|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:
Seems my anecdotal evidence was right. The number libertarians I've met in the past decade or so who would vote Democrat can be counted on one hand.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
No one wants to talk about Gary Chartier and his book jrode, if that is what you're hoping for you might as well stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. Of course I'm open to reading new books. Most of the books in Disinterested's post were books I'd either already read or were about the ideology I already believe in, i.e. books by liberals propounding liberal ideas. If I didn't want to read another book or have my worldview challenged, why would I be asking for precisely a reading list that WOULD challenge my views?! My only critique with the very good reading list offered was that it was not challenging enough to my preexisting views. By the way, you ought to work on your demeanor. These sorts of ad hominem attacks don't speak highly of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:24
|
|
paragon1 posted:No one wants to talk about Gary Chartier and his book jrode, if that is what you're hoping for you might as well stop posting. I mean, that quite clearly tells you that all social forms of liberty are less important to the majority of libertarians right there. They'll happily trade away gay rights, rights to abortion, more liberal criminal justice etc. for lower taxes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What would a minority think if they read the complete works of Rothbard or Hoppe? What, you think the pages of their books are littered with KKK inspired bigotry? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:26
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course I'm open to reading new books. Most of the books in Disinterested's post were books I'd either already read or were about the ideology I already believe in, i.e. books by liberals propounding liberal ideas. Note: I did also suggest reading continental philosophy that is discordant with it. And every single one of those books disputes your belief that there should be no state. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:... And yet if all land is privately owned, the end result is functionally indistinguishable from Jim Crow, you clown. Jesus, nobody here is worried about racism as a psychological feature; we are concerned with the impact it has on actual people's actual lives. If you recognize that segregation is a result of your ideology being implemented and you continue forward unfazed, why do you think anti-racists owe you the courtesy of distinguishing you from those who are motivated to the same conclusion by racial animus? You are not very smart. Would be good if you recognized this and learned some humility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The context was that when the State pursues policies which effectively force different groups of people (not specifically racial, but religious, cultural, ideological, etc) to interact with each other when they wouldn't otherwise have done so, or to live in close proximity to one another when they would prefer to keep a certain distance, social problems are frequently the result. This is hardly controversial. I too am extremely dismayed that landlords aren't allowed to put up "Whites Only" signs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Arguments and movements do not exist independent of their proponents It is a fallacy to disregard an argument to disregard an argument because a person is X ethnicity or Sexe, it is not a fallacy to question the underlying premise of arguments based on the previous racial animus that the proponents have demonstrated. You say you learned from Rothbard. We tell you and show you how what you learned is racist, both on its face and especially based on related statements. You then run from Rothbard and claim he was never all that important and start name dropping radical leftists in a naked attempt to disguise the true disgusting nature of the stuff you're still advocating for. You are either ignorant to the point of willful self-delusion, or a liar. The latter is far more likely, and sorry if the thread isn't willing to start fresh and ignore what you've said instead of just accepting your new leftist cred at face value (despite you not walking back any of the terrible policy ideas we've shreded, instead pretending we should be for them because "they're leftist you guys!") you are a bad person Jrod, who believes terrible things taught by terrible people. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the way, you ought to work on your demeanor. These sorts of ad hominem attacks don't speak highly of you. gently caress you. Ad hominem is a fallacy where someone uses an insult as a premise to conclude that your position is flawed. Everyone here has selflessly put immense effort into showing you why you are wrong. That they insult you on the side does not affect the validity of their argument, you clod. You don't get to sling around accusations of informal fallacies if you have no grasp of basic logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
It is especially funny to me to see him backpedal on Rothbard considering, you know, his avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the way, you ought to work on your demeanor. These sorts of ad hominem attacks don't speak highly of you. you are the worst kind of cargo cult intellectual
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course I'm open to reading new books. Most of the books in Disinterested's post were books I'd either already read or were about the ideology I already believe in, i.e. books by liberals propounding liberal ideas. It's not an ad hominem to point out that you are in fact very stupid and also consistently wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:don't recall every specific of what the context was, but it had something to do with immigration policy or something like that. I am an open border advocate, but that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to "immigrate" across my living room without my permission. So within the context of being opposed to the State, I was conceding that people who own property legitimately have a right to associate or not associate with whoever they wish. We're the Freedom People! Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Border, Freedom of Human Beings. All land at the border should be private property, and no Mexicans! There's no right to immigrant across white land!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Caros, I do have a sincere question for you. Why are you so intent on getting me to speak about other libertarians? Throughout the time I've posted here, I've quoted different articles by different libertarians yet the sidetracks were I fall into this position were you say something to the effect of "What, you're quoting THIS guy? Don't you know he said this, this and this? Why don't you answer for that?" And then, foolishly, I allowed myself to get sucked into defending someone else when I should be defending only what I quote or what I believe. The reason we do this is because your posts tend to either quote them at length or demand we read their books to get your point. You don't present your own arguments, you quote theirs verbatim. So if the only assertion you make yourself is that these people are worth listening to, why be surprised when we engage with it? quote:The context was that when the State pursues policies which effectively force different groups of people (not specifically racial, but religious, cultural, ideological, etc) to interact with each other when they wouldn't otherwise have done so, or to live in close proximity to one another when they would prefer to keep a certain distance, social problems are frequently the result. This is hardly controversial. You really suck at rhetorical slight of hand. Switching from "cultures interacting" to "compatible laws" while putting them right next to each other just highlights the contrast rather than hiding it. And you're supposed to lead with the less controversial one (in this case incompatible religious law codes) to get us to accept the dubious assertion (apartheid gibberish). quote:Now, let me be perfectly clear here. I love diversity. I have black friends, gay friends, people I genuinely love who are completely different and I enjoy that about them. No, Jrod, no, don't do this. Don't use the "I have black friends" defense. It has literally never worked for anyone, and it's become a loving joke where the punch line is "anyone who says that is super racist." Just don't do it. quote:I don't recall every specific of what the context was, but it had something to do with immigration policy or something like that. I am an open border advocate, but that doesn't mean that anyone has a right to "immigrate" across my living room without my permission. So within the context of being opposed to the State, I was conceding that people who own property legitimately have a right to associate or not associate with whoever they wish. And people who don't own property can get hosed. But you're not advocating for giving all the power to the rich, no sir. quote:I understand the goal here. If you can pick out the potentially offensive statements different libertarians have made over the years you can create a narrative that allows you to win without ever having to refute the contentions made by the libertarian arguments themselves. "Libertarians are disproportionately white and male". "This or that libertarian was a racist". "Libertarianism was funded by the very rich to enrich themselves". Bullshit. You care about those accusations and we all know it, because they're the only thing you consistently respond to. When we criticize your arguments on their face, you might give one response before disappearing or changing the subject. But when we call your idols racist or misogynist? You stick around and defend them forever. If you want to show that you care about what you say you do, flip that dynamic. Blow off the distractions and respond to the people who engage your arguments. quote:And let me correct you. I am not "antidemocratic". I am anti-aggression. Saying that an action is "democratic" doesn't say a thing about the moral justification for that action. Jesus, you're all over the place here. You take about five different positions re: democracy, and you really need to take some time and try to tie this all together into something coherent. Take the bits about your positions on democracy, try to get them to flow together, and put them in a couple paragraphs instead of a series of disjointed lines. Show some kind of logical progression from "I'm not anti-democratic" to "democracy is dangerous" that gives some idea of your thought process. And then take those bits that don't fit in, and put them elsewhere. That paragraph about the state doing things that you aren't allowed to do? It doesn't flow. You don't reference the previous arguments in it, and you don't reference it afterward, so it can go. If you don't want to cut it entirely, give it its own place to breathe separately from this one, or figure out a way to integrate it into your argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's not an ad hominem to point out that you are in fact very stupid and also consistently wrong. And wishing cancer on someone, while very mean, doesn't really constitute a fallacious argument either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted: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. I'll give you a short list of libertarian reforms that ought to be immediately adopted and why they would contribute to human flourishing. 1. End the drug war and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison. This would reunite broken up families, free up police resources to fight actual crime, reduce gang violence by removing the financial incentive to sell drugs illegally (the abnormally inflated drug costs) and reinforce the principle that people own their bodies and have the right to put whatever substance they want into them. 2. We should immediately start closing down foreign military bases, removing troops stationed in other countries and bringing all these military men and women home. We should announce to our allies and enemies alike that they will need to start providing for their own defense as we will be providing for ours. Entangling alliances should be dissolved and we should adopt a foreign policy stance of neutrality. We should subsequently cut our defense budget by two thirds or more. This would save a lot of money in the first place. We ought to remove the possibility of the draft ever returning. No one should ever have to sign up for the selective service ever again. We would be much safer since our military presence in other countries, picking and choosing sides in conflicts that don't concern us, and sending weapons into volatile parts of the world stirs up hatred and resentment towards us. 3. We ought to eliminate the CIA and the FBI. End the Department of Homeland Security and the NSA program entirely. The limited intelligence work that is required for our national defense should be returned to the Defense Department. Secret Government ought never to be tolerated. The reasonable assessment of national security risks is the ONLY rationale for any intelligence gathering by the State. The justification for ending the NSA program has been made persuasively by Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. It violates the Forth Amendment. 4. Similarly, end the Patriot Act and the new USA Freedom Act which is merely a repackaging of the Patriot Act. End all post-9/11 government overreach and new policies. 5. End all militarization of local police forces. No more weapons and technology that is required at a minimum to keep the peace should be tolerated. The Police should be controlled locally, be made up of people who live in the community and be accountable directly to the people they serve. End sovereign immunity and treat police offers who commit crimes the same as private citizens who commit crimes. This would make cities safer and people happier. Police would be able to focus on real crime without the needless distractions. The community will have a better relationship with a police force they can trust. 6. End the Department of Education. Schools must be controlled locally, with parental and community involvement and control. The Federal Government ought to have NOTHING to do with education of children. We must work to separate education and the State, even local government. We must eliminate all laws that make it harder for private schools to compete with public schools. The curriculum taught to children must be chosen by qualified people in the community, not by national politicians and especially not by corporations who get subsidies to produce materials. This would end a massive bureaucracy and improve educational standards across the board. It is not an accident that educational standards have dropped over the past fifty years. The State has every incentive to propagandize to children. If it is disentangled and separated from local schools, children will be taught to challenge the authority of the State and question its legitimacy. 7. Laws requiring children to attend school amounts to kidnapping. Period. There should be no compulsory school attendance laws and no restrictions on homeschooling and private schooling. 8. Similarly, the Federal Government must stop providing student loans for higher education and must stop subsidizing colleges entirely. By providing loans, the State artificially raises tuition rates and encourages students who ought NOT be in college to get loaded with debt rather than learning a trade. By ending State involvement in higher education, tuition rates will fall drastically and higher education will be affordable. Students will be able to get in the workforce earlier and get out of debt quicker which will benefit them their whole lives. 9. We ought to eliminate the restrictions on using alternative, competing currencies. All legal tender laws should be repealed, and all taxes on transactions made using alternative currencies must be repealed. An alternative currency is not a currency is you must pay an additional tax in US Dollars merely for buying something using a different currency or, for that matter, even acquiring new units of the same currency. We must fully audit the Federal Reserve system and expose who benefits from low interest rates in secret. We need full monetary reform of the system, which includes the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the resumption of coinage under Treasury. A resumption of a commodity backed currency would be beneficial. If we must persist with the Fed, at least we need to expose it completely to openness and transparency. Any conflict of interest with big banks like Goldman Sachs must end. We must have a Fed Chairman who will raise interest rates in the short term and who will put a brake on Congress's spending by refusing to monetize the debt. These steps would free the American people from having to use a depreciating dollar for all their transactions. With a Gold Standard or competing currency, people could actually save for the future knowing that their money will retain its value. The Cantillion effect where value is transferred from the poor to the rich through inflation will be curbed which promotes justice and compassion for the less fortunate. 10. All licensing requirements and hindrances to entrepreneurs must be eliminated to create an even playing field between established businesses and new entrants into a market. Regulatory capture must be eliminated by gutting the regulatory code and created a simple set of principles by which free markets can operate. The Law should intervene when property rights are violated or voluntarily signed contracts are not being complied with. Even if we maintain some regulations (licenses for brain surgeons) you ought to be able to see the stifling effect of many if not most of these laws that cripple the market and protect the very wealthy from competition. This should be fixed. The result would be far more prosperity and economic growth and a more equal distribution of wealth across society. I could go on and on from there. Even short of anarchy, there are many reforms that could be enacted today that would immediately start benefiting the average person. If you want me to elaborate, I would be glad to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
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. What was claimed was that I became a libertarian just because my mom was one. That I never formed a coherent or original thought. That is wrong and, at the very least since no one can know about the intellectual development of someone they never met, something that no one should claim. I was a left-winger through high school and I barely spoke to my mom about politics throughout my upbringing. There was an intellectual conversion process that I am still going through and it is an insult to erroneously claim that I just parrot what my mom taught me to say and I never thought about this seriously. Such libel serves no useful purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:6. End the Department of Education. Schools must be controlled locally, with parental and community involvement and control. The Federal Government ought to have NOTHING to do with education of children. We must work to separate education and the State, even local government. We must eliminate all laws that make it harder for private schools to compete with public schools. The curriculum taught to children must be chosen by qualified people in the community, not by national politicians and especially not by corporations who get subsidies to produce materials. Do you worry at all that these reforms would systematically disadvantage the poor in terms of getting access to education, creating a persistent aristocracy? Like, is that a possibility that you considered and then discounted? Or that you would just sorta be okay with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
I couldn't pick a single thing in that post that was the stupidest thing. It was all the stupidest thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I couldn't pick a single thing in that post that was the stupidest thing. It was all the stupidest thing. 1, 4, and 5 seem to be pretty good ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
"Compulsory schooling is kidnapping" This is not in fact what kidnapping is except by your lunatic idiot definition. Because you're a lunatic idiot that does not mean you get to just state this poo poo like its a fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I couldn't pick a single thing in that post that was the stupidest thing. It was all the stupidest thing. I can't even pick out a stupidest post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What was claimed was that I became a libertarian just because my mom was one. That I never formed a coherent or original thought. That is wrong and, at the very least since no one can know about the intellectual development of someone they never met, something that no one should claim. Then you're even stupider then we imagined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I can't even pick out a stupidest post. "Compulsory schooling wherein you the parent can choose which school in your area your child goes to is the same as someone coming and taking your child someplace without your knowledge or consent" is the stupidest part. I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:20
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This would end a massive bureaucracy and improve educational standards across the board. It is not an accident that educational standards have dropped over the past fifty years. [citation needed]
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
The five minute rule strikes again. 1. End the drug war  2. Stop pointless wars and obsolete Cold War era bases 3. End the CIA 3a. Oh and all federal law enforcement  4. No more wiretapping and pissing on the fourth amendment with secret courts or internal deliberations entirely within the executive branch 5. No more militarized police, implement community policing and neighborhood control 6. No more federal education standards or funding 7. End universal elementary education  8. Don't enable poor kids to go to college either  9. Goldbuggery  10. End all licensing and regulation, let Bubba Ray do surgery in his garage for a dolla and fertilizer companies blow up a few more towns  
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Literacy should be a choice and not something forced upon us by armed thugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:25
|
|
Gentlemen, it's time to reverse this dangerous trend:
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Well now remember he said standards are slipping, so more people getting degrees but those degrees being worth less because they are easier to get is what he claims is happening. This is utter bullshit, but isn't actually disproved by those graphs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:42
|
|
paragon1 posted:Well now remember he said standards are slipping, so more people getting degrees but those degrees being worth less because they are easier to get is what he claims is happening. Actually I think literacy going up is a disproof, and I'm pretty sure people achieving at least close to high school is close to being one. Just ignore the college part. It would be interesting to claim that educational standards had slipped since 1950 or so if more than half of people did not have a high school education and literacy wasn't above 90%.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
But if you only learned to read because gun-toting maniacs kidnapped you and held you at gunpoint, is your literacy really a benefit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:47
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But if you only learned to read because gun-toting maniacs kidnapped you and held you at gunpoint, is your literacy really a benefit? You don't need to be able to read to pick cotton, it's just a waste of time 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Has Hoppe or any other popular libertarian ever opined on child pornography? I know there's lots of (anonymous) internet libertarians wanting to legalize it, but I'm curious if any more popular "thinkers" have ever addressed it, or if they conveniently avoid talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Well unlike the statofascist kindergarten systems, pornographers don't always kidnap and enslave their subjects!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Actually I think literacy going up is a disproof, and I'm pretty sure people achieving at least close to high school is close to being one. Just ignore the college part. Ah, sorry, I didn't see the middle one was for literacy. Clearly those standards are slipping too!!!!111!!!@#
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:00
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Has Hoppe or any other popular libertarian ever opined on child pornography? I know there's lots of (anonymous) internet libertarians wanting to legalize it, but I'm curious if any more popular "thinkers" have ever addressed it, or if they conveniently avoid talking about it. VitalSigns posted:Well unlike the statofascist kindergarten systems, pornographers don't always kidnap and enslave their subjects! Walter Block superficially claims in his book on privatizing roads that the market will segregate child pornographers: quote:[To the claim privatizing roads would not act to reduce fatalities:] Nonsense on stilts. I have no doubt that the marketplace would accomodate to such tastes. It does so for a plethora of weird desires *; why not this one too? Where there is money to be made, there will be an entrepreneur arising to provide the supply. However, I draw the opposite conclusion from White regarding the implication of all of this for highway fatalities. In my reasoning, people with outré tastes tend to be segregated by market forces. rich live with rich, poor with poor, hippies with hippies, fundamentalists with fundamentalists. Voluntary residential patterns emerge too, with regard to race and national origin and ethnicity, sexual preference, even age. Why should markets be any different as far as "daredevils and high speed freaks" are concerned. *Citation here reads: sadomasochism, child pornography, fetishes that beggar description.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:"Compulsory schooling is kidnapping" Taxation is theft, universal elementary school is kidnapping, and national parks are jaywalking. Really makes u think
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:27
|
|