|
Jizz Festival posted: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. Oh my God, your arguments are terrible, they reveal your corrupt premises that deny the a priori truths about human action. Let me break it down for you real simple-like. Observing human beings' actions is all that is required to determine their preferences, for that is the sole means by which human beings express preferences: by choosing to act. Thus, if someone buys listeria-laden ice cream and dies after eating it, we know that the company's preference was to make money selling listeria, and the customer's preference was to ingest it as a means to commit suicide. You may not agree with the values of the people in this example, but we nevertheless must recognize that they've expressed their preference for these values through their actions, and who are you to send in men with guns to literally put barrels against everyone's heads and forbid the manufacturer from profiting from the sale of the listeria he has deliberately grown, and deny to the suicidal consumer the gross and unpleasant bacterial death he so earnestly seeks? It's quite simply impossible to overcome the calculation problem and determine by fiat who may have inadvertently eaten tainted food and who ardently desires pant-making GBS threads death. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 1, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Liberalism and modern libertarianism are quite different, and you're clearly aware that they're quite different, so trying to claim that they are the same seems futile. Today, in the world in which we live, being in favor of "free markets" does equate to support for business power and corporate dominance. It might not be the outcome that you want, but it's the outcome that you're going to get. We can point at countless historical examples that prove this. First principles don't count for anything when history proves your conclusions to be wrong time and time again. When your postulates lead to a worldview that is proven wrong over and over, countless times, it's time to reassess your postulates, jrod! jrodefeld posted:
Modern libertarianism is a modern aberration, the individualists of 200-400 years ago look almost nothing like the average libertarian of the present. It doesn't matter whether Chartier likes it. Modern libertarianism is a refuge of small-minded racists, misogynists, and free market fetishists. Why is it that proponents of "genuinely freed markets", like yourself, are never actually able to articulate how problems like pollution, the environment, the labor movement, and "things of that nature" are handled better than in our current state-controlled society? Whenever a hypothetical is raised that gets to the point of any of these issues, you run and hide or offer platitudes ("I don't need to know how it would work"), just like every libertarian before you. In a hypothetical where 10 equivalent companies own land around a lake and one chooses to surreptitiously pollute it, what happens? In your society, people downstream eventually notice strange health effects, discover that the stream has been polluted, and try to futilely hold one of the ten companies responsible (which one?), and in all likelihood the company that was polluting the lake gets away with it, or at worst pays only a tenth of what they should. In our society, we try to make sure that this poo poo doesn't ever happen in the first place by imposing regulation and making sure that the consequences are severe enough that nobody would voluntarily pollute the lake. Making sure that the lake doesn't get polluted in the first place is the better outcome, and preventative measures like this can only be imposed by some sort of centralized authority. e: Cemetry Gator posted: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... watermelons enjoy you plowing into them for hours on end. 
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
The lake issue is easily resolved by whichever method is most convenient for the libertarian argument at the time. If I want to show how libertopia will aggressively police pollution and protect the environment, then if a single molecule of chemical waste trespasses onto my property or in my body then I and my neighbors are fully justified in marching over with our private army and using retaliatory force against any or all polluters. If I want to show how libertarianism is practical and won't outlaw the internal combustion engine and most industries, then I'll say that the people downstream expressed their preference for toxic waste by choosing to live near the factories and consume their products so they've no right to initiate force now. In either case, this is a simple conflict of interest over which reasonable people can disagree, and I am confident my little dispute with a gigantic and supremely wealthy company will be fairly resolved in a Rube Goldberg series of competing courts and adjudicators who all have a fiduciary duty to decide in whichever way will maximize the profits to their shareholders. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
jrod, let's reboot the thread. How about you start by telling us why society will be better off by abolishing the state. Be specific
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Did I make the watermelon loving too graphic again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod, let's reboot the thread. How about you start by telling us why society will be better off by abolishing the state. Be specific It doesn't matter if it's better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
What is this..."society"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
You know what, I didn't choose to be in this world... Guys, we're going to have restart the universe. It's the only way to make sure no one has been coerced into being!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Oh hey jrod posted some more, and ignored the success of the NHS relative to the US again. Sure is weird that jrod keeps ignoring it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
It's almost like jrod doesn't actually give a poo poo about the practical consequences of a libertarian society at all. He claims things will just be better because 'well duh libertarianism is about increasing freedom how could it not be???' but when pressed about the details and processes of such a society he mostly just bemoans 'subjective values' and 'utilitarians'. It's pretty telling that he mostly talks about philosophy and never about mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Did I make the watermelon loving too graphic again? Not graphic enough! We need details Cemetry Gator, details!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:56
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:You know what, I didn't choose to be in this world... Guys, we're going to have restart the universe. It's the only way to make sure no one has been coerced into being! "Did I request thee, Maker, from my Clay To mould me Man, did I sollicite thee From darkness to promote me" - I actually have a real question for Jrod, and it's a significant one for the libertarian side because it's one that libertarian thinkers tend to get unstuck on. Jrod: 1. Do you support the right of individuals to sell themselves voluntarily and/or their children in to slavery? If not, why not? 2. What is the status of children in your society? Are they the property of their parents? What rights can they be said to have, if any, and how would they be exercised?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld exactly two an a half years ago, not that his atrophied hippocampus would allow him to remember posted:You know, I really don't see how this is that controversial. I really like Murray Rothbard and this quote is obviously him exploring the outer reaches of the libertarian philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
I remember this post but it's a great thing to bring up as much as possible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
^^ Jrodefield is an idiot and vile human being to seriously have posted that. Remember how Jrodefield finally pushed back at so many of us asking him why he and his libertarian buddies don't find some secluded stretch of wilderness/deserted island/etc and try out their dumb ideas? He didn't understand why we kept making that request. Why that mattered. Ross Ulbricht got what he deserved, but at least he had the selfish guts to live out his ultimately coercive, violent ways at the heart of his libertarian values. Jrodefield and his buddies are too afraid to do that. They want to receive the benefits of the State while playing dress up and feeling self-important. At the end of the day, in a libertarian environment with so-called "freedom", when someone steals from you, they aren't going to play nice and without coercion give your property back. You either need a hopefully decent third party to deal with the conflict (aka a state-sponsored/community-sponsored police force with some legal authority), or you end up violently taking matters into your own hands. Or you be like Jesus and offer them your coat also. (But that would require courage too, which I'm not sure libertarians have.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 15:06
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Ross Ulbricht got what he deserved, but at least he had the selfish guts to live out his ultimately coercive, violent ways at the heart of his libertarian values. Jrodefield and his buddies are too afraid to do that. They want to receive the benefits of the State while playing dress up and feeling self-important. At the end of the day, in a libertarian environment with so-called "freedom", when someone steals from you, they aren't going to play nice and without coercion give your property back. You either need a hopefully decent third party to deal with the conflict (aka a state-sponsored/community-sponsored police force with some legal authority), or you end up violently taking matters into your own hands. Which is one of the most compelling cases people make in favour of not being able to 'drop out' of the state - you literally cannot help but benefit by it at almost every turn in your life whether you want to or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
"Children would only be sold to loving hetero families and no one would even think to purchase a child to use for sweatshop labor." -a moron
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion > Libertarian appreciation station - I haven't given this much thought, but
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Just to make sure here, in this libertarian land where you can purchase children from poor and desperate parents (or vindictive brothers who are jealous of the youngest's technicolor dream coat) like you're Pharaoh...there are no child labor laws in this society, right? No mandatory education either yeah? And the only courts around are pay-to-play?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just to make sure here, in this libertarian land where you can purchase children from poor and desperate parents (or vindictive brothers who are jealous of the youngest's technicolor dream coat) like you're Pharaoh...there are no child labor laws in this society, right? No mandatory education either yeah? And the only courts around are pay-to-play? Remember that he's previously said that mandatory education contributes to minority poverty by preventing kids "unsuited" to
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
"Buying children." Holy poo poo, that's just blatantly evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Of course, when there previously was a free market in people it was super good for everyone involved.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Of course, when there previously was a free market in people it was super good for everyone involved. Jives with his pro-secessionism views, you have to admit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Of course, when there previously was a free market in people it was super good for everyone involved. Better than the alternative! Better to have a little shack and be able to grow your own veggies than getting cooked in a pot by animists. The free market raises standards of living.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Remember that he's previously said that mandatory education contributes to minority poverty by preventing kids "unsuited" to It's very important eight year olds get that highly desired McDonalds experience on their resumes as soon as possible! How else are they going to be able to get a decent paying job to cover their medical bills from third-degree grease burns?! Gosh, you statists never seem to think these things through, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
It's all worth it though. The child slavery, the poisoned food and fallen bridges and burned down homes, the starving families and ruined Earth. It's worth it because in our brave new world, this world of freedom, I won't be coerced into the greatest evil of all: sharing with black people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's very important eight year olds get that highly desired McDonalds experience on their resumes as soon as possible! How else are they going to be able to get a decent paying job to cover their medical bills from third-degree grease burns?! Gosh, you statists never seem to think these things through, do you? I like when he ignores the multiple people telling him "nobody actually cares about those McJobs"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Men with guns will put me in a cage if I let my employees use that last step on a ladder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Of course, when there previously was a free market in people it was super good for everyone involved. Well of course if there are any states around, they're going to corrupt and coerce the free market and make buying and selling people seem like a bad thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I like when he ignores the multiple people telling him "nobody actually cares about those McJobs" Also, the way out of your McJob is to take what's left over from your $4/hr salary, buy a computer, get "computer skills", and then get a job with those new skills! Why do people not do that today, with their much higher $7.50/hr minimum wages? *grumblegrumble* time preferences *grumblegrumble*
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Ancap recap: -Children may be legally bought and sold like property -Child Labor is legal -Prostitution is (presumably) legal I can't see any way in which those three facts could combine and lead to bad outcomes, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Ancap recap: -Age of consent is at the discretion of whatever court wants your business
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:26
|
|
Nolanar posted:Ancap recap: The prostitution thing is debatable either way but yeah there's no way it could not be legal. Plus, of course, sex slave trade would be working apace.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Also, the way out of your McJob is to take what's left over from your $4/hr salary, buy a computer, get "computer skills", and then get a job with those new skills! Why do people not do that today, with their much higher $7.50/hr minimum wages? *grumblegrumble* time preferences *grumblegrumble* Reminder that this is literally a Lucky Ducky cartoon. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:-Age of consent is at the discretion of whatever court wants your business This is starting to turn into the Eripsa thread now. I wonder how many times I'd have to ask if jrod is against 'voluntary' child prostitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:32
|
|
Caros posted:This is starting to turn into the Eripsa thread now. I wonder how many times I'd have to ask if jrod is against 'voluntary' child prostitution. Children don't have a legal will, they're property 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
jrod sighted while composing his next thesis for the SA Libertarian thread:
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod sighted while composing his next thesis for the SA Libertarian thread: "Are you bringing the holy Truth of mises.org to the unbelievers again, sweety?" "Yes, mom, jeeze, leave me alone, you make libertarianism so uncool sometimes!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod sighted while composing his next thesis for the SA Libertarian thread: Where is that from?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
