|
jrodefeld posted:While I certainly appreciate the recommendations, I think you may have misunderstood what I was requesting. My argument, to put it bluntly, is that libertarian market anarchism is the best and most morally justified way of organizing society. Since you all object, I was hoping for a more targeted refutation of liberalism. Eat poo poo you retarded cultist. It's our fault for falling for it (well not mine because I knew you would never read a new book), but what a pile of poo poo you are. God forbid you add to your value by ever reading another book. And you're proud of it. Get cancer.
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Another interesting question (at least to me) is something Sam Seder brought up recently on his podcast: Why don''t incremental steps towards a freer market always lead to better outcomes? This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. What do you mean by "better outcomes"? From whose perspective? Value is subjective, so the measurement of society-wide "utility" or value or happiness is a fruitless task. The "free" market merely refers to that part of the economy where human interactions are voluntary. That is all it means. You say the move towards "freer" markets leads to more and more suffering? If you rephrase that to be more clear, you would be saying "the more human interaction is made peacefully and mutually and less violently coerced, the more human suffering occurs". This is preposterous. Look at any other aspect of human life or society and think were the removal of violence in a given society leads to MORE human suffering. Most people would argue that violence and conflict are at the very heart of human suffering. Libertarians look at a given problem and say "is violence morally justified in this situation?" "Are human rights being violated?" If Sam Seder would stop hiding being abstractions, we could see what he REALLY means. What situation specifically is the removal of coercion causing increased human suffering? Then I would ask him (and you) to justify why the initiation of coercion is morally justified. For those initiating the violence, why are they allowed to have the right to act in a manner that is prohibited to the rest of society? If there is injustice being done according to principles of human rights that libertarians ascribe to, we will oppose it without concern for "society", as that is merely an abstraction. If the principle of body ownership and the just appropriation of resources AKA property acquisition is flawed in some way, then argue with us on that level. But don't use abstractions to hide from the plain truth of things. Sam Seder saying "moving towards free markets leads to human suffering" is simply a nonsense statement.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Oh look more is coming out! Jrod you need to read some of the books that were recommended to you. If you intended to communicate "I won't actually read those books" instead of "I will read those books" then you failed in communicating.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the principle of body ownership and the just appropriation of resources AKA property acquisition is flawed in some way, then argue with us on that level. But don't use abstractions to hide from the plain truth of things. Sam Seder saying "moving towards free markets leads to human suffering" is simply a nonsense statement. The argument you have been presented with countless times, and then ignored, is that social policy based on libertarian principles of just property acquisition lead to outcomes that make most people worse off than they would otherwise have been. You have ignored this style of argument in favor of talking (sloppily) about foundational principles. That is: you are guilty of ignoring the concrete argument in favor of abstraction. Here's how you can fix this: propose one policy that (e.g.) the United Stated could adopt today, tell us how it is justified on libertarian grounds, then either tell us why it conduces to human flourishing, or else tell us why it doesn't matter. And please try to do this without relying on someone else for the bulk and substance of the argument.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
I'll be goddamned, I thought for sure jrod had turned tail and ran again, but looks like he managed to work up half a nut's worth of courage. And then the first thing he responds with is "B-b-b-b-but I don't wanna read books that aren't about libertarianism!  " What a pathetic child you are. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Good God jrod, at this point I just want you to focus on the critique of your communication skills. You really are just a horrible writer, even amongst libertarian posters.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Good God jrod, at this point I just want you to focus on the critique of your communication skills. You really are just a horrible writer, even amongst libertarian posters. If goal is to obscure the fact that he's incapable of forming a coherent argument, then it's actually quite good.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Shine on. But really, this makes no sense at all. You're arguing A>B. We point out A, !B, and you come back with "WELL YOU'RE LOOKING AT B WRONG." (To make it clear, A is free markets, B is human wellbeing.)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I say that? This is a libelous statement if there ever was one. Jrodefeld in this loving thread posted:A lot of it had to do with war and foreign policy initially, I am a younger guy so my political views were formed in the post 9/11 era. I saw what happened to America during the Bush Administration. I witnessed the Iraq War, I knew people who went over to Iraq and fought for a lie. I was in high school when 9/11 happened and for a short time I bought into the propaganda about how "everything changed" and we needed to go to war to punish "those guys". But even for a teenager the whole thing seemed to be rotten to the core and I felt like people were using this event to transform this country for the worse. You can argue that you came to it all on your own, but you yourself made mention of the fact that your mom was a libertarian, and if you want to pretend like that didn't have any impact on where you ended up I'm going to laugh at you and call you a liar. You sure as gently caress can't sue anyone over it, you loving goober.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:You can argue that you came to it all on your own, but you yourself made mention of the fact that your mom was a libertarian, and if you want to pretend like that didn't have any impact on where you ended up I'm going to laugh at you and call you a liar. You sure as gently caress can't sue anyone over it, you loving goober. Judge: "What charges are being brought against the defendant by the plaintiff?" jrod: " He said I became a Libertarian because my mommy was one too!"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Is jrod the first libertarian for whom it's not even rebellion, who is just following their parent into it like a baby duck? Oh that's right, Rand Paul is one of those too. Don't you think it's time to cut the apron strings jrod?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:While I certainly appreciate the recommendations, I think you may have misunderstood what I was requesting. My argument, to put it bluntly, is that libertarian market anarchism is the best and most morally justified way of organizing society. Since you all object, I was hoping for a more targeted refutation of liberalism. Jrod, I hate to break it to you but you aren't going to find books refuting your garbage An-Capism because frankly it isn't popular enough to really deserve it. You espouse a rump ideology of a rump ideology taken up by at most thousands of people, one with no social or political clout of measure. There simply isn't any interest in refuting your ideas on the academic level because frankly no one other than internet goons like us really give a poo poo. Perhaps you should read some of the literature posted here anywhere. quote:I've heard it said a few times in this thread that I am not doing my own tradition justice. Other times it has been claimed that, while there are indeed deep and serious thinkers who are libertarians, or the intellectual forefathers of libertarian thought, I instead rely on "unserious" people like Rothbard, Walter Block, and Ron Paul. I don't think anyone here actually agrees that there are deep and serious thinkers in the libertarian sphere since that is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. You have some an-capist thinkers who are not huge shithead racists who want to see the world burn so they can run their own little fiefdoms with the natural social elite, and there as some who are more eloquent by they are still working off faulty premises. quote:The very fact that you have recommended books by John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederick Hayek and Robert Nozick (many of whose work I have read) seems to indicate that you consider them serious thinkers who have made significant contributions to economics, political theory and philosophy. Here is a hint, the loony fringe ones are the ones that tend to explicitly support an-capism. They're also the racist, sexist, or just generally ignorent as gently caress ones like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard. We make fun of you when you quote Rothbard because the man supported a KKK leader for senate and talked about selling children, how is this hard to understand that he is taken less serious than someone like Hayek who, while wrong, was a reasonable individual with ideas that were actually worthy of discussing. quote:Tom Woods often quips about the 3x5 card of "allowable opinion". It is a corny line but one with undeniable truth to it. There are intellectuals who have made arguments that I find reprehensible yet I don't feel any compulsion to "banish" them from respectable society if they have contributed significantly to any field of study. Yet this tendency to make outcasts of certain people for no other apparent reason than they strayed too far out of the mainstream is troubling to say the least. No, there is no truth to it. You have every right to say whatever you want regarding your ideolgoy, but the rest of us have no requirement to take you seriously. We aren't shouting you down because your ideas are outisde the 'mainstream maaaaan'. We are shouting you down because you are wrong and the people most loudly speaking for your cause tend to talk about selling babies, secession and other things that no normal person thinks are in any way a good loving idea. quote:Frederick Hayek is respectable. We can even award him the Nobel Prize. Ludwig von Mises,. his teacher, is not respectable even though he pioneered the work that Hayek won the Nobel Prize for. Rothbard wanted us to go Judge Dredd on the 'thugs' and punish them in the street without trial. Do you understand that? Do you understand how that prevents people from taking him seriously? quote:Again, I appreciate the suggestions but I am not looking for suggestions about libertarian literature at the moment. Rather I would like recommendations of the work that best sums up "YOUR" political views and/or effectively dismantles the libertarian argument. It's always valuable to be familiar with opposing points of view. I'm sure I have cited an awful lot more books and intellectuals who I feel have made persuasive points that defend my position than have any of you. Take SedanChair's advice and go read Caring is sharing before you post anymore. Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
quote:John Locke, Adam Smith They suggested you read these books so you understand the arguments you are parroting you clod. Locke and Smith are both at best, extremely antiquated, and at worst, morally reprehensible. But even they don't make as blunt and stupid an argument as you do. You don't even know the people you're quoting you loving clown.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
LVM is not respectable because he was a repulsive person who associated himself with fascists, defended imperialism even when it was on its wane, and thought the worse excesses of capitalism were great,. He was a male Ayn Rand except worse in every way. Also he turned off many in the libertarian community by accusing them of socialism for just discussing taxation.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 16:58
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And, to the extent that you feel I have sold my own position short, I'd appreciate a fuller explanation. What arguments that Nozick, for example, makes do you think are superior or more clarifying than the sort I have relied upon? He doesn't try to re-invent philosophy from the ground up in the absurd and ignorant way a lot of libertarians do. Praxeology and the philosophy built on it is just loving voodoo, even if it makes weird claims for itself. He's also engaged intellectually on a much deeper level with the critique of the ideology he is opposing (Rawls' distributive justice) than, say, Walter Block, who most people apart from you regard as basically living on the moon or another century intellectually. Nozick also had realisations later in his life that he had chased the libertarian argument to an extreme level and that there are undesirable social outcomes that can stem from it (especially the way rich people entrench their advantages). It is very hard for me to believe that you would continue to espouse the views you have in the way you do if you had been exposed to a wider range of materials and worked harder to understand them. And re: Hayek, I don't really regard him as that respectable, but libertarianism doesn't have a deep pool of respectable intellectual figures. The majority of his political writing, including The Road to Serfdom, is baloney. It is however enormously influential in the circles of the Republican party, and the British Conservative party, and therefore one has to take it seriously for that reason. I would still think you were wrong if you were a Hayekian min-statist but you would be a better interlocutor. Someone a bit more out of the beaten path for you to read would be TH Green who also experimented intellectually with the idea that people should be able to voluntary outlaw themselves from the state but ultimately came back around to believing in a minimal state with no voluntary outlawry. I prescribed Nozick for the same reason, because he also clawed back some of his libertarian views in later life. That's why they're useful for you in my opinion. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:05 on May 31, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I won't respond point by point here but I want to say a few general things about what you have said. In the first place, you read my last post without the slightest intention to comprehend what I was trying to say. I am trying to point out that the tradition of liberalism, of natural rights theory, of liberty and the sorts of argument propounded by modern libertarian thinkers is far more broad and sweeping than you are acknowledging. Liberalism, as a modern tradition, goes back at least 400 years with roots that go back even further. I am expressing the historical reality that, prior to the "Progressive Era" at the start of the 20th Century, proponents of market anarchism and liberalism articulated their views quite differently than do many modern libertarians. Being opposed to the State and in favor of markets did not equate to support for business power or corporate dominance as many in the mainstream left today would claim. The tradition of Liberalism has as much to do with modern day an-capism or libertarianism as I do with some distant ape ancestor. Your ideology might be pulling stuff from those old thinkers, or cloaking itself in their thoughts as a shield of legitimacy, but most of those people would loving laugh at you given the chance. I love when you quote Lysander Spooner as if he wouldn't kick you in the loving jaw once he heard the sum of your political position. quote:You yourself claimed that Gary Chartier was "one of the good ones" when it came to libertarianism because his values were more similar to your own, in contrast to those who you probably think are reactionary. I feel that Chartier and Richman and many others are doing nobel work in resurrecting the forgotten tradition of anarchism and anti-capitalist free markets. Some term this "left-libertarianism". Gary Chartier is one of the good ones in that the ones around him are racist, sexist bigots who worship the market as though it were a god. He is the best of a bad bunch, that should not be said that I agree with many of his positions, just that he isn't a total shithead like some of his contemporaries. quote:Much of this is about semantics but much of it is not. I think it would be a very interesting discussion if you would actually take a few minutes to scan some of the articles I posted or listen to a few of the chapters I selected from the "Markets not Capitalism" book and respond to the arguments contained. Again, we want to respond to you. If you want to talk about their ideas feel free. Otherwise please get hosed.  As for left libertarians, if you're talking anaracho-syndicalism I think its a bit misguided and isn't really going to be any more functional than Anarcho-capitalism, though it'd probably be more kind to the people while it lasted. quote:I really cannot believe that you posted a link to an AlterNet article. Alternet is akin to Salon in that they seem to specialize in cranking out uninformed and largely unsubstantiated smears of libertarianism Mises.Org. MISES.ORG MISES.ORG!  Seriously, even if I agreed with your statement you have posted dozens if not hundreds of Mises.Org links in this thread over the last year, which is to say you have posted hundreds of sloppy blowjobs in support of your ideology. quote:The fact that you posted this article (which I did read by the way) shows me how little you understood the point I was trying to get across. The narrative the left desperately wants to promote is that libertarianism is a modern aberration that was conceived by a handful of ultra rich financiers simply because it benefited their own pocketbook. Corporations love libertarianism, so the mythology goes, and if they had their way, they would destroy the State entirely and we'd all be subjugated at the feet of a small handful of monopolists without the State to protect us. If you read it, refute it. Seriously, do you actually contend that anything in that article is untrue? Do you disagree with publicly available information that shows that most of the large libertarian think tanks and publications, FEE, Reason, CATO etc were paid for entirely by business interests? Do you have anything to contend with the substance of this article? Or are you just going to scream and bitch that it is slander and mythology despite very real evidence being shoved into your face? quote:It is this mythology that people like Chartier and his fellow left-libertarians are desperately trying to dislodge from the minds of the mainstream left. The reality of freed markets is considerably different from what you think. As opposed to thin libertarians who more heavily rely on their articulation of first principles, and the primacy of the individual and non-aggression, left-libertarians spend a lot more time explaining the practical effects of genuinely freed markets on pollution, on the labor movement, on the environment and things of that nature. You know my favorite thing whenever you talk about Chartier? Its the fact that most people, hell, most libertarians have no loving idea who you are talking about. You cite him as if he is this big factor in your 'movement' but in reality he is a rump personality in your rump section of a rump ideology. Even most An-Caps don't give a poo poo about chartier, he has no impact outside of your deranged mind. quote:Leftist movements would be much more successful if they ceased relying on political action and instead relied on mass movements to remove artificial privilege provided by State enforced law. In short this means dismantling the State and allowing the market to "eat the rich" and provide for social justice and equality. They would probably also be more successful if anyone gave a gently caress about them. But no one cares. Because your ideas are unpopular to pretty much anyone who isn't a successful white male. Hope this helps. quote:I want to say something else about Gabrielle Kolko. You again misunderstood why I was quoting him. I never claimed he was a libertarian or agreed with myself, Rothbard or anyone else. But do you honestly not understand the difference between the role of a political theorist and a historian? Kolko is a historian. His book "The Triumph of Capitalism" is a work of revisionist history that seeks to explain how the conventional account of the Progressive Era is entirely backwards and misleading. It is about historical fact, about motivations and about correcting the record. What part of "He explicitly said that his work should in no way be taken to support libertarian thought" is hard for you to understand?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
The part where you put one word after another to form a coherent thought.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:52
|
|
Political Whores posted:They suggested you read these books so you understand the arguments you are parroting you clod. Locke and Smith are both at best, extremely antiquated, and at worst, morally reprehensible. But even they don't make as blunt and stupid an argument as you do. You don't even know the people you're quoting you loving clown. In the context of their time they were both pretty moral people tbh, and the whole point about me recommending The Theory of Moral Sentiments is to try to fill out Smith a bit more. Smith was writing in response to people saying that people are just selfish shits and incapable of altruism and trying to refute that.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is only an a priori truth about action if the action is being made without direct coercion. If people have choices, then the action they chose meant that they expressed their value preferences and expected to be made better off through that choice in comparison to any competing available choice. quote:Leftist movements would be much more successful if they ceased relying on political action and instead relied on mass movements to remove artificial privilege provided by State enforced law. In short this means dismantling the State and allowing the market to "eat the rich" and provide for social justice and equality. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What do you mean by "better outcomes"? From whose perspective? Value is subjective, so the measurement of society-wide "utility" or value or happiness is a fruitless task. Subjective =/ pointless. If I'm centralling planning healthcare, god forbid, and I'm reforming such-and-such program, and I decide utility is most lives saved, and then my reforms save lives, I succeeded. My success might be totally subjective, but that's a "problem" of having values, not a problem of measuring values. And by the way, the problem of all our values being subjective doesn't stop us from pursuing those objectives all the time. Austrians want you to believe that because we can't agree on what our goals should be as a society even achieving any chosen goal is like, mechanically impossible. The uncertainty of central planning in terms of its processes that Mises cares about is totally different from the uncertainty of morality.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is only an a priori truth about action if the action is being made without direct coercion. If people have choices, then the action they chose meant that they expressed their value preferences and expected to be made better off through that choice in comparison to any competing available choice. That's nice, but this a priori truth is directly contradicted by what we have actually empirically discovered about human neurology and psychology, so whatever beings this analytical definition is meant to describe, it's irrelevant to any economy made up of human beings. jrodefeld posted:I know that Mises was a utilitarian. Where did I ever say otherwise? And are you honestly implying that I can't be a "real" libertarian if I don't subscribe wholesale to everything that Mises ever wrote? It's actually super important, because if humans action isn't an unerring indicator of the actors' preferences, as we know it isn't, then even according to Von Mises' subjective theory of value, coercion can still result in better outcomes for everyone, and as his economic system is (ostensibly) justified by appealing to its success in achieving the best outcome, it fails. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:In the context of their time they were both pretty moral people tbh, and the whole point about me recommending The Theory of Moral Sentiments is to try to fill out Smith a bit more. Smith was writing in response to people saying that people are just selfish shits and incapable of altruism and trying to refute that. I would maintain that Locke's homesteading theory is pretty morally reprehensible in today's context even if it wouldn't have been considered so historically. It's hard not to read Locke and see direct connections to some of the worst excesses of classical liberalism.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:31
|
|
Political Whores posted:I would maintain that Locke's homesteading theory is pretty morally reprehensible in today's context even if it wouldn't have been considered so historically. It's hard not to read Locke and see direct connections to some of the worst excesses of classical liberalism. Oh sure, I just try not to think about them in those terms because it's not very useful as a historian to do so and I think about them mostly in historical terms.
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
I kind of implied it earlier but I think its more productive and practical to attack the inner narrative of libertarianism as Prestor John has illustrated. The narrative is that they're somehow different and more intellectually rigorous than republicans when in fact they are less and not even making the token effort of putting on airs of caring about any part of humanity outside their own potential subordinate property. They're perfectly well represented by the Republicans and their policy outcomes and giving them the credit that they are something more or different than a hump philosophy for the priviledged who are only possible through rejection of objective facts and parasitic consumption of the commons, is wrong. Call them what they are, dumber Republicans. As jrod has just once again illustrated, libertarianism has the same level of legitimacy as your neighbors facebook posting has in a policy discussion, oh sure its been around a while and someone may have even dressed it up in some superfluous academic sounding words but it still has zero intellectual rigor and is best addressed by removing it from your timeline. Libertarianism has no value jrod, you're a missionary of watermelon loving. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Ooh, more JRod posting. Now, I get more opportunities to critique his writing.jrodefeld posted:While I certainly appreciate the recommendations, I think you may have misunderstood what I was requesting. My argument, to put it bluntly, is that libertarian market anarchism is the best and most morally justified way of organizing society. Since you all object, I was hoping for a more targeted refutation of liberalism. To put it bluntly, you misused "to put it bluntly" here. It doesn't really make sense to use that phrasing here. For most people, "To put it bluntly" means to give someone some uncomfortable or unpleasant information without any attempt at sugarcoating it or by simplifying it to focus on a negative outcome. For example, if you were attempting to write for me professionally, I might say "To put it bluntly, your writing skills suck." This isn't pedantry. This is accuracy. You're trying to convince us that you're political viewpoints are correct and ideal, so why would you tell us that your argument is going to be unpleasant or uncomfortable? I believe you meant to say "My argument, to put it simply," instead of "bluntly." Now, we must attack whether or not that is your argument. To put it bluntly, you've done a terrible job of expressing your argument. For example, your last post lead with why you didn't consider yourself an anarchist before floating about so many different ideas and subjects that it just became, to put it bluntly, an unreadable mush. You've spent a lot of time recently discussing the history of your political theory, but you really haven't talked about the core ideas. There's no focus in your communication, which leads to you flailing wildly about trying to defend your views from every which way. quote:I've heard it said a few times in this thread that I am not doing my own tradition justice. Other times it has been claimed that, while there are indeed deep and serious thinkers who are libertarians, or the intellectual forefathers of libertarian thought, I instead rely on "unserious" people like Rothbard, Walter Block, and Ron Paul. To put it bluntly, I have no idea what you're trying to talk about here. There's no flow between your paragraphs. I have no idea where you are going, and so when I start reading stuff like this, I lose interest because I start to question "Well, why is he talking about this?" You're terrible about remaining on point. I also want to call out "It is a corny line but one with undeniable truth to it." To put it bluntly, this is a totally worthless sentence. Why would you be quoting it unless it added something to the conversation? I mean, like Smokey Robinson says, "If you feel like loving me and if you've got the notion, I second that emotion." What you say afterwards will show whether or not you support the idea or dismiss the idea. Also, your use of the word intellectuals confuses me. It's a pretty broad term and it means nothing. I also can't tell if you're using it pejoratively, like some people did in the 50s and 60s, especially in relation to Communism, or if you're just using it. quote:Frederick Hayek is respectable. We can even award him the Nobel Prize. Ludwig von Mises,. his teacher, is not respectable even though he pioneered the work that Hayek won the Nobel Prize for. To put it bluntly, this sounds like a child whining about how something isn't superficially fair. There's no details here about any of their ideas or their thoughts. Show me how Rothbard and Nozick are similar. Show me how Hayek and Mises are arguing on the same lines. What you've said here puts me in an unsupportable position because I have no idea what exactly you're discussing or where you're coming from. It would be easy for you to sidestep any counter argument by saying "Well, that's not what I meant" because there is no substance here. quote:I'm sure I have cited an awful lot more books and intellectuals who I feel have made persuasive points that defend my position than have any of you. To put it bluntly, this means nothing. First off, think about your audience. This is a message board, not an academic symposium. The need to rely on citations and quotations is less here because it is a more conversational style of communicating. Also, the number of citations mean nothing in comparison to your arguments. Look, to put it bluntly, you're poo poo at arguing with people. You can't hold your ground. You turn around and then say "Well, read this book or series of articles to better understand what I'm saying." You haven't countered anything anyone says. So yes. You have more citations. But your content is still of a lower quality than everyone else's.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
To be fair Cemetery, I think he's quite good at communicating one singular message, its just not the one he intends. "I cannot communicate coherently with other human beings and this enforced distance makes libertarianism seem far more plausible than it actually is. Surely this is how everyone perceives the world" What im reiterating is that libertarianism is a function of mental deficiency.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. By deregulation I mean the removal of regulations on businesses. If the word regulation similarly confuses you I'll add that by regulations I mean rules that businesses are coerced into following by men with guns. jrodefeld posted:What do you mean by "better outcomes"? From whose perspective? Value is subjective, so the measurement of society-wide "utility" or value or happiness is a fruitless task. I mean what most people would consider a better outcome. Matters involving food safety, worker safety, and pollution would probably be the most clear-cut. Most people don't want outcomes where more people get sick from their food, or die/get injured at work, or live in environments where the air/water/soil are unsafe. jrodefeld posted:The "free" market merely refers to that part of the economy where human interactions are voluntary. That is all it means. You say the move towards "freer" markets leads to more and more suffering? Yes, because the power to prevent the bad outcomes I listed is put solely in the hands of businesses. Businesses could be boycotted, I suppose, but only after they've done something bad and people have been hurt. jrodefeld posted:If you rephrase that to be more clear, you would be saying "the more human interaction is made peacefully and mutually and less violently coerced, the more human suffering occurs". Peacefully allowing businesses to poison and let people die/get injured in unsafe conditions? This is pretty retarded. jrodefeld posted:This is preposterous. Look at any other aspect of human life or society and think were the removal of violence in a given society leads to MORE human suffering. Most people would argue that violence and conflict are at the very heart of human suffering. Food inspectors don't come in and start breaking people's jaws, jrod. AFAIK OSHA inspectors don't do that either. jrodefeld posted:Libertarians look at a given problem and say "is violence morally justified in this situation?" "Are human rights being violated?" Initiating the violence of food inspection. Truly a monstrous act. jrodefeld posted:If there is injustice being done according to principles of human rights that libertarians ascribe to, we will oppose it without concern for "society", as that is merely an abstraction. You're the one dealing in abstractions here. You've abstracted violence to the point where it can refer to requiring businesses to follow regulations. It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To put it bluntly, this means nothing. First off, think about your audience. This is a message board, not an academic symposium. The need to rely on citations and quotations is less here because it is a more conversational style of communicating. Also, the number of citations mean nothing in comparison to your arguments. Look, to put it bluntly, you're poo poo at arguing with people. You can't hold your ground. You turn around and then say "Well, read this book or series of articles to better understand what I'm saying." You haven't countered anything anyone says. So yes. You have more citations. But your content is still of a lower quality than everyone else's. Just inserting a url link with no context, often with the article saying different or even opposite things to what is being claimed, isn't a citation in any meaningful sense. Jrod has pretensions to academic writing but quite obviously has never written or fully read even an undergraduate level paper. Jrod, I can google articles too, but if I tried to make an argument with them in even a first level course, especially all from the same website, I would be laughed at. Now, as Cemetary Gator said, this isn't necessarily a place where arguments require academic levels of rigour and backup, but you're the one who brings up these "citations" as an attempt to lend credibility to your arguments, only to run away whenever they are refuted. See the Mises.org min wage article list debacle for the best and most hilarious example of you doing this. You have certianly not provided more evidence and backing for your arguments than, say , Caros has.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Food inspectors don't come in and start breaking people's jaws, jrod. AFAIK OSHA inspectors don't do that either. Not yet. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:How long ago has it been that I linked to Sheldon Richman's "Free Market Anti-Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal"? This isn't some new idea. I have no problem with the word capitalism as it is used between libertarians, because we know what it means. I don't think it is particularly useful and maybe a detriment when speaking to anyone else. Oh Jrod. Do you understand how crazy you sound when you talk about how you're okay with libertarians use the word Capitalism because they "Understand what it means?" So you understand how cultist that makes you seem? I've long believed that libertarianism appeals to people the same way cults and conspiracy theories do, by offering the idea of hidden knowledge and the reinforcement to your ego in the belief that you know something that other people don't. This paragraph has done nothing to dissuade me. quote:I guess I should be offended that you deemed to insult me with the label "parrot"? Was that the intended effect? I read Markets Not Capitalism several months ago, in fact, but I have read the work of Chartier and Richman for many years now and I have been aware of their arguments. I dunno, you tell me. I personally would be insulted if someone labeled me a parrot but if you're not sure I think that said a lot. quote:I am attempting to get you to understand the breadth of libertarian thought though. I don't particularly recall you responding to the arguments of people like Chartier and Richman. What I have come to realize is that it is far too convenient for you to discount the arguments of people like Rothbard. You've been fully convinced that the modern libertarian movement is a bought and paid for racket created by billionaires to benefit them, with deep strains of racism and sexism throughout. Libertarianism is a kiddie pool and you are pointing at the glass of water off to the side. Your ideology has no significant breadth and the people you are suggesting are a minority in the minority that is your subsection of libertarianism. Moreover it is worth reminding the thread that even you led with the crazies. You lead with Hoppe, with Rothbard, with Block. You only bring up people like Chartier as an afterthought once we have kicked the stool out from under your heroes and you need someone to back up your 'intellectual' thought who we won't tear down. And for the record, yes, the modern libertarian movement is bought and paid for by billionaires and racists in an attempt to push for more wealth and to attack the poor. You and your particular subsection might be opposed to it, but the people running as libertarians, and the people who are most vocally speaking your ideology most certainly are. You're basically arguing 'no true libertarian' for everyone but your tiny facet of what can laughably be called a movement. quote:Was it you who said something to the effect of "What do I care about anything Rothbard has to say? He once said that parents have the right to let their child starve." Are you real?  Rothbard has demonstrated dozens of horrifying examples of his inhumanity to man. Judge Dredd policing, his love for KKK leader David Duke, Selling children... the lists go on and on. But your argument is that "Sure he said all of these horrifying things, but we should listen to him about economic and social policy because I think he is right.' Guess what shitburg, on top of everything else I also happen to think that he is wrong. Its just that I really don't feel the need to jump through hoops to explain the minutia because his horrifying positions by themselves are more than enough to disqualify him. Your argument is barely one step removed from 'hitler had some good ideas'. Christ. quote:You'd probably be forced to confront the arguments rather than blather on about how racist and/or sexist the proponents are with Chartier and Richman. Richman and Chartier are deluded as all the others, their arguments are bunk for the same reasons I have explained to you dozens if not hundreds of times. The fact that they are not racist means I have no animus to them, I just understand that they are wrong because An-Capsim is garbage. Hope this helps. quote:And what exactly is wrong with "parroting" an argument that I find persuasive? I read a book that I thought was informative and persuasive and I take what I consider the best parts of the argument and use it in my own defenses of the market. It shows a total lack of comprehension. When I read a book I take away sections of it, individual ideas I incorporate into who I am and how my beliefs form. I read Matt Taibbi's Griftopia and I pulled away some interesting facts, a quote or two and some changes to my world view. What I don't do is go online and repeat the exact arguments from the book verbatim. You took the ideas wholesale and are just squawking them back at us with a minimum of comprehension, that is the problem. quote:How, pray tell, do you come to your understanding of political issues? I doubt very much you sit in isolation and come up with every thing you believe on your own. Honestly? I read a variety of different sources and tailor them as I go. I don't get everything of my understanding from a group of perhaps ten guys and then repeat it ad naseaum.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Not yet. ...I just got an idea for a new revenue stream for Valhalla DRO when the Ron Paul R  ution finally comes.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. How bout for starters you answer this really simple one. Why is a partially free market, such as the US healthcare system, worse than those of equivalent countries such as the UK whose healthcare system is 100% socialist? Even with the various government influences in the US healthcare market, such as the AMA (HA! Remember when you stupidly plagiarized a quote that said the AMA was a government department!) the US healthcare market is still unequivocally more free market than many countries that do far better than them. Why is that? quote:What do you mean by "better outcomes"? From whose perspective? Value is subjective, so the measurement of society-wide "utility" or value or happiness is a fruitless task. Really? This is some straight up hilariously awful poo poo you've posted right here. Here is a good metric, in Canada we do not have medical bankruptcies. The US by contrast averages 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year, fully 50% of all bankruptcies in your country. Is it really so fruitless to say that socialist medical care provides better outcomes when we can clearly see that access to care, cost of care, quality of care etc are all better in the UK than in the US? Or is it just a 'not even once' issue where if one billionaire is happier with his care in the US then it overrides the suffering of society as a whole? quote:The "free" market merely refers to that part of the economy where human interactions are voluntary. That is all it means. You say the move towards "freer" markets leads to more and more suffering? In the healthcare sector? Yes. History has shown us that the more market control there is in the US, the worse the quality of care compared to UHC countries. Now there may be some laffer curve effect where when you get closer to 100% free market, but judging by what we've seen, I really doubt it. quote:If you rephrase that to be more clear, you would be saying "the more human interaction is made peacefully and mutually and less violently coerced, the more human suffering occurs". This assumes that all the interaction is perfectly voluntary and that everyone can get what they need. Fun fact, people can't afford healthcare and when you can't afford healthcare human suffering occurs, human suffering which is lessened by UHC. Also taxation and the state are not inherently violent. quote:This is preposterous. Look at any other aspect of human life or society and think were the removal of violence in a given society leads to MORE human suffering. Most people would argue that violence and conflict are at the very heart of human suffering. Libertarians are ignorant children. Sorry, I'm losing my patience again, I should stop line by line replying. quote:If Sam Seder would stop hiding being abstractions, we could see what he REALLY means. What situation specifically is the removal of coercion causing increased human suffering? Then I would ask him (and you) to justify why the initiation of coercion is morally justified. For those initiating the violence, why are they allowed to have the right to act in a manner that is prohibited to the rest of society? :growingironicat.gif: Hey, look up a couple of paragraphs to where you've avoided discussion this issue by way of bullshit abstractions and then come back and think about what you've done. quote:If there is injustice being done according to principles of human rights that libertarians ascribe to, we will oppose it without concern for "society", as that is merely an abstraction. Okay, so its not even once. Tax everyone a little so that sixty four thousand people don't die annually of preventable diseases, that is an injustice! Those people should die because society is an abstraction and we should not care for one another. Blood for the Blood god! quote:If the principle of body ownership and the just appropriation of resources AKA property acquisition is flawed in some way, then argue with us on that level. But don't use abstractions to hide from the plain truth of things. Sam Seder saying "moving towards free markets leads to human suffering" is simply a nonsense statement. I did actually address the fact that the JUST appropriation of resources is flawed as poo poo. You just completely skipped over that in favor of Gabriel Kolko.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
You see, when I say capitalism, it's OK because I mean the pure kind unsullied by the real world. Hang on, I'll be right back. I have to write an article praising payday loans.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, I appreciate the suggestions but I am not looking for suggestions about libertarian literature at the moment. Rather I would like recommendations of the work that best sums up "YOUR" political views and/or effectively dismantles the libertarian argument. It's always valuable to be familiar with opposing points of view. I'm sure I have cited an awful lot more books and intellectuals who I feel have made persuasive points that defend my position than have any of you. Why the gently caress should I read anything that underpins your intellectual position if you refuse to read any of mine? Like, seriously. Rawls. Mills, Bentham, Locke and Hobbes form the backbone of English language liberal thought. A tradition that has been built up over the last four hundred years. Mises and HHH and whoever else you buy into are just one branch growing off of a larger tree of thought (and, a branch that ought to be pruned to help the tree survive). By refusing to read anything that isn't straight up a discussion in some way related to modern libertarianism is not only exceedingly myopic and foolish, but also a nearly impossible request to fill since -- as Caros mentioned -- modern libertarianism is at best a fringe ideology that most academics consider to be a bit of a joke. If you wish to have a debate on the merits of a position, sometimes you have to read things you disagree with (even, gasp, SALON) in order to help grasp where your opponent is coming from. Unless you'd rather we all argue from first principles. And then my first principle is: rich people want to remain rich, and will do any and everything they can to remain that way, and attempt to sell their actions as moral to insulate themselves from criticism (like, get stooges like you to parrot the idea of moral libertarianism).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You see, when I say capitalism, it's OK because I mean the pure kind unsullied by the real world. It's like a bad stand-up routine. "Have you ever noticed that when statists say 'capitalism' they mean this?" *dead silence* "Here's a mises.org article and a four hour lecture about why that joke was hilarious."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. In conclusion, libertarianism is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a rather specious argument. What "steps" towards a free market are you talking about? "Deregulation" is a word that confuses a lot of people. Like the word capitalism, it is used to mean different things to different people. You know what Jrod, why don't you answer these questions? Because to be honest, I really have no idea what your vision of society is or why you think your way will be much better. I don't even know how you're being wrong. Let's say you're given your economic freedom, what are you going to do with it. quote:The "free" market merely refers to that part of the economy where human interactions are voluntary. That is all it means. You say the move towards "freer" markets leads to more and more suffering? What violent coercion? For somebody who really wants to start fresh, you're not actually giving us much to start from. How are people violently coerced today and how will they not be violently coerced in your future? You've given us a nice pie-in-the-sky view of the world, but you're not really explaining how interactions will be free of violence and coercion. I could basically say "Hey, in my philosophy, nobody will die," but guess what? That doesn't make it true. So, I need medication to live? How will I pay for that medication? What if I don't have enough money in your society? What options are there for me? People have a survival instinct. If the stakes are high enough, they will do a lot. If you're a father, and your child is sick, you'd go pretty loving far to help your child get better. Just saying "Well, you chose to sell yourself into indentured servitude" or "you chose to sell your child" doesn't make it right. Now, before you say "Hey, this is an edge case! This is an extreme circumstance. Anyone could do that!" I think you need to understand reality. Most of our interactions are voluntary. Nobody made me go to Kohl's today to get some shirts. I did it of my own free will. Yesterday, I ordered a movie from Amazon. OF MY OWN FREE WILL! Nobody held a gun to my head. I went to the supermarket and bought food, of my own free will! Every part of those interactions were voluntary. So, explain to me what's going to change for most people that will make their lives better? But you know what -It's going to be those extreme scenarios, it's going to be the situations where the cards are actually on the table. This is where you will see changes. This is where you will see people being negatively impacted. But hey, you're okay with tyranny as long as it comes from the "free" market and not the state? As an aside, this is a perfect example of how you're not taking that logical next step. You've come up with a facile explanation, but you're not looking into it and saying "But will that really work." quote:Libertarians look at a given problem and say "is violence morally justified in this situation?" "Are human rights being violated?" But is that even the right way to look at a problem? Granted, you define violence in a way that is so abstract and so absurdly wide that someone breathing could be considered violent by your definition. But are you framing things the way we are. What about human rights? See, rights are easy on an individual level. But the minute you throw a second person in there and our rights start intersecting, well, poo poo gets weird. So, take this scenario. It's a bit of an abstraction, but it demonstrates the absurdity of your worldview. I have a right to life. You have a right to life. I have a right to sell food. I have a right to run my business as I see fit. I sell food. I am the only food seller in town. I've bought up all the competition and I am a monopoly. You come to my food store and you want to buy food. I refuse. You have no other options to buy food.You cannot acquire food through any other means. Does my right to run my business the way I want overrule your right to life? As I said, the scenario might be a little absurd, but sometimes, taking situations like these really allows us to better understand how we really think. Only a morally deficient individual would say that I have the right to run my business the way I want, and if that means that you starve, well, too loving bad. quote:If Sam Seder would stop hiding being abstractions, we could see what he REALLY means. What situation specifically is the removal of coercion causing increased human suffering? Then I would ask him (and you) to justify why the initiation of coercion is morally justified. For those initiating the violence, why are they allowed to have the right to act in a manner that is prohibited to the rest of society? What coercion do you see? Please Jrod. I need to know how you are being coerced? Show me on the doll. quote:If there is injustice being done according to principles of human rights that libertarians ascribe to, we will oppose it without concern for "society", as that is merely an abstraction. Do you know what an abstraction is? Here, Jrod. I recommend you use your freedom to freely choose to buy one of these. http://www.amazon.com/Paperback-Oxf...lish+Dictionary You'll be able to use words and know what they mean rather than just speaking nonsense at us. Society is not an abstraction. It's a way to describe a group of people living in the same community. Calling society an abstraction highlights one of the biggest issues with Libertarianism: extreme individualism. When you look at your community and talk about human interactions, you don't see groups of people living together. Rather, you only see individuals. Everything is defined and determined based upon each individual, and the impact to others as a whole is largely ignored, until it becomes too irrational not to ignore it. For example, why can't I play my music at high volumes at all hours of the day? Clearly, my right to freely express myself means I have the right to bang on the drum at 3 in the morning, the rest of my apartment be damned. But as I discussed above, you have to deal with the intersections of rights. And that's where viewing society becomes an important action. Because after all, how do you decide what's more important when you can only see the individual. You don't see the lives of others being improved by my right to freedom of speech being abridged because I can't just express myself by banging on the drum at 3 in the morning in my apartment. If you're trying to claim that society does not exist, then there is no reason to talk to you any further. You simply do not wish to discuss reality, and any philosophy that you could bring to the table would only be us trying to have a serious discussion on how we should run a fictional world where I poo poo chocolate, faeries fly freely through the skies and grant wishes to good little girls and boys, and watermelons enjoy you plowing into them for hours on end. Edit: Also, I forgot to mention - this is incredibly rich. Rights are an abstraction. If you do not look at society because it is an abstraction, that means that you cannot consider human rights which means that Libertarianism does not not exist. See JROD, this is what happens when you don't use a loving dictionary before you use them big book learning words. You look like an rear end in a top hat and invalidate your entire philosophy. (END OF EDIT) quote:If the principle of body ownership and the just appropriation of resources AKA property acquisition is flawed in some way, then argue with us on that level. But don't use abstractions to hide from the plain truth of things. Sam Seder saying "moving towards free markets leads to human suffering" is simply a nonsense statement. HEY JROD, HAVE YOU'VE BEEN READING THIS loving THREAD? The only one who's been talking in abstractions is you. The rest of us are dealing with reality. But go. Live in your fantasy world and ask us why it can't be reality. But don't get upset if we start to think that you're a privileged little piece of poo poo. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 23:37 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:By refusing to read anything that isn't straight up a discussion in some way related to modern libertarianism is not only exceedingly myopic and foolish, but also a nearly impossible request to fill since -- as Caros mentioned -- modern libertarianism is at best a fringe ideology that most academics consider to be a bit of a joke. Only because of their interest in the State Apparatus. Unlike University of Nevada professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe who - *sound of toilet flushing*
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
How dare you question the economics department of George Mason University, which is named after a founding father so you won't notice it was founded in the '50s?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
I am suddenly reminded of that scene from Battlefield Earth where John Travolta insists that raw Rat must be humans' favorite food because they had the opportunity to choose anything they wanted to eat and they chose rat. Coincidentally, that character also believed in the rule of corporations and lusted for gold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:27
|
|
