|
Caros posted: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. You criticize my communication style when you post stuff like this? Honest question, what the gently caress do you know about Lysander Spooner? I don't know if you are arguing with me or your own prejudiced view of what you think libertarianism is. Lysander Spooner was an anarchist and an abolitionist and I've read most of his works word for word. Yes, he lived before Ludwig Von Mises was born so he wasn't an Austrian Economist (or any sort of economists for that matter) but as a proponent of what rightly should be considered libertarian ideas, he has few peers. What exactly do you think that Spooner would object to? Caros posted: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. Okay, let's talk about these ideas. I'd be happy to debate about the ideas of Chartier, or Sheldon Richman, or Lysander Spooner or anyone else that you DON'T think is a sinister figure. If we can get past your hatred towards certain libertarian figures as people, we could engage with the ideas of the broader liberal and anarchist tradition. Caros posted: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. No, I'm not talking about anarcho-syndicalism, though that is an interesting topic. I'm talking about left libertarianism in the tradition that Chartier talks about in "Markets Not Capitalism" or that Richman articulates in his article "Free Market Anti-Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal". I won't post the links again. I'm sure you can find them. These sorts of people believe in private property based on homesteading. However, they are anarchists. They typically align with what are considered modern "Progressive" goals and values but see the market as the best means to further those views. They believe in "soaking the rich" through the market, through voluntary actions that undercut organized capital. You actually have to at least skim the links I posted to have a basic grasp of what I am talking about. If there is one book I really think would open your eyes it would be "Markets Not Capitalism". You might not agree with it, but at least it provides a path towards a more productive discussion. Caros posted:Mises.Org. MISES.ORG MISES.ORG! This is not a good comparison. Yes I've posted Mises links. However, Mises.org was designed to be a library that preserves virtually all of the important liberal and libertarian literature in ebook formats, audiobooks and articles. There are thousands and thousands of full length books on there from every significant classical liberal and Austrian economist of the past 400 years essentially. If need to pull up an article written by any libertarian ever, chances are it will be stored in some capacity on Mises.org In contrast, Alternet and Salon feature a small handful of mostly twenty-something editors who routinely run smear jobs against libertarianism that display a dismal understanding of the philosophy and many easily dis-proven errors. Not exactly the same thing. There may be good critiques of libertarianism out there, but the sources are unquestionably tainted when it comes to those two sites. Caros posted:If you read it, refute it. I don't know that any one specific fact cited in the article is wrong, my contention is with the hyperbolic and ridiculous conclusions that author draws. And the fact that it is insinuated that libertarianism wasn't "created" until the end of World War 2. Ludwig von Mises had been writing for over forty years at that point. Is it really supposed to be some startling revelation that a Washington Think Tank was created and funded by, wait for it, RICH people! Think tanks don't create an ideology from scratch. They promote an already existing ideology to the masses and especially to Washington politicians. Maybe some of the businessmen who contributed to FEE and these other early libertarian think tanks sincerely thought that the ideology made sense or maybe they had something person to gain from getting regulators off their backs and maybe both. What does it matter? Gabrielle Kolko already argued that the entire Progressive Era (which the author of this article no doubt supports) was agitated for by big business interests who wanted the State to grow and regulate the economy. People with money want to have influence in ideas. If an ideology has significant enough backing, someone with money will want to have some influence. This is the way its always been. Who do you think fund the left wing think tanks? Different rich people, that's all. But if libertarianism is merely a PR front for big business, how come they haven't been able to reign in the State? Why isn't the economy deregulated, the Federal Reserve eliminated, the wars ended and the free market flourishing? I mean, lots of Corporate interests have been able to successfully lobby for all kinds of policies. Look at Bush's Medicare Prescription Benefit, profiteers in the Iraq War, Obama's Solyndra experiment and the like. Why can't any actual libertarian candidates raise any money from big donors? Surely one of the Koch Brothers would have bought a SuperPac and given fifty million dollars or so to electing a libertarian candidate, right? Why not? All of Ron Paul's money during his two runs for the Republican nomination came from small donors. Here is an interesting article, this one from Salon which is not a libertarian mouthpiece as I've already said: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/rand_pauls_sugar_daddy_problem_billionaires_dont_love_him_but_that_could_be_a_blessing_in_disguise/ Rand Paul can't find a big donor! And he has been selling out libertarianism and making every effort to court the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, even Silicon Valley types. I'd like some evidence that libertarianism is the favored ideology of corporations given the obvious fact that no libertarian candidate in the modern era has been heavily funded by business interests, even though they generously fund Republicans and Democrats and, second, we haven't had any sort of rollback of the State in many decades. The idea that some rich people give some money to some think tanks is immaterial. ALL think tanks are funded by rich people! The real key is what policies are the lobbyists working to change? What HAVE corporations been able to do as far as implementing policy is concerned? I think the evidence speaks for itself. Caros posted:
Two things. First, you constantly rip on libertarianism because it is this "fringe" ideology that doesn't matter and I a must be a weirdo for believing this thing that other people don't believe, etc. Yet, I'd bet you'd view the candidacy of Bernie Sanders very positively. You'd probably wish there were more candidates like Bernie Sanders for Progressives to cheer on. Yet it is quite obvious that Sanders will have vastly less public support than Ron Paul did and certainly much less than Rand will. Socialism is a far less popular ideology in the United States than is libertarianism. Yet you probably wish the views of Sanders were more popular. What does it matter how "popular" an ideology is? It must be viewed on its merits. Secondly, about Kolko, what he said is irrelevant. This quote was taken when he was criticizing Reason magazine, who erroneously called him a libertarian and were misusing his name. Now, if he criticized Murray Rothbard for the way he was using his work, then I'd listen because I think Rothbard cited it correctly and fairly. He didn't claim Kolko was a libertarian. He just cited his historical work. The fact remains that this historical analysis DOES lend credibility to the libertarian argument. It could also lend credibility to the Marxist argument. In reality it is an anti-statist argument, since Marxists are not in favor of the State and support the withering away of the State. Much like libertarians, they view the State as a tool of oppression used by the ruling class. It is therefore entirely logical for libertarians to use his work in the proper way, to defend a contention about historical facts that bolsters both our argument and Kolko's Marxist analysis.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod, do you stand by your previous misogynistic statement and assertion that there are women who do nothing but birth children from multiple "baby-daddies" in order to live high on the government dole? Still waiting on a straight answer about this, fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
omfg god he's doing that thing where he goes post by post from poo poo days ago again also sweet jesus he's reading us the loving ad copy for that dipshit website again too. Sometimes I still think he's some kind of weird shill that Mises is paying for clickthroughs or something. would explain why he never links anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:omfg god he's doing that thing where he goes post by post from poo poo days ago again Honestly, I'd cut him some slack here. We outnumber him a zillion to one, and we give him a lot of poo poo for not responding to good arguments. At least when he does this we get to make fun of him for the posts he quietly skips responding to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I will cut him zero slack. If he doesn't like being outnumbered, then he can gently caress off or quit his retard ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
From the wiki on Bastiat. Really the whole thing should be bolded, but this part stood out to me.Wikipedia posted:One of Bastiat's most important contributions to the field of economics was his admonition to the effect that good economic decisions can be made only by taking into account the "full picture." That is, economic truths should be arrived at by Bastiat seems to be rejecting Praxeology. There's nothing wrong with agreeing with some parts of an author's work and not others, but some of his views here can be used to support what everyone else is saying. Namely that, based on observations, if you deregulate everything, whoever has the most money gets to make the rules and those rules will probably hurt more people than they help. I might have to actually take a look at his economic views to see if he has any response for when evidence indicates that government philanthropy (his term) might actually be a good thing. Hopefully he doesn't reject the possibility out of hand based on his view of the source of all Just laws, natural rights from God. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:44
|
|
observing
|
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. Because literally everything that you believe is just something that somebody else wrote, regurgitated. You have no beliefs outside of what Libertarian thinkers want you to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
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. I claimed that because you did become a libertarian only because your mom was one and you don't have a single coherent or original thought. But you want to prove me wrong, rear end in a top hat? Then go 50 substantive posts without ever once linking to an outside article, quoting a "libertarian thinker" (an oxymoron if I ever saw them), or outright plagiarizing them like you usually do. Argue with us using your words and your words alone. Do that and I'll not only concede that what I said was libelous and wrong, I'll donate $500 to the libertarian candidate or charity of your choice. But my money where your mouth is, you spineless, simpering coward. Edit: I'll even  myself that if you succeed in doing as I've asked and I don't post a screenshot within 72 hours I'll post an autoban thread.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
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. Christ, not enough time in the day to answer all of this poo poo.  I'm intent of getting you to denounce the people you quote because understanding that some of the big thinkers you quote are racist, misogynistic lunatics is actually really important in your growth towards being a real human being. Even if you go on being a full retard libertarian it would be nice if you actually learned to acknowledge that there are some major people in your ideology who's cocks you should not slurp. The funny thing is I'm actually winning on this front. You've stopped quoting Hoppe pretty much entirely at this point other than to whine about how mean we are being to Hoppe for example, when once he was one of your major go to guys. This is why you've been talking about Chartier et al so much recently when you never really did so at all in the past by the by, you've at the very least come to realize that there are libertarians that are acceptable for you to talk about, and then there are libertarians who are horrible human beings who should not inform your thinking. The fact that you have some shame in regards to people like hoppe and can have been heard to say "Yeah I suppose he does believe in race realism" is a huge victory for me because I'm actually attempting to get you to change your position on things rather than just circle jerking into infinity. I'm intent on getting you to rethink the people you learn from because if you are going to be a libertarian shithead you might as well be of the chartier variety than the 'natural social elite' type. Edit: More later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Serious question jrodefeld: if you believe society should be a meritocracy where the best and brightest rise to the top on their talent and hard work alone, how can you possibly reconcile that with making access to education and even to the basic mind-expanding ability of reading dependent on who your parents happen to be and how rich they are?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
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. Are you going to read the others? No you aren't. quote:By the way, you ought to work on your demeanor. These sorts of ad hominem attacks don't speak highly of you. You want slavery to be legal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By the way, you ought to work on your demeanor. These sorts of ad hominem attacks don't speak highly of you. As others have pointed out, insults do not necessarily make an ad hominem. "Your argument is wrong, therefore you are a motherfucker" is not ad hominem, but "You are a motherfucker, therefore your argument is wrong" is. You motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted: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? There is no reason to think that. Look at the situation today. The rich either go to elite private schools or their parents can afford to move to where the best public schools are while the poor suffer in completely failing public schools with no options or choice. This is not very equal. And I didn't argue in this post that all public schools should be eliminated, only that they should be run and administered at the local level without Federal involvement. If parents are freely allowed to home school and regulations which artificially limit private schools from competing with public schools are repealed, the situation will significantly improve for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You don't need to be able to read to pick cotton, it's just a waste of time [THIS IS WHAT JRODEFELD ACTUALLY BELIEVES] jrodefeld posted:One that I've mentioned before but is nonetheless relevant is black teenage unemployment. Black teenage unemployment is near 50% in many places. Black teens face two problems when seeking employment. The first is related to the problem that all young people have, which is that they have low productivity and are less responsible than adults. The second is specific to blacks which is the problem of historical and contemporary racism and discrimination. These two factors combine to create the astronomically high unemployment rates among black teens that we see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If parents are freely allowed to home school and regulations which artificially limit private schools from competing with public schools are repealed, the situation will significantly improve for the poor. Unproven, magical assertions predicated on right-wing talking points. Look how you pretend to be a person with your own ideas; in reality you might as well be Mitch McConnell's wife, flacking for corporations and racists. Look at yourself Jrod. Look at yourself. Look at yourself. Look at how you're a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:1, 4, and 5 seem to be pretty good ideas. Not surprisingly, hardly under the sole domain of libertarianism either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:As others have pointed out, insults do not necessarily make an ad hominem. "Your argument is wrong, therefore you are a motherfucker" is not ad hominem, but "You are a motherfucker, therefore your argument is wrong" is. Quick and dirty:  EDIT: My only regret is that I didn't work in "A motherfucker about education".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And I didn't argue in this post that all public schools should be eliminated, only that they should be run and administered at the local level without Federal involvement. So poor areas will still get no money for education, good solution. Retard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:in reality you might as well be Mitch McConnell's wife  What the hell man
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:"Compulsory schooling is kidnapping" If there was any other institution that told you that they would have take your children away from you for 8 hours every day from when they are 4 or 5 to when they are 18 and you will be legally reprimanded if you resist what would you call it? Let's suppose you were an evil person who wanted to control society. What better way to institute an authoritarian regime than to pass a law mandated access to the children for hours each day where you can fill their heads with propaganda? You don't have to believe that people in our government have similar sinister motives, but the danger is quite real. I'm not saying that public schools ought not to exist, I'm saying that attendance should be voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If there was any other institution that told you that they would have take your children away from you for 8 hours every day from when they are 4 or 5 to when they are 18 and you will be legally reprimanded if you resist what would you call it? Alternatives to public schooling already exist you fuckhead. Schooling is mandatory, how that schooling is provided is more flexible provided it meets certain standards. So no, you're not saying attendance to public schools should be voluntary, you're saying education should be optional. You are the dumbest motherfucker to ever gently caress a mother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Great, so we'd get clustered communities of child molesters. Bring on Libertopia!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Is jrod an 'all taxes are theft' or 'only taxes for thee, never me' libertarian? I'm curious how he believes public schools would be funded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:39
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If there was any other institution that told you that they would have take your children away from you for 8 hours every day from when they are 4 or 5 to when they are 18 and you will be legally reprimanded if you resist what would you call it? It already is legal to not send your kids to school. Some states regulate it more than others. You don't have to be part of their regulated club and can move somewhere else where it is lightly/not regulated. Just like switching DRO's.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
If there were any other institution that sent armed jackbooted thugs around the country swiping ice cream out of people's hands and ordering factories closed at gunpoint and offering you only some preposterous story about how creatures too tiny and insignificant to even see but yet somehow a huge threat nevertheless are living in there and you just have to trust they're saving your life, what would you call it? Let's say an evil person wanted to control society, what better way to establish an authoritarian regime than seizing control of food production and putting us all at their mercy? Now I'm not saying the FDA is doing that, but what I am saying is the FDA is totally doing that and  health inspections should be voluntary 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
And also seeing that you seem to be responding to people about actual things that affect how people live instead of ideas, would you mind going back and explaining why the NHS has been a better vehicle for providing care and controlling costs than the US' system of healthcare? Because it is utterly at odds with your suggestion that the problems of the US healthcare market are centered in government involvement. How do you contend with the data and examples that contradict you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If there was any other institution that told you that they would have take your children away from you for 8 hours every day from when they are 4 or 5 to when they are 18 and you will be legally reprimanded if you resist what would you call it? A textile mill company town pre-labor movement, except it was more like 12 hours a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If there was any other institution that told you that they would have take your children away from you for 8 hours every day from when they are 4 or 5 to when they are 18 and you will be legally reprimanded if you resist what would you call it? Homeschooling is a thing dude. Education is important not only for economic reasons, but for social and cultural reasons as well. Go look at Prester John's Authoritarians thread and see the awful consequences of bad schooling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:A textile mill company town pre-labor movement, except it was more like 12 hours a day. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
What are these great onerous barriers and regulations to private schools? Is it that they actually have to teach their students math?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:What are these great onerous barriers and regulations to private schools? Is it that they actually have to teach their students math? Can't turn away the blacks
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:And also seeing that you seem to be responding to people about actual things that affect how people live instead of ideas, would you mind going back and explaining why the NHS has been a better vehicle for providing care and controlling costs than the US' system of healthcare? Because it is utterly at odds with your suggestion that the problems of the US healthcare market are centered in government involvement. How do you contend with the data and examples that contradict you? crickets.mp3
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I love the jrods response to concerns that his "reforms" would severely limit access to education for all but the wealthy is "WELL WE ALREADY HAVE THAT NOW IS IT SO BAD?" oh but we'll be able to reject that awful State indoctrination for nice wholesome state and local indoctrination!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Such monstrous propaganda as "The small hand on the clock shows the hour, and the big hand shows the minute." When will the statist domination of our children end???? My alternative clock says the state monopoly on time telling methods will end at precisely 30am on Misembruary 85th of 14889. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I love the jrods response to concerns that his "reforms" would severely limit access to education for all but the wealthy is "WELL WE ALREADY HAVE THAT NOW IS IT SO BAD?" Wait it's hard too keep up: is the argument that the evil State is inflating education costs and taking a degree out of the hands of all but the wealthy today, or is it that the evil State is forcing an unwanted education everyone whereas the slow but well-muscled black youth just want an opportunity to sharecrop their way to wealth like their grandparents did?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:[THIS IS WHAT JRODEFELD ACTUALLY BELIEVES] This is a topic that Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have written extensively on. There is nothing controversial about what you quoted. I didn't say they should necessarily drop out of high school, but given the quality of some of these inner city schools, even that wouldn't be that bad. School reform is an important issue of course, but that is a different topic. But getting a part time job as a teenager and getting some work experience before you having to go out and earn real money is now supposed to be super controversial?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait it's hard too keep up: is the argument that the evil State is inflating education costs and taking a degree out of the hands of all but the wealthy today, or is it that the evil State is forcing an unwanted education everyone whereas the slow but well-muscled black youth just want an opportunity to sharecrop their way to wealth like their grandparents did? both simultaneously also the state is using education as an institution to conduct an insidious brainwashing program where children refer to Obama as President of the United States
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a topic that Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have written extensively on. There is nothing controversial about what you quoted. please kill yourself you loving retard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is a topic that Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have written extensively on. There is nothing controversial about what you quoted. There's nothing controversial about anything so long as you agree with it, you watermelon loving mouthbreather
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But getting a part time job as a teenager and getting some work experience before you having to go out and earn real money is now supposed to be super controversial? People already do this you loving retard, you're just a loving retard and extrapolate this to "they should have the option to drop out and work a McJob because that will be helpful when they go to get a Real Job" which spoilers no it will not, McJobs mean poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:57
|
|