|
Hey JRodimus, I'm getting the distinct impression that you're tired of being on the defensive all the time. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll give you a chance you don't deserve and let you go on the attack for once. Here is the reasoning that underlies the core of my ideology. It's pretty much entirely stolen from John Rawls and I acknowledge that. However, I personally endorse everything I'm about to say and any valid conclusions that stem from it, so I promise I won't go "well I don't endorse everything he wrote" if you criticize any of it. Rather than starting from an angle of natural rights, start with the question of what makes one society more just than another? Rawls' answer is what he called the Veil of Ignorance: if there was a rational soul who got to choose which society it would live in, but did not know where in that society it would be placed, which one would it pick? It would have no knowledge of its sex, gender, race, class, mental ability, anything. So if the soul looked at the Antebellum South for example, it knew it could be born as the child of a rich plantation owner, or as one of his slaves. So where would it choose to go? Would it try to make it so that the worst case scenario isn't too bad, or would it go for the longshot of fabulous wealth in an unequal society? Once again, I agree with Rawls that a rational being would hedge its bets. That is to say, the most just society is the one where the least well-off are best off. Therefore, our goal as members of our own society is to raise the standard of living of those on the bottom. This is vague to allow for varying cultures and technological eras: a modern market economy would naturally need to factor in income and wealth, while a just society of hunter-gatherers would revolve more about dividing up the spoils of the hunt. It's a simple statement to extrapolate from, but it avoids a lot of the pitfalls of other philosophies. There's no concern about the Utility Monster or Omelas scenarios that plague something like utilitarianism. And it avoids the demand for violent revolution of something like Marxism (after all, a dead aristocrat is clearly worse off than a live factory worker). And it crucially avoids the "whole conflict of equal rights" that libertarians run up against when we start discussing things like pollution or the tragedy of the commons. Crucially, it means that inequality can be just if (and only if!) one person having more than the others means that those on the bottom are better off. So it allows for people to be rewarded for hard work or innovation, while still condemning rent-seeking or monopolies as unjust. Also important is that what improves the lot of the worst off isn't specified, and should be determined by evidence. So I have no first-principles qualms with free markets if their claims that "a rising tide lifts all boats" were true. I reject it because evidence has shown us that it is not true. I'm similarly opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, "separate but equal" segregation, rigid gender roles, and the like, because history has shown these to hurt the lowest among us. On the other hand, redistributive taxation, Keynesian countercyclical spending, food safety regulations, and so on have all been pretty clear boons on the whole, so I heartily endorse them. Come at me, bro. 
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
It's gonna take at least three months for jrod to find a mises.org article expressly addresses Rawls' argument and another month and a half to skim it while looking for some key words or phrases you mentioned. And when he fails he'll need another few months to type up another "I'd like to reset the thread" post. I'm so sorry that the effort you made posting that will all be for nought, Nolaner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm so sorry that the effort you made posting that will all be for nought, Nolaner. Nah, turns out that making GBS threads out a wall of text on vague moral pontification is both easy and fun! I can see why JRod does it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
As someone who has spent a lot of time arguing about politics and philosophy, both in person and in writing, the reason I insult you constantly Jrod is because you are an affront to reasoned discourse. You write large meandering chunks of text with little relation to arguments, plagiarize ideas, read without integrating our understanding, use big words (incorrectly) and long sentences to sound smart, accuse others of logical fallacies while you commit them all the time, not the least of which is the appeal to authority which you use constantly (look how you invoked Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell), continuously leave substantive responses unaddressed, continuously use bullshit platitudes and truisms. The list goes on. Nothing in this thread has made you seem like more than a part pseudointellectual buffoon. It's frankly infuriating that you act like you've provided any sort of worthwhile defense of your reprehensible ideas. Your writing is not even high school level and you act like you're some sort of prophet. gently caress you. E: e-rant feels good
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You could acknowledge it anyway. "Good job, jrodefeld. Those are several really important reforms that certainly would help society and improve human flourishing."  WHY DON'T I GET CREDIT FOR SHARING SOME POLITICAL IDEAS THAT AREN'T COMPLETELY HORRIBLE You seriously expect praise when you happen to appropriate a position that isn't completely insane? No, I will not slap you on the back for simply typing out a meaningless political wishlist (especially when those bullet-points start to predictably veer into insane territory halfway), and not when the people on the ground and in the courts actually doing the bulk of the work with the goal of ending these horrible policies are far removed from your ideology. How you actually get to a solution matters. quote:Even when I say things you agree with, you gloss over it entirely and resume hurling insults. Edit: Again, your view on the political forces that cause some of these problems greatly affect the process you employ to go about rectifying them, and this is why even when you think you find ideological congruence with the left in this forum you'll still be challenged as your origins and hence solutions to these problems usually are completely ridiculous. And what are you looking for even if we do happen to be in agreement on a policy at more than a surface level? It's a debate forum for christsakes, no matter what the poster you're not going to foster discussion when you're in complete agreement. Do you want paragraphs waxing poetically on how we now regret critiquing your sociopath-like views because you're on the right side issue one out of 50? Even without that historical baggage you're not going to get debate in a debate forum when both posters have mutual agreements, duh. Seriously Jrod, are you Penn Jillette? Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:You seriously expect praise when you happen to appropriate a position that isn't completely insane? And in D&D of all places. We'll tear each other apart over weather vanes for gently caress's sake. Expecting anyone here to compliment you for holding an opinion is the height of absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Look, I think there is an argument to be made that blacks are inherently less industrious and helping them via the state ultimately hurts them, children should be free to work since age 10, oh also women aren't as successful in the marketplace as they are inherently less ambitious I also believe police brutality should be curtailed WHAT WHY ARE YOU FOCUSING ON THE NEGATIVE
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll give you a short list of libertarian reforms that ought to be immediately adopted and why they would contribute to human flourishing. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
hey guys lunch today is feces on rye bread why are you being so ungrateful, I thought you liked rye bread
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
I lied earlier. I was actually going to come home for a bonus round of responding to Jrodefeld but... I'd rather not. Congratulations Jrod, I'm all out of fucks, at least for today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
What does jrod consider "real crime" anyway? Aggressing against corporations by dumpster diving at KFC and Carl's Jr.?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I personally would be happy if jrod hosed off, despite the risk of this becoming 'left wing circle jerk' 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:ftfy Took me a while but lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I personally would be happy if jrod hosed off, despite the risk of this becoming 'left wing circle jerk' As opposed to the right-wing circle jerk the USA has dealt with for decades? You can't so much as breath without someone crying "But think of the job creators!" Libertarians and conservatives have had their time, commence the jiggling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:And in D&D of all places. We'll tear each other apart over weather vanes for gently caress's sake. Expecting anyone here to compliment you for holding an opinion is the height of absurdity. poo poo, if you can't get at least a little poo poo thrown your way in D&D you might as not post here at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What does jrod consider "real crime" anyway? Aggressing against corporations by dumpster diving at KFC and Carl's Jr.?  Thugs, obviously.Murray Rothbard's "Right-Wing Populist Program" posted:4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
The worst crime imaginable to jrod is education and welfare for the poor. Horror of horrors!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I am weak.  In my defence I couldn't really nap properly, so lets get down to it. jrodefeld posted: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. I don't hate them, I just think that it is important to remind you that you led with and included in your list of 'influential thinkers' racists and misogynists like Hoppe, Molyneux and Rothbard. I harp on these flaws because eventually (as you have here recently) you will stop thinking of them in a good light and stop treating their poo poo ideology with any sort of credence. I consider it an unmeasured good that you are basically unwilling to defend HHH's 'racial realism' in the thread anymore. That said it still shocks me that you refuse to act like a basic human being. If one of the people I followed politically had a weekly podcast where he denegrated women and said they "Throw their vaginas out like boomerangs to bring back a man" and you pointed it out to me I'll say "gently caress that guy. He might be right on some points, but anyone who has that warped a view of women can't be relied upon" and I'd find someone else. You on the other hand jsut sort of say "No he totally isn't like tha- LOOK OVER THERE!" quote: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. No it doesn't. I am aware of the details of this new slant you're coming at us from and I find it no more persuasive than any of the other upteen attempts. Simply saying "Oh but see its Markets Not Capitalism so its okay" doesn't fix anything. My problem isnt' with the nomenclature, my problem is in the underlying assumptions of your entire economic and social system, and how it will almost certainly lead to a massive amount of human misery if recorded history is any indication. Its a rebranding, that is is. The fact that these guys call themselves 'Left-Libertarians' While espousing the exact same bullshit does nothing to change the fact that it is the exact same bullshit. Are these guys in favor of universal healthcare? No? Then kindly get the gently caress out because I have no time for idiots who think that access to healthcare should be anything less than a right in modern society. They could describe themselves as pumpkins from the moon and my opinion would be no different when they call themselves 'progressive'. quote: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. Honestly I trust the twenty something authors of Alternet and Salon more than I trust the website that happily hosts articles from white supremicists and 'racial realists' but maybe that is just me. Just to be clear tho your argument boils down to 'nuh-uh?" quote: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. Bolded the really important part. You don't actually disagree with the facts, you just pretend that they don't support the conclusion, gotcha. I also need to digress slightly though I am running out of time. Jrod, you are doing the no true libertarian thing again. Libertarianism, as an ideology, started after the end of the second world war. This is an objective fact, before that the word did not have the connotation that it has now, and that article talks quite a bit about how the movement itself formed, who was paying for it, and why. Now you can argue that your special snowflake brand has existed since the loving templars for all I care, but modern libertarianism owes its roots and success to FEE, Cato and such groups. Ron Paul is a FEE libertarian. The libertarian party has a couple million votes every year. Anarcho capitalists are as I've said time and again, a fraction of a fraction. You can argue that your pure special version of libertarianism isn't conqured by monied interests, fair enough, but I'm also more than within my rights to say that most people who identified themselves as libertarians, such as Hayek, Rothbard, HHH, Ron and Rand Paul all descend from this moneyed group. quote: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. I argue that libertarianism is astroturf. Its a movement that exists because monied interests wanted a way to sell their 'deregulate everything and gently caress the poor and also we hate blacks' message. Perhaps some of them bought into it, perhaps not, the whole point of the article is to remind you that libertarianism as an ideology is largely made up whole cloth, much in the same way scientology was. It exists to screw the gullible. quote: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. They have? Reagan... anyone? Libertarian economics at least have been front and center for years, and even now the republican primary is basically divided between idiot flat taxers and idiot 'fair' taxers. quote:Surely one of the Koch Brothers would have bought a SuperPac and given fifty million dollars or so to electing a libertarian candidate, right? The Koch Brothers are expected to dump about $100 million dollars into trying to buy Scott Walker the republican domination, and then close to $900 Million in the general election. David Koch learned in the 1980's that the libertarian ideology is essentially unelectable (see that demographics chart from earlier) and they decided that the best way is to buy educational programs around the country, set up think tanks and recently (now that it is allowed) to outright try and pay for a politician to win office under the assumption that they will effectively own him once he is in and he can rule like a libertarian from there. quote:All of Ron Paul's money during his two runs for the Republican nomination came from small donors. This is largely because Ron Paul is a joke candidate. quote: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 short answer, as I made clear above, is that the strategy has shifted to an alliance with the republican party since libertarians by themselves can't get elected due to a mixture of '3rd party-ism' and the fact that the ideology is genuinely unpopular. The libertarians with money have long since switched to simply working from behind the scenes rather than trying to champion it front and center, which is why candidates like Ron Paul won't get elected. Ron Paul is a goldbuggering secessionist kook which is why he can't get elected, but elect scott walker and he can impliment the changes you want. They basically switched from being ideological purists to wanting to get poo poo done. Albiet horrifying poo poo. quote: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. This is actually the part that made me want to reply to this post at all. Can I tell you a secret Jrod. Come closer. Very close. You ready? There are countries in the world other than the United States. HOLY poo poo! When I say that libertarianism is a rump ideology and anarcho-capitalists like you are even smaller I mean that globally. If all the anarcho-capitalists in the world were in LA you'd still have a hard time winning a mayoral election for your chosen candidate. The US is your home base, it is by far the most popular home for An-caps the world over and you are more or less a cult of crazy people as far as the public is concerned. Bernie Sanders isn't going to win, but guess what, the world isn't just the US. Did you know that Sweden actually has a fully socialist government? Even in Canada our official opposition is the NDP, a democratic socialist party. They just won election in snow-texas against a decades long incumbent conservative party. Socialism is actually really, really popular. Why does it matter? Well because there aren't objective truths. Your ideology is never going to get off the ground because everyone loving hates it, and for good reason. quote: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. So its the part where he said "He explicitly said that his work should in no way be taken to support libertarian thought" is the part that is hard for you to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:I am weak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What does jrod consider "real crime" anyway? Aggressing against corporations by dumpster diving at KFC and Carl's Jr.? Taxes and civil rights legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Obama's Solyndra experiment and the like. Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit quote:The U.S. expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the federal program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, bolstering President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies. quote:“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Michael Morosi, an analyst at Brentwood, Tennessee-based Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy, said in an interview. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.” quote:“When these project developers took their projects to conventional financing sources, those lenders said, ‘Sorry, there’s too much risk here,’” Davidson said in a phone interview. “That’s the gap that we’ve filled.” quote:Considering the whole portfolio of projects, a $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds profits from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, Morosi said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:gently caress, just saw this by way of Caros's reply (the only way really to digest a jrod post without becoming unconscious). Seriously, Solyndra? Did you have to restrain yourself from typing BENGHAZI!! jrod? Oh no, it's someone who knows something about anything! How did he know jrod's one weakness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:10
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:gently caress, just saw this by way of Caros's reply (the only way really to digest a jrod post without becoming unconscious). Seriously, Solyndra? Did you have to restrain yourself from typing BENGHAZI!! jrod? I know the market a little bit and for sure most people in the VC world got burned pretty hard on cleantech when it was a fad a few years back. Most of the people who didn't made it work because they were willing to try unconventional means. But fundamentally it's a lovely industry for venture capital, because most big cleantech requires intensive and expensive R&D and there are high barriers to entry because of manufacture. VC is not about long hold, it's about 3-5 year exits, and funding rounds that increase in size off the back of massive company turnover growth.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I know the market a little bit and for sure most people in the VC world got burned pretty hard on cleantech when it was a fad a few years back. Most of the people who didn't made it work because they were willing to try unconventional means. But fundamentally it's a lovely industry for venture capital, because most big cleantech requires intensive and expensive R&D and there are high barriers to entry because of manufacture. VC is not about long hold, it's about 3-5 year exits, and funding rounds that increase in size off the back of massive company turnover growth. In other words, Cleantech is a prime candidate for public financing. VC can't be depended upon, R&D is massively expensive, and the potential positive externalities are enormous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Damnit! Beaten! I tried to take a more Socratic approach though.Disinterested posted:I know the market a little bit and for sure most people in the VC world got burned pretty hard on cleantech when it was a fad a few years back. Most of the people who didn't made it work because they were willing to try unconventional means. But fundamentally it's a lovely industry for venture capital, because most big cleantech requires intensive and expensive R&D and there are high barriers to entry because of manufacture. VC is not about long hold, it's about 3-5 year exits, and funding rounds that increase in size off the back of massive company turnover growth. But doesn't all of that mean that huge governments are the perfect candidates for this sort of technology, because they can afford to eat immediate and even intermediate loss on investment for longer-term returns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:42
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:In other words, Cleantech is a prime candidate for public financing. VC can't be depended upon, R&D is massively expensive, and the potential positive externalities are enormous. I mean, it's not to say private can't do it, it's just that a lot of VC people rushed in stupidly because they had unrealistic expectations. There is a second more conservative wave that has worked out you have to work differently with cleantech vs some other stuff. And, to be fair to the libertarian side of the story, a lot of them also rushed in because they heard 'government subsidy' and assumed the government would basically foot the bill for their poo poo, and got burned. But yeah, public funding, defence research or the R&D arm of a large corporation like GE are the only places that can have the resources and patience for this stuff reliably. - In other news, since someone asked me about child porn and libertarianism Check out this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXe_wq1XbDU In it, Walter Block argues that (1) He believes there should be an established consent rules for children, but that an age limit isn't necessary. For example, if you were an emancipated minor at 13, you should therefore be able to consent to sexual activity. (2) Child porn/rape is child abuse but could be legitimate and allowable if it was the only thing you could do to raise money to keep the child alive, because raping is better than death by starvation, and also allowable in the above case. (3) Child pornography cartoons are fine because they are not aggressive acts against people. (4) Pedophiles who masturbate to naked photos of children taken by their parents that they steal are not committing a sex crime because there is 'no victim'. (5) If I watch a snuff film, but haven't paid to watch it, there is no crime.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I mean, it's not to say private can't do it, it's just that a lot of VC people rushed in stupidly because they had unrealistic expectations. There is a second more conservative wave that has worked out you have to work differently with cleantech vs some other stuff. And, to be fair to the libertarian side of the story, a lot of them also rushed in because they heard 'government subsidy' and assumed the government would basically foot the bill for their poo poo, and got burned. Jesus Christ, yesterday I over heard two lolbertarian business students -ing about the Silk Road founder getting life in jail. "he was just trying to create a free market!" "yeah, a market for child porn" *literally the same arguments Walter Block made there*
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Libertarians seem to like to create weird edge cases where your only out is the right to sell your own loving soul. Maybe instead of asking 'hrm can I make my child a sex slave so he doesn't starve' maybe think about what context permits that child to starve in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I mean, it's not to say private can't do it, it's just that a lot of VC people rushed in stupidly because they had unrealistic expectations. There is a second more conservative wave that has worked out you have to work differently with cleantech vs some other stuff. And, to be fair to the libertarian side of the story, a lot of them also rushed in because they heard 'government subsidy' and assumed the government would basically foot the bill for their poo poo, and got burned. No. I'm sorry but just no. I refuse to believe that this is a real thing or that those are real arguments. I will not watch this video because I can already feel the still image of the frail fringes of my sanity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:No. I'm sorry but just no. It's sort of amazing how many of these Inviolable Natural Rights folks spend all day coming up with various ways to justify committing atrocities for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
According to every political compass test I can find I am a left libertarian and being that I am the only person I know that considers this plausible and I work for the government not only tolerantly but gleefully makes all of Jrod's contention that he is somehow in kinship with those who lean left all the more hollow. I would consider myself a statist before a libertarian in almost all cases, so I would reiterate that the only difference between libertarians and republicans (watch where their votes go) is mammon versus prosperity gospel respectively. Mammon allows child slavery, that's about the only difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:29
|
|
Caros posted:No. I'm sorry but just no. The worst bit is I had to watch the 6 preceding videos to even get to this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Since someone mentioned the I/P thread, what is the ancap/libertarian opinion the Israel-Palestine conflict? On one hand, the Israelis are committing the worst possible crimes in the libertarian psyche via illegal property seizure and the denial of Palestinian property rights, but on the other hand libertarians are racist as gently caress. And Jrod, if you're still around, I'd like to know what you think about peer review. You've voiced your distaste for it in the past, but you never really elaborated on the reasons for it. I'm sure the thread would be disinclined to immediately jump down your throat if you can articulate your position using your own words!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Libertarians seem to like to create weird edge cases where your only out is the right to sell your own loving soul. And yet when you speak about someone with sole access to a water source unwilling to share then whoa now, that's some sort of impossible situation that would never come up*! *This is a real and actual argument jrod has made. That someone withholding resources is a weird, deserted-island scenario that would never happen in real life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The worst bit is I had to watch the 6 preceding videos to even get to this one. why would you do that
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
Malleum posted:Since someone mentioned the I/P thread, what is the ancap/libertarian opinion the Israel-Palestine conflict? On one hand, the Israelis are committing the worst possible crimes in the libertarian psyche via illegal property seizure and the denial of Palestinian property rights, but on the other hand libertarians are racist as gently caress. Abolish both states, it is state aggression that is causing the whole problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:why would you do that Genuinely wanted to find the answer to the question 'what is the libertarian take on kiddy porn'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Abolish both states, it is state aggression that is causing the whole problem. "See leftists, we support the true (abolish the) two state solution!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:06
|
|
Who What Now posted:"See leftists, we support the true (abolish the) two state solution!" You see, it is a state actor, the United States, that is propping up Israel!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
The Third Annual "Feed My Starving Children Gang Rape" Presented by PaeDRO edit: wait, this motherfucker works at a Business School? No wonder B-school seniors are the dumbest seniors. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 00:19
|
|