|
In the wake of Charleston, I was wondering what libertarians' general opinions were on Rhodesia (read: I'm guessing they supported it in the same way they supported Jim Crow and Apartheid South Africa).
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Rhodesia bad because state oppression, British South Africa Company and de Beers good because free market. But Rhodesia probably not all bad because fighting communists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:03
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:In the wake of Charleston, I was wondering what libertarians' general opinions were on Rhodesia (read: I'm guessing they supported it in the same way they supported Jim Crow and Apartheid South Africa). they're torn because they hate states but love everything Rhodesia represents as a homesteading segregationist/plantation country
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:they're torn because they hate states but love everything Rhodesia represents as a homesteading segregationist/plantation country Yep, for most of them, if states have to exist, Rhodesia is the model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
It's an interesting question. True, the means of production in Rhodesia were largely privately owned, but their dirty secret was the huge amount of subsidies and tax breaks afforded to private (white) capital by the Smith regime. It's a great self-contained story about the evils of capitalism and it's leading role in colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
The noble Rhodesian civilization was doomed before it started, as the British Empire had ceased to recognize job creators' libertarian property rights in the ownership of blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:It's an interesting question. True, the means of production in Rhodesia were largely privately owned, but their dirty secret was the huge amount of subsidies and tax breaks afforded to private (white) capital by the Smith regime. It's a great self-contained story about the evils of capitalism and it's leading role in colonialism. Libertarians rarely, if ever, have any real problems with all of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Article on Libertarian / Conservative book mills and think tank process. Sorry if it's been posted already. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/13/ted_cruz_loses_his_wingnut_welfare_how_the_new_york_times_smacked_down_a_decades_old_conservative_racket/ Part I found interesting: "" posted:What sets wingnut welfare apart from the normal everyday corruption and profit motive that characterizes our political system is its commitment to the ideology set forth in that original Goldwater book so long ago. They have never changed course or re-evaluated their beliefs in light of any evidence. The movement and the edifice that’s been built around it is impervious to doubt or evolution. It is, in their minds, infallible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Libertarians rarely, if ever, have any real problems with all of that. Right, but I know enough self-identified libertarians who also consider themselves pro-equality and would therefore, at least theoretically, believe that hiring should be merit-based instead of racially based. Of course, they'd completely ignore the disparity of education and conclude that the whites obviously merited the important jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Feel free to send me to 'let me google that for you' but I was wondering if anyone had any particular articles/books/lectures on Austrian economics being largely bullshit (at least in how it is used to support FYGM thinking or policies). I read the Rational Wiki page and part of the George Mason professor's 'Why I'm Not an Austrian' paper so far, I figured you all may have some things saved for this topic. editing instead of posting to bump the thread again: \/\/ Thank you! I plan to keep reading more materials on the topic but those will definitely be helpful. Blowdryer fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:Feel free to send me to 'let me google that for you' but I was wondering if anyone had any particular articles/books/lectures on Austrian economics being largely bullshit (at least in how it is used to support FYGM thinking or policies). That's kind of a hard question to answer unless you can point out specific claims by the Austrians that you want to see disproved. I feel like its kind of the wrong attitude to say "please give me an author who can do all my thinking for me on group X". There's no substitute for reading from a bunch of sources (including some actual Austrian material) and then making up your own mind. That having been said, if you're just looking for a good "lol conservatives be crazy, amirite?" style article that also has some substance to it then you might enjoy The Long Con by Rick Perlstein. But it's most of a discussion of how American movement conservatism merged with pyramid schemes and other fraudulent activity rather than an analysis of Austria economy theory. The blog unlearningeconomics (which is sadly no longer updated) also had some good blog posts critiquing Austrian econ. You might enjoy that if you want to actually see someone engaging with Austrian theory and making relatively accessible and straightforward criticisms of their methodology and claims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
So I like to be a contraction rear end in a top hat sometimes (a lot of times) and troll Imgur comments because there are a ton of awful people there to mock. But I got a true diehard libertarian talking to me, and he's all full of piss and vinegar. Would anyone in this thread be interested in seeing what I've got so far? And can someone give me a quick rundown of what the "socialist calculation debate" is all about? My wife and I just moved into our first home and I don't have the time to read up on it ATM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I like to be a contraction rear end in a top hat sometimes (a lot of times) and troll Imgur comments because there are a ton of awful people there to mock. But I got a true diehard libertarian talking to me, and he's all full of piss and vinegar. Would anyone in this thread be interested in seeing what I've got so far?  Congratulations on your first home.  Now enjoy all the secondary costs like insurance and maintenance and pest control and 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
ohmygod Why would I read this thread if I didn't want to waste my time reading arguments for the stupidest childishest political philosophy ever E: The calculation problem is basically that no central committee can ever calculate how many boots and iPhones and ears of corn people want and produce and distribute them with anything like the speed and efficiency of a distributed network of millions of people reacting to the feedback of price signals from consumers in order to maximize their own profits. There is some validity to it, you probably wouldn't want a congressional committee deciding what this year's hot fashions are going to be and directing the textile industry to make them, but of course Libertarians take this to a full-on stupid extreme and say it's impossible for a committee of health experts to draft sanitary standards for restaurant kitchens that are better than what rationally self-interested consumers would demand by voting with our wallets. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I like to be a contraction rear end in a top hat sometimes (a lot of times) and troll Imgur comments because there are a ton of awful people there to mock. But I got a true diehard libertarian talking to me, and he's all full of piss and vinegar. Would anyone in this thread be interested in seeing what I've got so far? I am work posting but I'm about 99% that what he is talking about is also known as the calculation problem. Basically it goes like this. Markets are great and perfect. Whatever the market sets as the value of a good is its value and there is no extra work that needs to be done. Socialists on the other hand run into an issue. Since they don't use the market how do they determine value and figure out what people need? They need to use increasingly more complex methods to find out what THE MARKET does effortlessly. Now there are obvious problems with that. For one thing the market can and does set stupid loving values that have no relation to reality. Another is that the argument presupposes that the goal is to determine the value (market worth) of things rather than fulfilling human needs. Libtards will frequently point to Russia with to many onions and not enough bread as an example of this, when in reality the issue there had less to do with bad calculations as it did with massive mismanagement. Plus... You know, computers sort of help. Comparing today's data infrastructure to a world that functioned off of hand or typewritten documents is a little disingenuous. Edit: damnit vital signs I will loving cut you for beating me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:Libtards will frequently point to Russia with to many onions and not enough bread as an example of this, when in reality the issue there had less to do with bad calculations as it did with massive mismanagement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:59
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ohmygod Although most sane pro-capitalist people accept the idea of the 'tragedy of the commons'.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Although most sane pro-capitalist people accept the idea of the 'tragedy of the commons'. Most sane pro-capitalist folks also believe in some form of liberal democracy, but we are in the Libertarian Thread. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Ok, prior to him PMing me this guy had asked me how I would protect the poor if there was adequate resources to do so, and I had answered that I believed a GMI would be the best answer. His responses was that we don't live in a perfect world so that answer was garbage (despite the fact that he set up the scenario) and to misquote a few of my other replies, which I corrected him on. Then this happened, warning I only have my iPhone and Imgur's site doesn't play well with mobile so this is the best quality I can do:               
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Although most sane pro-capitalist people accept the idea of the 'tragedy of the commons'. Pre-capitalist countries/societies managed to run commons systems fine, especially before global marketplaces. Why would a medieval farmer put a billion cows out to pasture or cut down every tree on the common just because he could? Is he going to drive a billion cows to market and sell them? There's probably a market for a score of cattle tops within the distance he can walk to. The 'tragedy of the commons' has been used to justify some abhorrent beliefs too, like British welfare minister Lord Freud saying that people too poor to eat shouldn't be given free food, because "Clearly food from a food bank is by definition a free good and there's almost infinite demand." The poors would eat infinite food if you gave them the chance! People cannot be trusted to behave in a decent and trustworthy manner, except banks! The existence of communes and anarchist (real ones, not  ) societies shows that limited commons can work when isolated from global capitalism, and also that global capitalism might be the tragedy, and not the commons system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:54
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That's because the 'tragedy of the commons' is in no small part a capitalist fiction. I think you're missing the somewhat simpler point I was trying to make, which is that even ordinary proponents of capitalism generally recognise the need for some regulating authority to enter the field at some point, in situations in which the market is bound to fail.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you're missing the somewhat simpler point I was trying to make, which is that even ordinary proponents of capitalism generally recognise the need for some regulating authority to enter the field at some point, in situations in which the market is bound to fail. There seems to be just as many people using the commons theory to be complete shits as there are using it to refute internet libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:11
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Maybe I'm being a bit over defensive about it, but that quote from 'British welfare minister Lord Freud' drawing on the tragedy of the commons to deny common access to food, which I wouldn't blame you if you thought it was a historical reference to something in the 18th century, came from 2013 and has pretty much directly led to people starving to death in a first world country. Every theory in political economy is an ideological battering ram but I'm not sure there is anything particularly edfying about your choice of quote, particularly since there doesn't seem to be any link between it and the 'tragedy of the commons' which is not, I think, what you think it is. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130702-0001.htm#13070283000459 But by all means point to me the relevant part of the transcript
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Maybe I'm being a bit over defensive about it, but that quote from 'British welfare minister Lord Freud' drawing on the tragedy of the commons to deny common access to food, which I wouldn't blame you if you thought it was a historical reference to something in the 18th century, came from 2013 and has pretty much directly led to people starving to death in a first world country. Hmm, who knew that asdf32 was the British we are minister.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Every theory in political economy is an ideological battering ram but I'm not sure there is anything particularly edfying about your choice of quote, particularly since there doesn't seem to be any link between it and the 'tragedy of the commons' which is not, I think, what you think it is. I won't derail with that though, because the commons situation is a valid limit to capitalist libertarians, because everything they do is fixed within 'the market' and believing deep down that they can be the best at it. I don't believe it's a hard human limit though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Company towns were horribly abusive and barely above outright slavery, but I get paid in fiat currency in my country which is pretty much the same thing, so let's bring back company towns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Company towns still exist, we call them "half of Alaska" or "American companies operating oil stuff in foreign countries". Sure you can shop somewhere else, if you're willing to leave the security perimeter or hire transportation across the arctic tundra.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Caros posted:I am work posting but I'm about 99% that what he is talking about is also known as the calculation problem. Just to be clear, calculating relative costs/values is critical to the functioning of any economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Yeah one of the Soviet Union's biggest issues was that they were too far behind in computing to have been able to really integrate it into the planning setup the way it should have been. If they'd had something like the US commercial computing capacity of the mid 70s alone they'd have much more useful information and planning, to say nothing if they'd also had all the computing power the US government had access to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile todatoday's computers are so powerful my tower could probably run an entire continent's calculations and still have power to spare to simulate the same in Vicky 2. Plus of course there are a huge, vast variety of theoretical and actual systems in between and  which do and/or might distribute resources effectively to different degrees, but to your average lolbertarian anything which isn't the former is the very height of Soviet bureaucracy.Let's also not forget what happened when Allende tried organizing things in the 70s - it's hard to get evidence for the merits OR shortcomings of a system when the CIA/MI6/Mossad/Whoever get you couped and replaced by a junya whenever you try it out!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Just to be clear, calculating relative costs/values is critical to the functioning of any economy. Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah one of the Soviet Union's biggest issues was that they were too far behind in computing to have been able to really integrate it into the planning setup the way it should have been. If they'd had something like the US commercial computing capacity of the mid 70s alone they'd have much more useful information and planning, to say nothing if they'd also had all the computing power the US government had access to. Oooh, an asdf32/Fishmech double bill. We aren't worthy. asdf32, to you I say "No loving poo poo." You may notice that nothing in my post actually disagrees with that, I only point out that the libertarian viewpoint of "The market is perfect and anything else sucks balls" is... yeah, not so great. To fishmech... wow. I... uh... yeah thanks for actually being rational in your post. Cool beans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
You've gone off the deep end, I'm done with you! *keeps messaging for some reason* Why are you being so MEAN!?? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, prior to him PMing me this guy had asked me how I would protect the poor if there was adequate resources to do so, and I had answered that I believed a GMI would be the best answer. His responses was that we don't live in a perfect world so that answer was garbage (despite the fact that he set up the scenario) and to misquote a few of my other replies, which I corrected him on. Then this happened, warning I only have my iPhone and Imgur's site doesn't play well with mobile so this is the best quality I can do: The study is very interesting, I'll have to look more closely at it. It's not just the study though. I find it hilarious how Libertarians yap about how 'it's just common sense!' that under a GMI everyone would just stop working, when if you stop and think about it, isn't it 'common sense' that even if that did happen, the companies would poo poo themselves due to lack of the labour they need and simply be forced to jack up their wages and benefits to make the job more appealing? Which, if the deal they're offering is so lovely that people would go with a very basic GMI instead, should have happened years before? These morons have heads filled with self-aggrandizing horseshit about 'lazy bums' and 'welfare cheats' and never seem to grasp the idea that maybe, just maybe, if people all ceased working en masse in the event of a GMI being introduced, that would say more about their employers than it would say about them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
It's pretty loving obvious people don't just stop working when they have enough money. If they did no one would ever want to be President, it's stressful as gently caress and you have to already be rich to even consider it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Plus a lot of people like having really nice things. I know quite a few people who could live very comfortably if they retired now, but they're still working because even all the money they have in savings won't give them the standard of living they've grown used to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Hell, some people just like their jobs and/or working in their field! hosed up but true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
I have a request from you fine gents. Can I get some suggestions for some good online resources (articles, lectures, podcasts) on economics and/or history?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Company towns still exist, we call them "half of Alaska" or "American companies operating oil stuff in foreign countries". Typically North Slope workers work two weeks on, two weeks off, and the workers can live wherever they want and commute to work. They are only beholden to company stores half the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
The idea of a person who gets offended that people who have enough would enjoy life and relax instead of increasing, never ending drudgery is as repulsive as it is depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:In fact, it’s more useful to think of it as a religion or a cult.When they said “The Conscience of a Conservative” was their bible, they weren’t kidding. They’re not lazy, they’re just faith-based. In college I caught a lecture from a Libertarian economist for class credit. The guy handed out free copies of Atlas Shrugged to the audience. I couldn't calm my giggles enough to dare asking whether handing out free books was socialism. Then he claimed that volunteering is a felony because it violates minimum wage laws, and I had to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 16:26
|
|
ME
