|
StandardVC10 posted:"Every" business? McLaren doesn't sell any car that costs less than $100,000 and I can name ten more businesses with a similarly exclusive product line. Point is, "every" is a big word and you'll find just as many companies that try to pad their margins by making themselves "premium" as you will companies that go for a broad customer base. Right, I shouldn't have said "every". There are a very small percentage of companies that only produce luxury items for the very wealthy. That hardly invalidates my point though, but you are correct in making that distinction.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to bring this post up once more because I'd like others to respond to what my immediate suggestions would be for reforms. Which do you agree with and which don't you? We spoke about education briefly, but there are ten things on the list and I'd like to see which ones you'd oppose. Okay I'll shoot jrodefeld posted: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. You don't actually know what any of these departments do, do you? None of these departments represent "secret government", this is you allowing a little bit of the true insanity behind your libertarian beliefs to leak through. Next you'll be telling us that 9/11 was caused by space lizards and that water fluoridation is a communist plot to rob us of our natural essence Furthermore, the FBI is more of a domestic police force than anything, so it really doesn't make any sense as to why you'd want to get rid of them. Why? You want to make federal laws even harder to enforce? Well, obviously you do, but that's not a good reason quote: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. I'm 100% convinced that ancap libertarianism would result in the opposite of what you want, here quote: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 is more of your insanity leaking through. Public education is not an effective propaganda vehicle, but we have plenty of examples of private education being exactly that. Furthermore, schools in the US are already controlled and funded locally. The Department of Education primary exists to provide funding assistance and to step in to enforce laws that protect privacy and civil rights. The Department of Educations has almost no control over educational standards of the quality of education. You are barking up the completely wrong tree. quote: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. Here's where you stop merely leaking insanity and start to really let it out. First of all, there are no federal truancy laws. Second, there are no compulsory public school attendance laws anywhere in the US; homeschooling and private schools are perfectly legal and institutionally-accepted form of education for youths. The few laws that are in place are meant to ensure that children are educated, which is unarguably a positive thing for both society and the child. Do you even live in the US, or have any experience with the US educational system at all? Nothing in item 6 or 7 has any resemblance to reality. quote: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. This is a surefire way of turning the US into a total shithole. You're trying to say that more students should be encouraged to learn a trade, a concept that I generally agree with, but in the process you're saying that we should eliminate the loan and grant programs that would allow those students to go to a trade school. You're also saying that we should cut off federal funding of higher education, which would cause a collapse of the affordable public university system. The end result of your idea is a country in which college is only affordable for the already-wealthy. Student loans would still exist, they would just be in the private marketplace, where interest rates are way higher, so students who can't afford college outright but who still want a good degree would basically have to study a high-paying field and pray that they're able to accurately predict the job market in 5 years. From the perspective of good public policy, education funding is one of the best. From a government revenue perspective, the dividends are fantastic. From a societal standpoint, there's nothing better than a populace of well-trained experts in diverse fields, even fields that might be underappreciated. The solution to the student loan problem is not to eliminate federal funding of education, it's to eliminate student loans and completely subsidize education in the process. This is how it works literally everywhere else, and it's extremely successful because education pays for itself in the long run. quote: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. More crazy cuckoo pants ranting. First of all, we tried the "competing currencies" thing and it was a total abject failure. That poo poo is just a bad idea for a lot of reasons. The creation of additional arbitrary currencies has an economic slowing effect, and there's really no reason to encourage this sort of thing. Second, there's nothing really beneficial about having a commodity-backed currency. The busts under the gold standard were way more severe than under a fiat system, which is why nearly every country in the world has switched to fiat. It's a loving stupid idea, there's really no reason to do it. quote: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. Medical quacks are prolific in the libertarian community, so it's not surprising that you would bring up the need to eliminate medical licensing. Jrod, which world would you like to live in: the world where you are certain that your brain surgeon has been verified as a real, practicing brain surgeon by a trusted third party, or the world where literally anyone can claim to be a brain surgeon? If you're paying a doctor for a medical opinion, wouldn't you like to be guaranteed that their opinion loving matters in a professional sense? The idea that we'd be better off without licensing is such a bizarre one that I barely even know how to begin addressing it. When I'm in intense pain from a kidney stone or whatever I don't really have the mental capacity to perform a thorough background check on the doctor that I'm about to go and see, what I need at that moment is some sort of guarantee that the person that I'm about to see is not some schmuck off the street who doesn't know poo poo about medicine. Medical licensing provides this guarantee, and it's undoubtedly a good thing overall. It's especially good because it hurts quacks who try to trick people into giving them money in exchange for fraud treatments like crystal healing (the same quacks who often travel in libertarian circles describing the evils of medical licensing, in fact!) quote:The result would be far more prosperity and economic growth and a more equal distribution of wealth across society. Does anyone know if it's possible for a mod modify your account so that it puts "[citation needed]" at the end of every one of your sentences? I think that would be really beneficial to everyone who reads your posts. Seems like you could do it with a pretty simple script like with the "gently caress" poo poo for non-users, and in this case it's badly needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you look over your own posts? How can you tell us the poor will be materially better off in a society where they're not taught to read? I'm not a loving conservative, get it straight. You're not going to ready Chartier or Sheldon Richman, or Lysander Spooner or Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Frederick Bastiat or any other individualist anarchist, liberal or left-libertarian intellectual, that is quite clear. But you ought not to articulate an opinion on something you know nothing about. You are the walking embodiment of the famous Bastiat quote: quote:“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” I said there should be no laws requiring (by threat of force) school attendance. From that you assume I don't believe in school attendance. If something is not coerced on society then I must not support people choosing to pursue that thing of their own volition? Preposterous. Children ought to be educated and local governments can provide public education as can private organizations and churches. Most parents WILL send their children to a place to get educated because it is beneficial to them. There will be social pressure to get children educated. You never miss the opportunity to use coercion to pursue a desired social end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Dead But Dreaming posted:I won't pretend to be a historian or even much of a debater, but I am Swedish and immediately called bullshit. And what do you know... The fact that Sweden was nominally a "Social Democracy" after 1936 doesn't tell the whole story. For a more accurate assessment of Sweden's success and the factors that ought to be attributed to it: quote:A popular notion is that Sweden has managed to defy standard economical logic, by managing Here is the research paper in its entirely: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sweden%20Paper.pdf And remember that Sweden is cited as the most successful example of Progressive policies probably in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Sweden's also one of the happiest countries on earth, hmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
I do love coercion. So you say most parents will send their kids to school (if they can afford it). But what about those who don't, the fundamentalists who believe women shouldn't learn to read, for example. What happens to their children?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Jrod you left out my edit in your long screed. I suggest you go back and find it and put it in your new updated screed because it fits so well. Also: let's define the terms here, what -- in your own words -- is racism? What does someone have to do to be rightly called a racist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:(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. It's darkly amusing that whenever you ask Libertarians about childhood malnutrition, or orphans, and how they get fed, the response is always oh how ridiculous there won't be any hunger in prosperous and charitable libertopia, stop imagining things to worry about...but then if you're like "oh okay let's outlaw child prostitution then" suddenly "what you can't do that, what if a child needs food and pimping them out is the only way you monster". Props to Block for straight-up admitting that in libertopia, orphans will have to start sucking cock from the age of six to stay alive, but goddamn that should be the point where everyone gets off the train to libertopia. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The fact that Sweden was nominally a "Social Democracy" after 1936 doesn't tell the whole story. You chose an exceedingly poor example. Wealth inequality in Sweden 1810-2010  GDP growth in Sweden 1960-2014  GDP annual growth rate in Sweden 1996-2014  This poo poo is going pretty loving well! Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I said there should be no laws requiring (by threat of force) school attendance. From that you assume I don't believe in school attendance. If something is not coerced on society then I must not support people choosing to pursue that thing of their own volition? Preposterous. This is what I was worried about when you started agreeing with Rawls. If you accept the Rawlsian minimax principle, what will you do when it conflicts with your other first principles? This seems to be one of those cases: If education is not guaranteed (and my position is that it cannot be guaranteed unless it is mandatory) then the worst off among us will end up in the workforce early, without ever getting the chance to become the sort of self-aware liberally educated person that theories of liberal democracy presume, or to develop the potential earning power needed to make their children better off in this regard. Say hello to a hereditary educational aristocracy! The Rawlsian minimax conflicts in many cases with ancap principles of property ownership. Whichever one you jettison is the principle that you never actually accepted. I have a suspicion I know which one that is. AND like three people have made this point so far, and you've continued to ignore it: Schools are already under local governance! Districts are largely autonomous! Teachers don't have the feds breathing down their neck! Stop ignoring obvious facts!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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? Does Jrode believe in repealing the estate tax?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:14
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Does Jrode believe in repealing the estate tax? I'm pretty sure he is in favour of repealing all taxes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
The Veil of Ignorance is pretty instructive for Libertopia. If I have to choose between a society like Libertopia, where I have a 10% chance to be part of a group that controls 90% of the wealth, and a roughly 30% chance of being an illiterate sex slave pimped out to Walter Block; or a society like Sweden, where my 10% chance at 90% becomes a 10% chance at 55%, but I won't have to be raped by Walter Block; I'd choose Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We know for certain that a girl aged 11 is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult but we know that a woman of 25 is. Whoa whoa whoa jrod, where is this certainty coming from? What if the girl and her parents agree that she is capable of giving consent? Why are you imposing your statism on the good people of Pakistan, whose non-coercive tribal councils have determined that girls of that age are marriageable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Rawlschat continues! This is going to need to be a two parter for reasons that should be obvious.jrodefeld posted:Okay, I appreciate this articulation of your own views. And yes, it grows tiring to have to be on the defensive for page after page. It is easy enough for a large group of people to sit back and poke holes in an ideology while a single person is tasked with defending it. Of course it is not enough to find some defect with an ideology unless you have an improvement upon it. When I talk about private property rights with people, and how original appropriation is the most sensible way to determine who has authority of which scarce resources, some people will try to poke holes in this theory by appealing to what is called the "continuum problem". To be brief, if I build a massive fence around several acres of land but I don't touch the land within the fence, can I be said to have homesteaded that land? Absolutely not. That which you improve with your labor is yours but that land which remains untouched is not yours. Let's suppose you plant crops and you place a seed one foot apart in rows in a garden. Do you own the foot between crops which you didn't directly touch? I would say you certainly do. It would be quite outrageous to imagine that a person must homestead every single molecule of dirt within the borders of appropriated land to be considered the owner. Another reason is that no other person could profit from appropriated a six inch square of dirt in the middle of my backyard so I am not forestalling anyone else from profiting either. Another objection is to say "what about the Native Americans? They didn't have the same ideas about property as you so should we just justify the theft of their land?" In the first place, Native Americans did indeed homestead land and make improvements to it, and our founders had a moral obligation to respect the property rights to the native peoples which they obviously did not do. What the gently caress are you talking about? What is this? Specifically, why is this a response to my post? This is why people have been giving you writing advice after your posts lately, man. You quote a post to reply to it, but then you just start writing about whatever comes to mind without any attempt to relate it to the conversation at hand. You say you're going to critique my position, but then you start writing about continuum problems and abortion and Rand Paul and Jesus Christ man, learn to focus your writing! You have enough problems keeping your posts to a reasonable length as it is, don't add a hundred tangents on top of it. You know what? I have a new book to add to your reading list, and I think it will do you more good than anything else we could suggest. And then there's this: jrodefeld posted:Another "continuum problem" that neither libertarians, nor anyone else, has a perfect answer to is what should the age of consent be for having sex with an adult? Should a girl be able to make that decision at 16? 18? 14? What about 15 and 253 days? There is absolutely no single correct answer to this problem. Some States say the age ought to be 16. Others say the age should be 18. We know for certain that a girl aged 11 is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult but we know that a woman of 25 is. Somewhere in the middle is the correct age and the law will always be imperfect and imprecise. What are you even thinking. Why would you start quibbling about age of consent laws out of nowhere? There has to be countless other examples to cover what you're talking about, so why pick the one that makes you sound like a pederast? Part 2 coming later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:What are you even thinking. Why would you start quibbling about age of consent laws out of nowhere? There has to be countless other examples to cover what you're talking about, so why pick the one that makes you sound like a pederast? Maybe he got on the topic from the walter block stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
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? Who What Now posted: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. Got anything to say about either of these posts, jrod? I'm still waiting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:50
|
|
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.
|
jrodefeld posted:Right, I shouldn't have said "every". There are a very small percentage of companies that only produce luxury items for the very wealthy. That hardly invalidates my point though, but you are correct in making that distinction. jrodefeld posted:I said there should be no laws requiring (by threat of force) school attendance. From that you assume I don't believe in school attendance. If something is not coerced on society then I must not support people choosing to pursue that thing of their own volition? Preposterous. Also, obligatory reminder that your definitions of "force" and "coercion" don't match those of normal, sane people. Also you're still missing the part about how local governments are already the major ones providing education, and in the U.S. homeschooling is totally a thing (albeit a thing for people who can afford the time and materials).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:There's also a massive portion of companies that sell primarily or exclusively to other companies. If I decide that I value the lives of Foxconn workers over having a shiny new iPhone... Well I'm pretty much hosed in terms of getting electronics not made by Chinese slave labor. There are some things that consumer choice just doesn't have much power over, and you're talking about stripping away the few mechanisms (already flawed, already weakened) that let us do something about them. There's literally no statistically significant evidence that promoting ethical consumerism has any effect on corporate choice or anything more than a tiny effect on corporate profits. The number of people who educate themselves is vastly outweighed by those who don't for whatever reason. And yeah, only applies to goods and services sold directly to the public. Monsanto is pretty hated as a corporation but it's making a good chunk of profit off of the food we eat, including a lot of organic stuff Political Whores fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Jrod, could you like, I don't know, maybe if you feel like it, provide proof regarding what you said about Sweden's taxes? In my admittedly shoddy google searching it looks like Sweden beat the US with regards to instituting social insurance, food regulation, medical insurance, unemployment insurance, child labor laws, or the nationalization of beer profits. And that's just what I cared to look up in a minute. And all of this was well before the 1960s. Is this another one of those situations where your personal admittance regarding the success of a mixed economy that is very much not a free market counts as a win for the abolishment of the state?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not a loving conservative, get it straight. You're the one who's confused here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not a loving conservative, get it straight. You just echo a lot of their viewpoints....which makes you a conservative!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Jrod, are you coming back? Hopefully with some stats about Sweden instead of links to bullshit articles? edit: since you've got time, you should talk about what you think this table is saying:  edit2: Before you ask, allow me to calculate average Capital ownership of the bottom 50% in distribution scenarios of 2010 America vs 1970-80 Sweden. I might have done this awkwardly, but the point is that even in a country with a GDP dwarfed by that of the USA, a distribution like that of 1970-80 Sweden is far, far better for those at the bottom. 
Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That's not the problem. I wanted to gauge to intention behind it, that's all. If libertarians are welcome here then great. If the possibility of discussion is absent because libertarians are not welcome, then I'd rather not waste my time. as if it wasn't massively obvious to everyone that you're all talk and no action, the fact that you pretend you still don't realize the point of this thread is a clearinghouse for people to laugh at your endless vacant bloviation underscores your eternal inability to do anything but drone on like some kind of horrible broken bagpipes attached to a box fan "i'd rather not waste my time" says the guy who writes thousand word posts in a thread specifically dedicated to mocking him
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:Maybe he got on the topic from the walter block stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Grater posted:It's almost word for word what Block said on the Sam Seder show. It's like he sees these keywords and automatically regurgitates a random wall of text related to it. Has anyone verified he's actually human and not a chatbot that's been fed nothing but mises.org? And lo' Block did stand upon the radio show, and thus he spake...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
How about a light hearted break from Jrod's latest dump: I’m the President of the Liberland Settlement Association. We're the first settlers of Europe's newest nation, Liberland. AMA! quote:Liberland is a newly established nation located on the banks of the Danube River between the borders of Croatia and Serbia. With a motto of “Live and Let Live” Liberland aims to be the world’s freest state. Basically it's Sealand 2.0 (or maybe 3.0 or more). Dude is basically hoping that no one shows up and kicks him and his little band of morons off the land in the next few months while they do stuff... Some highlights:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Crain posted:How about a light hearted break from Jrod's latest dump: If I had any pull with the government of Serbia I'd tell them to just let this happen. If they can go 10 years without turning into Thunderdome, then I will admit defeat and embrace libertarianism. If I'm right, at least a bunch of rich jerks will get each other killed 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
If I were Serbia, I'd wait for Liberland to develop a bit (lol) and then sweep in and take their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:If I were Serbia, I'd wait for Liberland to develop a bit (lol) and then sweep in and take their poo poo. Guns and tattered rags?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Crain posted:How about a light hearted break from Jrod's latest dump: "Hmm, where should we squat to create our new libertopia? I know, land between Serbia and Croatia, two countries without any sort of recent history of bloody, genocidal border disputes at all!"- Another brilliant idea from the champions of true liberty we've all come to know and love.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Crain posted:How about a light hearted break from Jrod's latest dump: Sometimes reddit is alright 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Another "continuum problem" that neither libertarians, nor anyone else, has a perfect answer to is what should the age of consent be for having sex with an adult? Should a girl be able to make that decision at 16? 18? 14? What about 15 and 253 days? There is absolutely no single correct answer to this problem. Some States say the age ought to be 16. Others say the age should be 18. We know for certain that a girl aged 11 is not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult but we know that a woman of 25 is. Somewhere in the middle is the correct age and the law will always be imperfect and imprecise. JRod, a little writing advice. Think about your examples, and try to use well thought-out examples. This is an example of something you'll say that distracts people from the point you're trying to make, because most normal people would not say "If I'm trying to show an example of the continuum problem, I should talk about how young a girl can be before it is illegal for me to have sex with her." When you bring up this example, it comes across as creepy. It's like the example of the "moral SS guard" from before, where your example actually worked against what you were trying to argue because the imagery was so distasteful. You could have discussed, for example, voting ages or the age at which one is considered a legal adult. So why did you go to the age of consent here? This is why people make fun of you. quote:It is not a simple, morally clear issue. To criticize libertarians for not having absolute clarity on this subject is absurd, since no-one else has a perfect answer to the problem either. I understand this is a big digression, but my point is to illustrate the way it feels when people constantly critique your philosophy while not offering up their preferred alternative. There is always a comparison that must be made in the real world. Supposing I was supporting Rand Paul for president despite all his faults. No question you could criticize him for his flip-flopping, his many stupid statements on various subjects and his pandering to the religious right and to the Israel Lobby. And most libertarians have already criticized him for that. But if it turns out you are supporting HIllary Clinton for president? Well, that sheds an entirely new light on the matter. As a matter of comparison, I have no problem saying I would vastly prefer Rand Paul as president than Hillary Clinton (or any other Republican for that matter). If you're not going to take my writing advice, maybe I should stop giving it to you. This paragraph is so muddled and unfocused, it's hard to really get what you're saying. Now, to your point: quote:To criticize libertarians for not having absolute clarity on this subject is absurd, since no-one else has a perfect answer to the problem either. I understand this is a big digression, but my point is to illustrate the way it feels when people constantly critique your philosophy while not offering up their preferred alternative. I don't need to provide you with an alternative or answers. You're trying to convince us that Libertarianism will lead to a more prosperous society, and we've basically are telling you that you're wrong, that your assertions are based upon weak assumptions that are not supported by evidence, and your mastery of the facts are tenuous at best. We live in a State. You're arguing that the State is immoral and there is a better way to do things. It's like at work. If I tell my boss they're doing things wrong and I have a better way to run the business, my boss doesn't need to provide an alternative. She just needs to show me where my assertions are wrong. Now, if we both agreed that the State was problematic and needed to be taken down, and we were working together to achieve that end, then yes, I can understand what you're saying. But the fact that I am not providing you with my vision of an ideal society doesn't mean that my criticism of your philosophy is any less valid. Looking at your arguments, you're coming from a very skewed place where your arguments aren't rooted in facts. And honestly, it's really hard to argue with you because you tend to be so broad that it's hard to really pinpoint why you believe something. quote:If I understand it, that would mean you dissent from many on the radical left whose egalitarianism is so rigid that they would prefer a less prosperous society with more equality of wealth even if it meant that the poor would be even more poor than under a less egalitarian free market society. I am fairly certain that Bernie Sanders views things precisely this way. So loving what? Stop painting everyone here as a radical leftist. quote:I have to take issue with your claim that "the evidence has shown that it is not true" that free markets are a rising tide that lifts all boats. I would argue that the preponderance of the evidence throughout the 20th century has shown that market reforms and a retreat of State controls over the economy have created an atmosphere of rising prosperity which enables the creation of a middle class and the alleviation of problems associated with poverty such as starvation in every nation where such reforms have been enacted. We can look at Hong Kong in the 1980s compared to mainland China, South Korea compared with North Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand, which have pursued policies of mostly free markets and a limited role for the State. Look at the metrics about how easy it is to start a business and you see a very good correlation to general prosperity in that society. Didn't Caros have a post that showed that Hong Kong was actually a pretty controlled economy. Writing tip: Your second to last sentence here is atrocious. First off, you use commas where you should be using semicolons, and I don't know if I should compare Singapore, Switzerland, and New Zealand to South Korea, nor do I understand why I would do such a thing. Especially since Singapore is a pretty booming economy, if I remember correctly. Now, to your argument: The problem here is that your argument lacks causality. I have no idea WHY it is. You just... Wait... you say perfectly right here: quote:This is really sloppy thinking with all due respect. It amounts to little more than "this society is doing pretty good, let's just adopt whatever State policies they have." I tip my hat to you sir. When it comes to critiquing your arguments, you are the master. You do practice really sloppy thinking, and what you said is basically "This society is doing pretty good, let's just adopt whatever State policies they have." And you know what, you kept it up. A few post later, you got in another really good dig about yourself jrodefeld posted:But you ought not to articulate an opinion on something you know nothing about. Oh wait. You were being a loving hypocrite. EVERYBODY! LOOK AT THE WATERMELON FUCKER TELLING SOMEBODY NOT TO ARTICULATE AN OPINION ON SOMETHING HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT! So Jrod, want to talk about minimum wage, healthcare, money, economics, or vaccines? These are all things you've prattled on about at length with very little knowledge. You're head is so far up your rear end you think your poo poo must smell like daisies. quote:I said there should be no laws requiring (by threat of force) school attendance. Well, JRod, all laws require a threat of force. I mean, I don't know how you could have a law that couldn't be backed up without it any other way. Even my rent agreement has a threat of force. If I decide to not pay my landlord, she can have me removed forcibly from my apartment. After all, you can't compel someone to do something unless you're willing to back it up. And when you're dealing with someone who is absolutely unreasonable and unwilling to abide by the rules, well, you have to resort to force. The mistake you're making is that you're taking the absolute maximum that a situation can be escalated and trying to bring that down to the normal day-to-day interactions. quote:From that you assume I don't believe in school attendance. If something is not coerced on society then I must not support people choosing to pursue that thing of their own volition? Preposterous. See, the problem is your whole argument basically comes down to "If I don't want to do it, you shouldn't make me do it." Is it possible to accept that in order for society to function, that there are certain things that people must do? For example, taxes. I drive on roads that my town pays for. I benefit from the security my town provides and the various services I get from it. So, why shouldn't I be made to pay as a function of benefiting from society? If we said "Well, if you want to pay taxes, you can, but don't make me," society wouldn't function to the same standard because there'd be no way to guarantee that it would work out that way. I mean, it's easy for me not to pay taxes if I think George down the road will pay. And George isn't going to pay because he thinks I'll pay. quote:Children ought to be educated and local governments can provide public education as can private organizations and churches. Most parents WILL send their children to a place to get educated because it is beneficial to them. There will be social pressure to get children educated. But there will be parents who won't send their kids to get educated. Look, even you, with your lackluster handle on logic, can understand that you need an education to be successful in this world. I mean, if you want any shot beyond pure luck at success, you need to know how to read, how to write, and how to do basic math. We recognize that you need to practice these skills and you need to gain some level of proficiency in order to be competitive in the free world. We also recognize that children are almost completely dependent on their parents or guardians to make decisions for them. A child has very limited means and resources to actualize their desires, and are dependent on others for survival. And even so, many children aren't capable of making long-term decisions like that for their benefit. They're not able to appreciate why they need to go to school. Since we recognize that not educating a child will irrevocably harm their abilities to survive, why is it unreasonable to insist that you provide an education for your child? They are defenseless. They don't have the same abilities you and I have to choose their own way. quote:You never miss the opportunity to use coercion to pursue a desired social end. Jrod, what is coercion, and why is it bad? Because honestly, you're sounding like a lunatic. This is the hill you're standing on. Forcing children to get an education is the thing you're railing against today. Are you a loving moron? Most people see it reasonable to insist that a child gets an education. But you're such a purist against "coercion" that you refuse to look at the bigger picture and understand why we have to insist, even with a vague threat of force that your child gets educated. Why we say society should step in and overrule a parent who isn't providing an education to their child, the same we'd step in an overrule a parent who isn't providing a child with food, shelter, or clothing. Coercion is not making people do things they rather not do. It's not using vague threats of force. It's using actual threat of force. Such as "I will shoot you if you don't send your child to school." Not, I will fine you, or I will take you to court and request that your child be removed from your premises if you do not provide an education for your child. But once again, you see coercion at any point when force could enter the picture, even if it is so far out of bounds. You so blinded by your ideology that you're not looking at what you're saying and thinking "You know, is this going to win over skeptics?" Because honestly, most people will tune you out the minute you say "You know what's an indignity, the fact that we force parents to feed their children and send them to school! THAT'S COERCION! IF MY BABY STARVES, WELL THAT'S NONE OF YOUR loving BUSINESS." Seriously. Get your dick out of that watermelon and actually spend some time looking at how reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
If you can't explain the core concept of your idea concisely and effectively, you don't have a firm grip on it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm pretty sure he is in favour of repealing all taxes. Well sure, it's just that repealing the estate tax in particular seems like one of the biggest gently caress yous to the idea that conservatives believe in the idea of a meritocracy. What, you don't think your kids will be smart or talented, or hard working enough to become as rich and successful as you, so they need a massive handout?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Weird it's almost like ancaps are conservatives who are just running away from the label and think they can convince people to support aristocracy and apartheid by going "no guys entrenching wealth and reestablishing segregation totally won't lead to entrenched wealth and resegregation honest." Kind of like the nonpartisan above-politics people on my Facebook who don't support Bush and don't belong to a political party, but are always supporting policies just like Bush's and are going to vote for his brother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm not a loving conservative, get it straight. You're not going to ready Chartier or Sheldon Richman, or Lysander Spooner or Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Frederick Bastiat or any other individualist anarchist, liberal or left-libertarian intellectual, that is quite clear. But you ought not to articulate an opinion on something you know nothing about. Should the state be able to use coercion to make people feed their children?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Hey guys, what did mi---  I'm sorry I'm replying to a post from several pages back but it's really going to bother me if I don't. Most of you have already gone over this wall of crap so I'll keep it short. jrodefeld posted:I don't know what to say. Refuting this much fallacious thinking is tiring work. Here we see the limits of internet forum discussions. What you have described is a crude caricature of libertarianism that doesn't resemble the reality of it to someone who is familiar with the literature. I have to conclude that you must be one who is constantly bombarded with negative attacks on libertarian philosophy, articles written at Salon or Alternet, commentaries by Sam Seder or Thom Hartmann and very limited and choice quotes from some libertarians who have said controversial things. Nope! Literally went to the library and read stuff written by libertarians. quote:Also, the implication that belief in individual liberty and non-aggression in particular and anti-statism in the abstract, are views that must not be palatable to minorities or women is absurd. As is the equally erroneous implication that none of my friends who agree with me are women or minorities.  Either your beliefs aren't palatable or you and your ilk are doing an absolutely poo poo job of reaching outside the young white male demographic. Possibly both! Let's be fair, your beliefs aren't palatable to most people on the planet. Especially minorities and women. quote:An undemocratic power grab? The entire point of libertarianism is to oppose "power" as it is commonly understood! Power is an irrelevant abstraction unless backed up with the threat of violence should someone not give in to certain demands. What I meant to say was ineffectual, undemocratic power grab. See above. Also see the post about the Koch brother's purchase of Scott Walker. quote:I've tried repeatedly to get across the point that the scope of liberalism, anarchism, anti-statism and related schools of thought that influence my beliefs are far broader and speak to concerns dear to the heart of most intellectually honest left Progressives.  quote: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? Hoppe on immigration. Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted:More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias; Rothbard: "So: Why Talk About Race At All?" Murray Rothbard posted:If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists? White Nationalist, the KKK, you name it, LOVE this crap. It gives their batshit beliefs an air of legitimacy to the uninitiated. quote:There is no question that they, or nearly any reader, will encounter passages that will anger or offend them. In fact, that has happened to me MANY times when reading Rothbard and/or Hoppe. No poo poo... quote:For example, the infamous passage from "Ethics of Liberty" where Rothbard muses whether it should be legal for a parent to not feed their children and let them die has been roundly criticized by nearly every libertarian, even his closest friends and admirers. For good reason! Most people go their entire lives without thinking up such dreadful bullshit. quote:Yes I quote Rothbard and I sometimes quote Hoppe. This might be the most truthful thing you've ever said. quote:What I hear from you is the notion that because of Rothbard's views on children's rights, he should be avoided like the plague regardless of the other valuable work he has done. Or Hoppe, because of his social conservatism, we cannot judge his work as a theoretical economist on its own merits. No, they are to be banished for their wrong views and never heard from again. Yeah, pretty much! To be clear, I think most all of their beliefs are wrong. Have you ever thought about the possibility that their racism, bigotry, elitism, etc, might have colored their views on economics? When I think about these people a word comes to mind, toxic. Libertarianism is like a goddamned Superfund site of horrible people. quote:The platitudes you speak about sound lovely. Who can oppose a fairer and juster world? Motherfucker, these are convictions I have. quote:I just feel the Progressive who is honest and sincere has his means/ends reasoning entirely backwards. As the market anarchists of the late 19th century understood, it is the State as an institution that is the enemy of the values you profess to believe in. In fact, liberals ought to be anti-statists and understand that rational economic calculation under a freed market, removing privilege from oligarchs and business interests stands the best chance of achieving that fairness and justice to which you speak. It is one thing to say you are against bigotry and racism, it is another to actually do some good in this world. The entirety of your belief system, your free market religion, hurts the very people you say you care about. Actually hurts isn't a strong enough word. It could destroy them. When right-libertarianism was created it was not for the poor and underprivileged. It was for an elite, wealthy few. People in this thread have shoved fact after fact in your face on how we would be worse off in your world. Maybe it's time to put down your holy-market-bible and think through things yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
He's against bigotry and racism. The people he supports and gets his influence from? Not so much. "I'm not racist, but my favorite candidate supports a return to Jim Crow. But I'm not racist"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
I'm not a conservative how dare you say that! Now, that said, I will be voting for pretty much any member of the conservative party who I claim to disdain before Hillary Clinton because *shits self*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 07:31
|
|
