait. Why the gently caress are we talking about a priori truths at all? Didn't jrod create and abandon another thread just a couple of months ago without answering any loving questions about the practical applications of the bullshit he preaches? He shouldn't get to change the subject, even if he disappears for several weeks. Jrod, please answer the questions about the NHS that were asked of you back in August. sudo rm -rf posted:Can we steer this back to healthcare? Jrod said this: sudo rm -rf posted:"Guys, please address my arguments!" sudo rm -rf posted:jrodefeld, why are the public health care systems of Canada and the United Kingdom better at controlling costs than the mostly private US system? You've maintained that the state is to blame for the increase in prices in the US healthcare market. Why doesn't the data outside the United States support you? How do you reconcile the mountain of evidence outside of the United States with your assertion? sudo rm -rf posted:Man it sure is weird that jrodefeld keeps ignoring the success of public health care outside the united states in favor of whining about political correctness! sudo rm -rf posted:If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success? sudo rm -rf posted:One of these days jrod is going to respond to the effectiveness of public health care outside the United States, and why it appears to be successful contrary to his assertions. I just know it! sudo rm -rf posted:Did anyone else catch the bullshit in this post? This is jrodefeld's way of avoiding having to respond the data that shits all over his assertions about health care. I've yet to get any answers.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:A reminder: And I doubt you're going to this time. I'll be shocked in jrod even posts again this month.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
He reset the thread you can't ask him to go back to old questions!!! Statists!!!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that libertarianism is a gutless philosophy for cowards.  And racists.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why do I continue to post here? That is a question I sometimes ask myself. In the first place, I think that it is good practice to write on a regular basis. On the second hand, I find it fascinating the sort of people who post here. It can be hard to turn away from such a spectacle. We love you too jrod <3 quote:I am going to attempt to do a "reset" of sorts to this thread. I want to restate my beliefs and central argument because I see people continually distorting and misunderstanding what I have tried to get across. Even a halfhearted attempt at genuinely comprehending my argument would be appreciated. I read your entire post but I don't think that I saw many arguments at all. Mostly it was you redefining terms and trying to rewrite history while quoting libertarian articles. "Liberal isn't liberal it's actually conservative and libertarianism is really liberal" is not an argument or even a particularly important idea. quote:But why would we emphasize the dominance of capital over other equally valid and important aspects of a free society? It's not really the dominance of capital itself that matters, it's the dominance of resources that humans need by capitalists that matters. If food, water, clean air, and shelter were all freely available, many people might not give a poo poo about capital. This is possible in a hypothetical homesteading scenario, where I can just go find some nice land with a stream on it and become a farmer, but when you begin to recognize things like property rights then it all just dissolves back into Capitalism. "I own this, you don't" is Capitalism at its core, and it's also the guiding principle behind the property rights that you hold sacred, so ultimately You Are A Capitalist. It doesn't matter that you don't like the term. quote:Since it is an a priori truth about human action that voluntarily agreed to economic trade is expected by all parties participating of their own volition to improve their well being, then we could just as easily single out workers with equally limited but no less true labels like "laborist" or consumers with a label like "consumerist". They miss the point entirely. Singling out any aspect of a free society and putting an "-ist" or "-ism" on the end of it naturally implies that the singled out group is benefited at the expense of other groups. Nope, that's not an a priori truth. Human action also tells us that some people would rather rape, murder, and plunder instead of voluntarily agreeing to economic trade. They may even expect to be allowed to show the facade of a voluntary trading plunder right before plunging the dagger into the other party's back. Whatever conclusions you're basing on this "a priori truth" are going to be flawed, FYI. quote:Singling out any aspect of a free society and putting an "-ist" or "-ism" on the end of it naturally implies that the singled out group is benefited at the expense of other groups. Even this isn't really true. As an example, many absolitionists did not benefit from the abolitionist movement. An "-ist" or "-ism" merely implies belief or adherence to some idea or principle, nothing more. To be a capitalist does not necessarily imply that you even benefit from capitalism. quote:The other historical problem with the use of the term "Capitalism" is that the capitalists, meaning those who have acquired (either legitimately or illegitimately) significant amounts of capital and wealth, have been some of the fiercest opponents of the laissez-faire market. Anti-market capitalism has in fact been the norm rather than the exception in world history. This isn't true, either, unless you very carefully cherry pick your examples. Laissez-faire capitalism is a common goal among reigning capitalists, and there are many examples of conservatives attempting to repeal or curtail regulation in order to push a laissez-faire capitalism agenda. There are, of course, other examples where capitalists have pushed for new legislation that would restrict markets. quote:States rarely arise in the beginning because the masses of society spontaneously rise up and agree that for practical or utilitarian reasons they must have an expansive State comprised of rulers who dominate them. States emerge in the beginning because there is a class of society who benefit from the power and cover to engage in naked exploitation that the State mythology provides. It is, in short, an effort to monopolize, cartelize and protect the immense wealth and property of powerful individuals that usually provides the impetus to form a State and subsequently expand political power over society. This isn't true, either. Many states evolved organically from the tendency of people to cluster together, protect one another, and share resources. quote:The idea of libertarianism as a quirky off-shoot of the right wing, or the Republican Party is a modern notion that is historically inaccurate. Historically, libertarianism has nothing in common with conservatism. Libertarianism is neither left nor right. However it could be argued that the intellectual tradition of libertarianism, rooted in the European Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism has much more in common with the left. Indeed, Frederic Bastiat and Lysander Spooner, to cite just two examples, were always considered a part of the left and none dared have the audacity to call them conservatives. It has much in common with conservatism: you both want to deregulate markets and allow unfettered capitalism to reign supreme. Some conservatives want to engage in what you call "anti-market capitalism", but many believe in the same laissez-faire capitalism in which you yourself believe. quote:The audio is only an hour or so long. This essay was written in the 1960s when Rothbard made common ground and formed coalitions with the New Left against the Vietnam War and many other important issues. He made effort to resurrect the forgotten leftist origins of libertarianism. Basically, he argued that it was always a mistake to consider "Socialism" to be a far left ideology. To the contrary, he saw libertarianism to be "far left" and conservatism, fascism, theocracy and other Statist ideologies to be "far right". The fatal error of the new "Social Democrats" that emerged at the beginning to the middle of the twentieth century was that they tried to use the State to achieve liberal ends. That could be due to the vast number of cases where State power was successfully used to achieve those or similar ends. You may not like it, but you have to admit that state power works when wielded effectively. quote:Rothbard calls Socialism a "confused, middle of the road ideology", a "centrist" ideology of sorts. It is really the anarchists and anti-Statists who are on the far left. This is an arbitrary redefinition of terms quote:On the other hand, modern day social democrats and progressives view the State in an entirely illogical way. To them, the State is akin, or can be made to behave, like the Red Cross. The State, in their view, can be used as a benevolent provider of social services like healthcare and as an effective policer of corporate Wall Street crime. The State can solve social problems. This despite decades of evidence to the contrary. The utter failure of State action to alleviate social ills hardly need even be recounted. It is plainly obvious to those with eyes to see. The state can solve social problems. It has solved a great many social problems throughout history. Social problem: the elderly are dying in droves because they don't have any retirement savings. Solution: everyone pays into a form of public insurance that provides a basic income to the elderly. This was and still is an effective policy that has saved the lives of millions of elderly people. There are countless others. The only way in which all of these examples are considered "failures" is if you arbitrarily redefine "success". There are a plethora of social problems that are not easily solvable by private entities but that are easily solvable with a strong central government. quote:As Rothbard said, Socialists are a confused bunch who are attempting to achieve liberal ends using incompatible conservative means. That's because Rothbard decided to arbitrarily redefine the terms "liberal" and "conservative". That doesn't make Rothbard insightful, it makes Rothbard an idiot quote:The motivating factor for the Progressive Era reforms, from the creation of the Federal Reserve central bank, to the antitrust legislation and other State encroachments and interventions into the private economy were enacted at the behest of private industry as a way of monopolizing. As Kolko explains, this was an act of "Political Capitalism". The surest way to create a monopoly and protect private capital is to buy political power and create favorable regulations which benefit you but hurt your competitors. Antitrust legislation and monopoly busting were implemented so that capitalists could more easily implement monopolies? Surely you must see how this is obviously wrong. quote:
I don't have time to read all of this poo poo. Just give us your arguments in your own words quote:I think you all are conditioned by your exposure to Ayn Rand acolytes or conservatives who posture as libertarians or who have appropriated that term to understand the actual tradition of laissez-faire market anarchism and classical liberalism. If you could come to understand the truly anti-liberal inherent nature of the State and more fully explore the ways in which free individuals under conditions of liberty and mutual exchange could far more ably achieve the social ends that are at the core of liberal thought, then I would hope you could abandon your Statism and rediscover anarchy and the primacy of the individual. A decentralized society can flourish without being violently dominated by an entrenched oligarchy of Capitalists who have purchased the political class. Remember that the State is the tool by which the political Capitalists dominate the proletariat. Without the privilege of economic regulation, cheap money financing subsidies by the central bank, and the myriad ways the law is perverted to prop up the corporate class, a freed market would ably dissipate the ill gotten property and profits of an oligarchical class. Why is it that so many other libertarians are Ayn Rand acolytes, then? Is it your belief that they're just posers?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:34
|
|
LIBERTARIAN BOOK CLUB
|
sudo rm -rf posted:The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that libertarianism is a gutless philosophy for cowards. Not just cowards and racists, but bigots of all sorts are welcome in the libertarian party*! *Offer only valid for affluent white males.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Although Nozick rowed back from his Libertarianism some way in later life, tbf. I didn't know this, and I'd love to read about it. Is that where his defense of a minimal state came in, or was that still part of his libertarian period?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:A reminder: Yeah, while this "reset" is amusing and all, I'd like some actual explication about why the terrible, horrible, no good NHS kicks the US Health Care Systems rear end by most every metric.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
And we've had these discussions on the evolution of the state and the meaning of words before. Jrod, answer the rebuttals from before, you gigantic coward. E: also it's not your anti-statism but your worship of property rights that makes you a terrible person. It really does you haven't paid attention at all that you assume being pro-state is what separates us. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Yeah, while this "reset" is amusing and all, I'd like some actual explication about why the terrible, horrible, no good NHS kicks the US Health Care Systems rear end by most every metric. 1) "It isn't!" or 2) "Well while on the surface it may appear that NHS is superior by just about any metric you care to name, have you considered that *impenetrable wall of garbage feverishly arguing that the real problem with US healthcare is doctors have to be licensed to practice and you aren't allowed to prescribe colloidal silver for cancer patients*" Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Yeah, while this "reset" is amusing and all, I'd like some actual explication about why the terrible, horrible, no good NHS kicks the US Health Care Systems rear end by most every metric. It doesn't kick the US's rear end on the cancer survival metric (though the reasons for that are complex). Speaking as a British person who likes the NHS, Americans especially should avoid turning it in to a romantic image. It is essentially a very efficient and cost-effective system. It is not amazing or breathakingly effective - we just get a lot for what we put in, which is not a lot or enough. Like yes it's way better than America and America should have universal healthcare but the NHS is not amazing and other models are useful to look at too. Also remember that British people have a particularly big attachment to the NHS emotionally so it always scores high on surveys.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why do I continue to post here? That is a question I sometimes ask myself. In the first place, I think that it is good practice to write on a regular basis. On the second hand, I find it fascinating the sort of people who post here. It can be hard to turn away from such a spectacle. Its cheaper than hiring a $500 an hour mistress to dominate the poo poo out of your obvious masochistic needs? Moreover, its you. You are the spectacle. quote:I am going to attempt to do a "reset" of sorts to this thread. I want to restate my beliefs and central argument because I see people continually distorting and misunderstanding what I have tried to get across. Even a halfhearted attempt at genuinely comprehending my argument would be appreciated. You have "Reset" probably a dozen times or more in the years you have been coming here. You come back and go "I don't want to talk about X, lets talk about Y!" and people poo poo all over Y before you inevitably decide to switch to Z, or more likely to X. X in this example is how racist as gently caress most of your idols are. (Countdown to "They aren't racist blowup in 5... 4.... 3...) Way to come back an insult the people in this thread in your first two paragraphs by the way. I'm sure this time our ignorant selves will see your greatness. quote:I don't consider myself a supporter of "Capitalism". I actually abhor the word and I think it obfuscates and confuses modern audiences who don't understand that the sort of economic order that the proponent of laissez-faire supports is in stark contrast to any notion of capitalism as it has been popularly understood. Capitalism was always used as a pejorative which has connotations that are designed to elicit images of a sort of neo-Feudalism where the masses are made to be subjugated at the feet of those who have "Capital" and wealth. While Karl Marx didn't invent the term "capitalism", he shares a great responsibility for popularizing the term and subsequent Marxist and Socialist intellectuals have never failed to use the word to demonize a grab bag of Progressive targets of scorn, from Corporate power to "greed" to various accusations of exploitation of labor, and so forth. But what has this to do with the market as advocated for by principled libertarians and individualist anarchists of centuries past? Very little, if anything. I bet you if I went back through the thread I could find multiple examples of you saying how much you love capitalism and think it is the best thing ever. But I can't be assed to. You win this round Jrod  quote:In an absolute technical sense, "Capitalism" can be accurate in describing the laissez faire market. The economic definition of capitalism is merely "the private ownership of the means of production". Since libertarians don't believe in State ownership over the means of production, but rather in the right of free people to homestead unused land and freely contract with that justly acquired property, this definition of "capitalism" is accurate. The means of production WOULD be privately owned since we are not communists and are defenders of JUST private property rights. Are we teaching like... Social Studies 8 in this thread or something? Do you not think we understand the loving definition of capitalism? Seriously Jrod, why are these words here? You could eliminate this entire section of your treatise and it wouldn't really make much of a different? Also, LOL @ JUST private property rights. I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here, but did you see the recent second interview between Walter Block and Sam Seder? If not, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulMRmIALBX8 One of the really great parts of this interview involves when Sam asks Walter how they came by their definition of property rights. Walter Block is trying to argue that Naitive Americans would only be entitled to perhaps a couple percent of the US because they couldn't have homesteaded the entire USA, and Sam is asking him for how he defines homesteaded. Its actually a really telling argument because the end result is... whatever the gently caress they feel like. Your suggestion of JUST property rights is utterly pointless because your definition of how those property rights are derived is utterly arbitrary. If I dig a hold in the ground and jam my dick in it have I 'cultivated' the land or whatever bullshit you think I need to do? More realistically lets say I plant one olive tree. Does that mean I own that acre of land? Or Twenty acres? Or do I just own the tree itself? Do I own the ground under the tree? The actual fact of the matter isn't important because what is actually crucial in this discussion is the fact that no matter what methodology you are using to derive property rights, its based entirely upon subjective opinion, usually an opinion that happens to coincide with what is best for you. There is no such thing as JUST property rights because property rights are a hairless monkey's way of stifling conflict by way of agreement, not some universal moral standard. My version of taxation and statehood is just as valid as your dick holes in the ground, its just mine is accepted by enough people to be the dominant system. quote:But why would we emphasize the dominance of capital over other equally valid and important aspects of a free society? Since it is an a priori truth about human action that voluntarily agreed to economic trade is expected by all parties participating of their own volition to improve their well being, then we could just as easily single out workers with equally limited but no less true labels like "laborist" or consumers with a label like "consumerist". They miss the point entirely. Singling out any aspect of a free society and putting an "-ist" or "-ism" on the end of it naturally implies that the singled out group is benefited at the expense of other groups. What is this bullshit about a priori human action doing here? Get the gently caress out of my house a priori! Seriously, what the gently caress are you even talking about? This word soup makes no sense to me. Voluntarily agreed to economic trade is expected by all parties participating of their own volition to improve their well being? What? Is that a sentence? Is that even english? Am I going insane? It seems to me what you are saying is "People agree to voluntarily trade to improve their own well being" which in no way equates to what I think you mean "People will always trade fairly so we can't single out capitalists". quote:The other historical problem with the use of the term "Capitalism" is that the capitalists, meaning those who have acquired (either legitimately or illegitimately) significant amounts of capital and wealth, have been some of the fiercest opponents of the laissez-faire market. Anti-market capitalism has in fact been the norm rather than the exception in world history. And your proof of this is...? Where? Up your rear end? Oh that makes sense then. I mean I think what you are saying is that most rich people like to try and engage in regulatory capture to protect their business interests. Thats fair enough I suppose, though I'd argue that in the absense of government they'd simply engage in other sort of captures such as "Kidnapping and beating my competitor's daughter with a led pipe until they agree to sell" as was so popular in the gilded age but, meh. quote:States rarely arise in the beginning because the masses of society spontaneously rise up and agree that for practical or utilitarian reasons they must have an expansive State comprised of rulers who dominate them. States emerge in the beginning because there is a class of society who benefit from the power and cover to engage in naked exploitation that the State mythology provides. It is, in short, an effort to monopolize, cartelize and protect the immense wealth and property of powerful individuals that usually provides the impetus to form a State and subsequently expand political power over society. ... Yeah no. Get hosed. You are straight up making things up here unless your definition of 'state' is that of a modern nation. History tells us that people banded together in communities that were effectively small states because they understood the inherent advantages involved in having a society. True the feudal period largely involved strong men such as you are suggesting but modern states largely arise out of popular will, what with the whole 'democracy' thing that has been all the rage for the last few years. quote:If capitalism is merely defined as the private ownership of the means of production, this definition also applies quite well to all manner of State dominated and totalitarian societies where capital indeed is privately owned but naked exploitation and violence is a central feature of society. What is your point? Yes a lovely totalitarian society that has private ownership of wealth is capitalist, just like a lovely libertarian 'utopia' is a capitalist society. Both are really lovely because capitalism is lovely, and on top of that both are lovely for other reasons (Brutal government/Total lack of societal protections) quote:That is why there are a growing number of libertarians who advocate that we drop this term entirely because it serves no useful purpose. While we might understand and be able to articulate what Ludwig von Mises meant by using the term "Capitalism", it has long outlived its purpose. That's nice. quote:I will link to several important articles to further elucidate this position through this post. The first that I feel is relevant is Sheldon Richman's article titled "Free Market Anti-Captialism, The Unknown Ideal": As another poster pointed out, do you think that we will jump on libertarianism's dick because you describe it as leftism? Or that you are somehow better because you are more left than us? This may surprise you but unlike you we are not defined by the labels we give ourselves. I don't wake up shivering in the night worried I might not one day be a socialist, and the only reason I define myself as left at all is that it is a useful descriptor when I attempt to explain my politics to someone. No one gives a poo poo about how you define yourself, we care about your ideas and your ideas are awful. quote:The audio is only an hour or so long. This essay was written in the 1960s when Rothbard made common ground and formed coalitions with the New Left against the Vietnam War and many other important issues. He made effort to resurrect the forgotten leftist origins of libertarianism. Basically, he argued that it was always a mistake to consider "Socialism" to be a far left ideology. To the contrary, he saw libertarianism to be "far left" and conservatism, fascism, theocracy and other Statist ideologies to be "far right". The fatal error of the new "Social Democrats" that emerged at the beginning to the middle of the twentieth century was that they tried to use the State to achieve liberal ends. Oh, only. Whew. Do you seriously not see a problem with saying "Oh just listen to this hour long rambling of your ideological opponent to get sort of an idea of the point I am failing to get across. Small quote Jrod, that will actually bolster your idea, I'm not here to argue with a dead man. quote:The socialists of past and present claim to support the goals of the classical liberals and anarchists, such as a strong middle class, protection of the environment, policing the business practices of the banks and very wealthy, supporting the labor movement, protecting the environment and things of that nature. They professed allegiance to the common man and not the oligarchs. Uh... the socialists of the past and present do support those goals. And the socialists of the past and present did a pretty bang up job of actually working to achieve those goals. By contrast the libertarians of the past and present have actively attacked the entivornment, banking regulation, labor regulation, and so forth. Also you said protecting the environment twice and that is funny to me. quote:Rothbard calls Socialism a "confused, middle of the road ideology", a "centrist" ideology of sorts. It is really the anarchists and anti-Statists who are on the far left. Rothbard also called for a free market in human children. Forgive me if I do not give even a single gently caress what Murray Rothbard thinks about anything. quote:Frederic Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudon used to have many spirited arguments and correspondence. Proudon was a mutualist anarchist and Bastiat was a private property liberal, but nevertheless both viewed each other as fellow leftists who were explicitly anti-Statist. The disagreement came down to what is just private property and the role of interest and things of that nature. Proudon sadly believed in a version of the Labor Theory of Value which has been entirely discredited. Yet Proudon was a great mind and opposed the State with a great passion. ... what is the point of this? You don't follow up on it in your next paragraph. Do you think we care what a couple of centuries dead philosophers thought about your ideology, an ideology that didn't' actually take shape until the 1960's? quote:Coming back to contemporary politics for a moment, a central difference between modern liberals and modern conservatives is in their understanding of the very nature of State action. A great deal of the modern Right-Wing actually understand that the State is force, the State is violence. It is a blunt instrument with which to force compliance, to intimidate and to crack some skulls. The great problem of course is that even with this understanding, they SUPPORT the State doing these things! They embrace the violence of the State. The state is also Social Security, and Healthcare, and roads, and food safety, and research and so very much more. But no go on talking about how the only thing the state does is violence, I enjoy watching you cry.  Pictured: JRodefeld quote:Conservatives use the State to bomb Iraq and "go get those Muslims". They favor being "tough on crime" and unleashing the police to lock people in cages for acting in ways they don't approve (see the War on Drugs and the actions of Mayor Guiliani in New York City). Neither of these are things anyone here supports. I'm glad we agree this is dumb. quote:On the other hand, modern day social democrats and progressives view the State in an entirely illogical way. To them, the State is akin, or can be made to behave, like the Red Cross. The State, in their view, can be used as a benevolent provider of social services like healthcare and as an effective policer of corporate Wall Street crime. The State can solve social problems. This despite decades of evidence to the contrary. The utter failure of State action to alleviate social ills hardly need even be recounted. It is plainly obvious to those with eyes to see. Decades of evidence to the contrary? Really? You might want to get on that and call my doctor yesterday because that fucker has been severely undercharging me for thirty one years. I am a little worried because if people catch on then my parents in law might realize that the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) cheques they have been getting shouldn't be cashed even though they are their sole source of income. Seriously Jrod, its poo poo like this that just makes you seem pathetic. You can make the argument than these could be done better through the private market place, but to pretend that the state can't provide universal healthcare when Every major first world country provides UHC at a lower cost and equal efficiency as the United States is absurd. You look like some sort of autistic man child who can't tell the difference between fact and fiction anymore. quote:As Rothbard said, Socialists are a confused bunch who are attempting to achieve liberal ends using incompatible conservative means. As Rothbard also said: "4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." Explain to me again why Rothbard thinks Judge Dredd is a role model rather than a cautionary tale? quote:As my third article I wish to cite, I want to recall the great New Left historian Gabrielle Kolko's seminal "The Triumph of Conservatism": Really? The reasons are counfounding to you? Here, let me reiterate them and lets see if you pick up on it: quote:"Under no circumstances,” he wrote, “should I be listed in your Registry, or thought to be in any manner a supporter of your exotic political position. If anything proves my thesis that American conservative ideology is more a question of intelligence than politics, it has been the persistent use of my works to buttress your position. It wasn't just that he was not a libertarian, it was that he was actively opposed to your ideology. It is that he threatened reason magazine with legal action for calling him a libertarian and stated that in no uncertain terms should his thoughts on the matter ever be used to lend credence to your ideology. The man would literally punch you in the face and explain to you in careful detail why and how you are misusing your work were he still alive. And yet somehow this confounds you? quote:The motivating factor for the Progressive Era reforms, from the creation of the Federal Reserve central bank, to the antitrust legislation and other State encroachments and interventions into the private economy were enacted at the behest of private industry as a way of monopolizing. As Kolko explains, this was an act of "Political Capitalism". The surest way to create a monopoly and protect private capital is to buy political power and create favorable regulations which benefit you but hurt your competitors. The idea that anti-trust legislation was enacted at the behest of private industry to assist with monopolization is so...  that I can't even... my brain has no words.Jrod, it was not illegal to run a monopolistic cartel before Sherman Anti-trust. That was the loving point of it. Jesus christ. You know nothing, Jrod. Social Security: Entrenching the Power of Capitalists Everywhere quote:These confused, middle of the road socialists had attained such a coup at the end of two world wars that the right-wing for political reasons had claimed to oppose FDR's New Deal and to roll back these "Progressive Era" changes. Despite the fact that Conservatives and the Right-wing had never genuinely believed in limited government or laissez-faire markets, some in the modern day libertarian movement had formed an uneasy alliance with the right wing of the Republican Party which continues in some form today. They also formed an alliance with white supremacists if you will recall your history. Oh wait, am I not supposed to talk abou that? quote:This is the origin of the idea that libertarianism is some quirky off shoot of the Republican Party. Only those with an abysmal understanding of the history of liberal thought and the anarchist tradition could think such things. And we must not underemphasize the effect of the Koch Brothers in distorting the public perception of libertarianism through their "inside D.C" think tanks like Cato. You are aware that the libertarian movement's first big think tank FEE was itself funded as a PR project by military industrial and other corporate lobbying firms right? The peopel who coined the loving term "Libertarianism" were founded by.. well you know I'll let the quote speak for itself: quote:A partial list of FEE’s original donors in its first four years— a list discovered by the Buchanan Committee — includes: The Big Three auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford; top oil majors including Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; major steel producers US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; major retailers including Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemicals majors Monsanto and DuPont; and other Fortune 500 corporations including General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich, ConEd, and more. I recommend reading the whole article, even though it amuses me that you think your ideology somehow didn't spring from the loins of big business. quote:Left libertarians like Gary Chartier like to refer to the sort of "libertarians" who populate places like The Cato Institute as "vulgar libertarians" because they tend to provide crude apologia for existing corporate and business power and capital when in reality much of this wealth is illegitimate as the economy is shot through with State privilege that would be absent in a genuinely free market laissez-faire economy. They also outnumber AnCaps by several orders of magnitude. You are the fringe subset of a fringe ideology. Sucks doesn't it? quote:That is why I prefer to use the term "freed market" rather than "free market". Free market sounds as if you are describing something that exists and has existed in any widespread capacity in modern nation-States. Freed market implies that something must be done to "free" said market from the scourge of State granted privilege which protects Capital and existing wealth and prevents social justice from commencing through voluntary economic action which, unless otherwise impeded through law and government force, would whittle away the privileged wealth of the capitalist class into a more just configuration. #Freedmarket Markets as we know them would not function in absence of the state and associated things like law enforcement, interstate commerce etc. Thanks for playing tho! quote:I have recently been reading a book that explores the history of left libertarianism and market anarchism that I really hope you will read and comment upon. Nope. quote:The tradition of libertarian thought and anti-statism, and the implications of the laissez faire market economy are far more wide ranging and complex that most of you have probably recognized. There are mutualist thinkers like Proudon who make an appearance in the pages of this great collection, but there are also individuals like Benjamin Tucker, Gary Chartier, Roderick Long and Carl Hess. Even modern day movement libertarians like Sheldon Richman, Charles Johnson, and Mary Ruwart contribute essays relating their views on free market anti-capitalism. Even Murray Rothbard has an essay that makes the cut. It is important to remember that prior to Rothbard's late period "paleo" phase, he was an advocate for rediscovering libertarianisms leftist routes and he contributed a great number of essays towards correcting the modern fallacies of the political spectrum. The aforementioned essay "Left, Right and the Prospects for Liberty" is an example of that. I love it when you throw all these names at us like you think we give a gently caress who you are talking about. I recognize four names from that list and I've been debating with libertarians for half a decade and was a libertarian myself for years before that. No one gives a poo poo. quote:Gary Chartier – Advocates of Freed Markets Should Oppose Capitalism Lol, you can't even come up with your own bullshit buzz word and had to steal Freed Markets from Gary Chartier. Actually judging from the title of that article I sort of feel like you are just baby birding this essay back to us. Do you ever have any original ideas of your own? Or do you just read something from some libertarian you worship and go "This is my new ideology!" I ask because I recall about four or five times when you've done poo poo like this, like when you were on that shtick with Hans Hermann Hoppe and you were talking about Forced Integration after reading it in one of his essays without realizing that what he was talking about was how great segregation was. quote:I do hope you will listen to some of these essays. Most are quite short and to the point. My libertarians, such as Walter Block, are strictly "thin" libertarians which means that they believe that libertarianism ought to be defined as the non-aggression principle and an explicit and limited statement on what rights human beings have and when force is or is not justified, what constitutes private property, etc. Some of the above would be considered "thick" libertarians who expand their definition of libertarianism to more broadly discuss the effects of following through on laissez-faire economic policies and the dismantling of the State. I'm going to be honest with you Jrod. I'm not reading any of that poo poo. quote:However you might want to think of Chartier and someone like Walter Block as miles different in their ideology, I would strongly disagree. Gary Chartier, who spent over twenty years as a leftist but who rediscovered libertarianism and rededicated himself to the cause, is better able to explain the effects of libertarianism on society in ways that left-wing individuals ought to empathize with. No I'd believe most of them are pretty close if they're on your crazy list. quote:But there is VERY little in "Markets Not Capitalism" that I can disagree with. Honest question Jrod, but did you just read this book? Because I swear to god it feels to me like I know the reason to your question above at last. Why are you here? Well you just read this book about Markets Not Capitalism and have decided to come here and tell us all about it. quote:I think you all are conditioned by your exposure to Ayn Rand acolytes or conservatives who posture as libertarians or who have appropriated that term to understand the actual tradition of laissez-faire market anarchism and classical liberalism. If you could come to understand the truly anti-liberal inherent nature of the State and more fully explore the ways in which free individuals under conditions of liberty and mutual exchange could far more ably achieve the social ends that are at the core of liberal thought, then I would hope you could abandon your Statism and rediscover anarchy and the primacy of the individual. A decentralized society can flourish without being violently dominated by an entrenched oligarchy of Capitalists who have purchased the political class. Remember that the State is the tool by which the political Capitalists dominate the proletariat. Without the privilege of economic regulation, cheap money financing subsidies by the central bank, and the myriad ways the law is perverted to prop up the corporate class, a freed market would ably dissipate the ill gotten property and profits of an oligarchical class. Do you really think this? I've talked to you since like... November 2013 at least, probably way longer. Do you really think that we don't understand what you are selling? Do you really think we just don't understand your points and that if you only twist them and redefine them this way, or that way that we'll go "Ohhhh, that state is violence. Duh. Down with Statism!" I liked you better when you were gone and I could pretend that you had seen the light and were living a happy life free of this garbage.  quote:Either way, I do hope you will read, listen and consider some of the arguments made in the various essays and audio files I have linked to above. A productive discussion is just waiting to emerge on this thread, I just know it. With you? I really doubt it at this point but who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Yeah, while this "reset" is amusing and all, I'd like some actual explication about why the terrible, horrible, no good NHS kicks the US Health Care Systems rear end by most every metric. Jrod will never answer this, so I'll do my best to channel his thinking. When his back's been against the wall on other topics, he's explained that he's not a utilitarian*: the ends cannot justify the means, no matter how good those ends might be. No amount of healthy and non-bankrupt patients can redeem a healthcare system built around government regulation (ie MEN WITH GUNS!), in the same way that no amount of cheap t-shirts can redeem a third-world sweatshop. The only difference is that Jrod would disagree with us on which of those two is barbaric abuse and which is totally reasonable and moral. *Not the actual definition of utilitarian, but the "you're not libertarian so therefore you must think Omelas is paradise" definition.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Jrod will never answer this, so I'll do my best to channel his thinking. When his back's been against the wall on other topics, he's explained that he's not a utilitarian*: the ends cannot justify the means, no matter how good those ends might be. No amount of healthy and non-bankrupt patients can redeem a healthcare system built around government regulation (ie MEN WITH GUNS!), in the same way that no amount of cheap t-shirts can redeem a third-world sweatshop. The only difference is that Jrod would disagree with us on which of those two is barbaric abuse and which is totally reasonable and moral. But he actually hasn't addressed this at this level. His initial claim was that 'more government equals more worse!'. He has never retreated from that stance nor has he admitted that this was an error on his part, regardless of that stupid 'utilitarian' bullshit he peddled for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Jrode do you really think it's going to work when you say poo poo like "actually free markets are the most leftist position" like you can trick anyone into being a libertarian through bad wordplay? I'm just kidding, I know you won't answer this or any other questions, please kill yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Caros please do not tak about Judge Dredd like he isn't good mostly because defamation of the law is a crime, creep
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Caros please do not tak about Judge Dredd like he isn't good mostly because defamation of the law is a crime, creep No! I can't go back to the cubes!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
The crime is life the sentence is having to read and respond to all of Jrodes posts
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:The crime is life the sentence is having to read and respond to all of Jrodes posts I'd prefer his original sentencing, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:49
|
|