|
GunnerJ posted:It's easy to forget sometimes that it's basically pulp scifi with free energy engines, cloaking devices, magic wonder-metals, and earthquake makers. Objectivists must be really lazy.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:All this line served to do was make you look like a massive whiny tool. Sorry, I'll refrain from using such lines in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:It's also possible that he could have just said "Men" and left it as that because anyone who is so up their own rear end about pronoun usage that they'd take offense to non-gender neutral pronouns in a random discussion on an internet comedy forum is a sad individual. Bring back menschen. It's nice having a conservative post here actually, because it's funny to see even conservatives look at libertarian bullshit and be like "no what the gently caress?!" Hey YF19, you don't sound much like a modern-day conservative to me though, do you consider yourself a Republican? Your opinions come off closer to agreeing with Bill Clinton or Jim Webb or Governor Mitt Romney than to Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Paul Ryan, or Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:
This is the weirdest part of your ad hoc argument. You don't need to say all. Just that some people are going to act badly. There's no need to ponder the fundamental good/sinful nature of man, we just know at least some people are fuckers. Also I guess my general response to your argument is that our bodies are our property, they're also just something else, too. We are distinguishable from our bodies. If my body has a seizure and I whack someone else in the face it's not treated as though I, myself, chose to whack someone in face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is the weirdest part of your ad hoc argument. You don't need to say all. Just that some people are going to act badly. There's no need to ponder the fundamental good/sinful nature of man, we just know at least some people are fuckers. I understand the first part, I guess it's just too tempting to use those quotes in full, as they sound pretty to say anyways. What you say is more to the point. In any kind of stateless society we have to trust that our neighbors will have the same morality we have, and that this mutual respect in society will prevent lawlessness and abuse. But, like you said, some people will be fuckers, and to even a small extent, everyone who can will take advantage of the system (or lack thereof). Second point, I agree that we (our consciousness and spirit) are distinguishable from our bodies, but we are inseparable as well. Our bodies belong to us, but to regard our bodies as mere property allows one to foolishly disregard this connection and invites abuse. If our body suffers in illness, such as a seizure, it is only fair to say that our self suffers with it. Our being is separate from our bodies, but still shares the experiences because it cannot be disconnected from the body. Still, if we treat our body as property, but recognize that this inseparable connection exists between our body and our self requires that our bodies be treated as a special kind of property separate and above all other kinds of property, we create a distinction which cannot exist under Libertarianism, at least as I've seen jrode explain it. VitalSigns posted:Bring back menschen. It's nice having a conservative post here actually, because it's funny to see even conservatives look at libertarian bullshit and be like "no what the gently caress?!" I think most conservatives view Libertarians as "extremists, but small government brothers-in-arms" but fundamentalists disagree with many of the moral freedoms, and almost all conservatives believe that a government is necessary for a functioning society. They use a lot of the same rhetoric about smaller government, but at the moment it seems that "Libertariansism is a phase kids go through before become adults and going Conservative." I haven't listened to the conservative talkers, but I do remember they would usually dismiss Libertarians outright. The biggest difference is that conservatives still believe in the existence of the state government. I stopped considering myself a Republican probably shortly before Mitt Romney ran for president, and just considered myself "conservative". I've grown disenchanted with the Republicans, and actually toyed with the ideas of Libertarianism because many of my friends are Libertarians. After all, Libertarians are for gay marriage, small government, poo poo that seems to tick the boxes of what I considered conservative. But the idea of going laissez faire on absolutely everything is too much. The leaders are racist and xenophobic. The heavy weights don't want people to share the wealth of their "Brave New World", they wish to rule over others unimpeded by the "shackles" of government. The "useful idiots" like jrode feel they will share in the glory and wealth, but will only share in the misery and slavery. Then there's poo poo like this that my Libertarian friends post from time to time:  This past year, being away from the influence of my family, I've been able to reflect on the prior few years of my life, and I feel that I am certainly not of like mind with my conservative family members. I find myself arguing with my conservative and libertarian friends just as much as I argue with my liberal and socialist friends. I want to say I'm conservative, but I don't know if I've left my party or if my party has left me. Also, my recent experiences have shown me how the social safety nets work and how and why they need to improve. It's fun having defaulted on private student loan debt that I can't pay back short of winning the lottery. I'll have to look into Jim Webb. Hard to remember who all is running for president this year. Also, I'd rather be told I agree more with Bill Clinton than Donald Trump. Though if given the choice between Hillary and Trump, I'll gladly write in Bernie Sanders because gently caress those two and gently caress Jeb Bush as well. Like I said, I'm feeling disenchanted with the party that I was raised to vote for, but I'm not sure that I want to vote for their opponents either. Two party system really sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I understand the first part, I guess it's just too tempting to use those quotes in full, as they sound pretty to say anyways. What you say is more to the point. In any kind of stateless society we have to trust that our neighbors will have the same morality we have, and that this mutual respect in society will prevent lawlessness and abuse. But, like you said, some people will be fuckers, and to even a small extent, everyone who can will take advantage of the system (or lack thereof). No, this is wrong. Some people will not take advantage of the system. Some people will actually contribute to the system without taking anything out of it. This is the problem with a kind of absolutist religious world view: it flattens the variety of human life and human interaction into one pat attribute. It's not true. quote:Second point, I agree that we (our consciousness and spirit) are distinguishable from our bodies, but we are inseparable as well. Our bodies belong to us, but to regard our bodies as mere property allows one to foolishly disregard this connection and invites abuse. If our body suffers in illness, such as a seizure, it is only fair to say that our self suffers with it. Our being is separate from our bodies, but still shares the experiences because it cannot be disconnected from the body. I didn't say to regard our bodies as mere property, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Do children have property rights over their own bodies? Can my (hypothetical) child refuse to create joinder with me when I insist she eats her brussel-sprouts? If she decides to run away from home do I have any legal recourse to force her to come back? If the creepy man with a windowless van offers her a value proposition regarding candy and sexual favors that she determines is in her rational self interest, how can I stop her without violating the non-aggression principle? How will my parental rights be enforced without MEN WITH GUNS paid for with COERCIVE TAXATION? If my child does not have property rights to her own body, does it therefore follow that she has no human rights? Who owns her? Do I? Can I sell her? If not, how will this be enforced without MEN WITH GUNS paid for with COERCIVE TAXATION? Assuming I did this in secret, and told everyone she was away at a private school (in reality sold to a local warlord for 10,000 liberty-coins), why would rational actors refuse to business with me? This is an example of a problem the state handles pretty well, but could handle a lot better if conservatives and libertarians weren't constantly defanging social services. Caros posted:It's also possible that he could have just said "Men" and left it as that because anyone who is so up their own rear end about pronoun usage that they'd take offense to non-gender neutral pronouns in a random discussion on an internet comedy forum is a sad individual. I think Caros is wrong here, but I usually agree with her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Pigbog posted:I think Caros is wrong here, but I usually agree with her. I see what you did there, but you're wrong. If we were talking about someone writing a scholarly piece, or a book, or basically anything with serious merit you'd absolutely have a point that using either gender neutral pro-nouns or leaving some sort of disclaimer might be in order. This is a casual discussion on an internet forum and unless it is a discussion about gender roles (which it wasn't) being angry that a person uses gender nouns they are comfortable with is something that only a pedant would do. Someone whining about Cisgendered privilege is awful, but they are about as awful as someone who looks at an unrelated post and starts bitching "He and his?! What about she and hers?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
you know, there still hasn't been a fight yet. i'm bored.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
No, it's not. Not in the way that we're talking about, anyway It's pretty similar to "groups can be corrupted". But that doesn't mean that the group caused individuals to become corrupt, but rather it allowed individuals to be corrupt. The argument that all governments are corrupt by default is totally false and implies that a group can be more corrupt depending on what you choose to name it (government, business, etc). But that's obviously bogus, and it's part of what makes libertarians so frustrating to talk to; they take bogus conclusions like this as being true by default and then build a philosophy on those beliefs. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:I see what you did there, but you're wrong. yeah, but it's still pretty dumb to go "sorry if my cis-male white privilege offends you  " as if to try and go out of one's way to swing at the tumblrite strawman of d&di'm pretty sure that's what some folks here take issue with; what about that whole "sorry if you can't stand my privilege" comment was necessary or conductive to discussion in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:I see what you did there, but you're wrong. I understand the distinction and would love to explain myself further but I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll do what jrod should do and stop talking about this even though I think you are wicked wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:yeah, but it's still pretty dumb to go "sorry if my cis-male white privilege offends you I thought it was thoughtful but not really necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Pigbog posted:Do children have property rights over their own bodies? Can my (hypothetical) child refuse to create joinder with me when I insist she eats her brussel-sprouts? If she decides to run away from home do I have any legal recourse to force her to come back? If the creepy man with a windowless van offers her a value proposition regarding candy and sexual favors that she determines is in her rational self interest, how can I stop her without violating the non-aggression principle? How will my parental rights be enforced without MEN WITH GUNS paid for with COERCIVE TAXATION? Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer. e: because if you ask a libertarian, I guarantee that it will be the worst answer you can think of
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer. Too Late! 2008 Libertarian primary candidate Dr. Mary Ruwart posted:Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Pigbog posted:Do children have property rights over their own bodies? Can my (hypothetical) child refuse to create joinder with me when I insist she eats her brussel-sprouts? If she decides to run away from home do I have any legal recourse to force her to come back? If the creepy man with a windowless van offers her a value proposition regarding candy and sexual favors that she determines is in her rational self interest, how can I stop her without violating the non-aggression principle? How will my parental rights be enforced without MEN WITH GUNS paid for with COERCIVE TAXATION? Educate yourself and weep: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights Murray N. Rothbard posted:Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. quote:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:yeah, but it's still pretty dumb to go "sorry if my cis-male white privilege offends you Oh I agree with you. My whole point is that it was entirely unnecessary because no one here is going to call him out for saying "He" instead of "They" and that is just makes him look like a creepy gently caress. Pigbog posted:I understand the distinction and would love to explain myself further but I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll do what jrod should do and stop talking about this even though I think you are wicked wrong. The level of pedantry required to get upset about the selection of personal pronouns on an internet comedy board is frankly astounding and does whatever group you're fighting for a disservice. Getting pissed off because someone says "he" instead of "they" makes you look like an enormous loving baby with no sense of scale. I don't even necessarily disagree with you that the usage of "He" as the default gender for most people is problematic, just that anyone dying on that hill in an unrelated discussion is a sad, sad individual who needs to pick their battles. Likewise intentionally using the incorrect gender when speaking about someone just makes you look like an idiot. hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
I mixed my work (dick) with the land (OP's mom) and thus own the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:
It was a joke dude. You said no one should get mad at pronouns so I jokingly used the wrong pronoun to describe you. It's sub dad joke in its mildness. I'm sorry I brought this up, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Chrungka posted:Educate yourself and weep: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights I already knew Rothbard's ghoulish views on the subject, I wanted to know how J. Rod reconciled it in his patchwork ideology. Also, gross. gently caress Rothbard forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Chrungka posted:Educate yourself and weep: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights Jrod, given those two options would you say that in a libertarian society that either parents have no obligation to provide for their children or that parents have the right to sell their children and that in either case we just have to accept that some parents will choose to be horrible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Pigbog posted:I already knew Rothbard's ghoulish views on the subject, I wanted to know how J. Rod reconciled it in his patchwork ideology. the State is responsible for police brutality!  ...well then (p.s. this is from his "right-wing populism" platform, which was at the end of his  the establishment took down david duke screed)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I kind of feel like there's a fruitful discussion to be had about what is and isn't effective in preventing corruption in organizations and how we can better tweak representative government to do the job we intend. Part of what got me thinking about it was the discussions of how maybe sometimes you want a Hillary Clinton which in some ways becomes a cypher for the percieved base versus a Bernie Sanders whom most would acknowledge is much more of an ideological leader, and thus less likely to change a position because he has a reason for the stance on it. I think this reasonably dovetails into this thread because despite the authors intent the contention is reliant on property is most important because government is corrupt and untrustworthy and the behavior of the wheels of government as a whole and how elected officials influence and change or don't change that I feel is a rather central and mostly unexplored subject. Maybe it merits its own thread, I don't know, I feel I have useful perspective to contribute to such a subject but lack the scope of vision required to make it inclusive to greater and larger government organizations. I have experience with corporate and small business America and local government but not bigger government than county so I would be really remiss to assume like most Americans that I have any clue at all how things are operating on the public sector on the larger scale. Generally I get the impression that corruption starts to seep in and become more villianish at the state level and above because the amount of corruption possible grows the larger the jurisdiction is. It certainly exists lower, look at sheriff apairo in Arizona, but based on my perception of things, state is where its worst. It could be however that people just don't care when the scale of "poo poo is hosed" is the town of 30,000 for the next 20 years. Edit: and by at its worst I mean that when poo poo goes sideways nationally we get stuff like no child left behind or a forever foreign war which for whatever reason we can't seem to identify the fact that it isn't working right, never mind was actually a mistake. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Edit: and by at its worst I mean that when poo poo goes sideways nationally we get stuff like no child left behind or a forever foreign war which for whatever reason we can't seem to identify the fact that it isn't working right, never mind was actually a mistake. Neither of those are the result of corruption, except in the moral definition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Neither of those are the result of corruption, except in the moral definition. Right, the scale is too large, you're never going to find an email that says " we will get all our friends in the MIC everything they want by crafting policy decisions a decade before the opportunity arises and thus appropriate tax payer money for misguided genocide!! Muwahaha!!" A million is a statistic, etc. I would argue that ultimately policy crafted to stated values is moral, policy which you enact and stick with despite having the opposite outcome of your values is corruption and creates jrods. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Right, the scale is too large, you're never going to find an email that says " we will get all our friends in the MIC everything they want by crafting policy decisions a decade before the opportunity arises and thus appropriate tax payer money for misguided genocide!! Muwahaha!!" I have no idea what you're talking about. The MIC itself isn't corruption. lovely lobbying for politicians to do bad things isn't corruption, either. Can you state clearly what your premise is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I have no idea what you're talking about. The MIC itself isn't corruption. lovely lobbying for politicians to do bad things isn't corruption, either. Health of the mother concern legislation is corrupt. It has a stated intent of protecting maternal health but it doesn't exist for that reason nor is it effective at it. E: Corruption of the political system is not just who stole money and who committed crimes. If you set out to some a city to support economic growth and the only people who show up to the planning meetings are residential developers whom will sustain public spending in your local economy for 5 years you end up with regulatory capture and the local government goes bankrupt in 15. The zones are unsustainable and the people who walked away richer for it don't have to pay the social cost. I think that's a form of corruption. The stated value is to help economic development and make the government sustainable and the outcome is a failure of the entire system. I feel like without a broader definition of corruption all you'll do is make more libertarian skeptics and ensure that public service becomes too onerous for anyone to take on. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Pigbog posted:I already knew Rothbard's ghoulish views on the subject, I wanted to know how J. Rod reconciled it in his patchwork ideology. Well he has Rothbard has his avatar last I checked so I'm going to assume he considers it both cool, and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Health of the mother concern legislation is corrupt. It has a stated intent of protecting maternal health but it doesn't exist for that reason nor is it effective at it. You've broadened the term 'corruption' so far now that it's useless to describe anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You've broadened the term 'corruption' so far now that it's useless to describe anything. Okay. I think government action that doesn't follow spirit or letter of desired outcomes and wastes resources is a pretty reasonable definition of corruption and a breach of trust but to each their own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Okay. It does follow the letter. I think you just meant spirit. The letter of the law is followed. Your definition is so broad that it includes someone passing a law called the "Help America's Workers" act that actually winds up screwing workers--with this being obvious and the Democrats and unions calling it out for what it is, and it fooling nobody, really--and someone just taking money out of a pension fund, or appointing their nephew as water inspector. There is no point in lumping the two of them together. I have no idea why you wan to make such a broad category. I would have no idea what you meant when you said 'corruption', the way to end one and the way to end the either bear no resemblance to each other, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It does follow the letter. I think you just meant spirit. The letter of the law is followed. I guess because as someone who works in it I see overly broadly as "this process is a failure" and corruption becomes an easy catch all for law or regulation which is performing to spec but its outcomes or indicators have otherwise been "corrupted" from the valued or intended purpose. When I see a city official get canned because he did stuff that wasn't against the law but violated the intention of regulations, and didn't make any extra money off the venture and didn't do anything other than abdicated government oversight of construction projects, is that not corruption? I don't know what else you call intentional incompetence and malfeasance in government except corruption or... Libertarianism? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I guess because as someone who works in it I see overly broadly as "this process is a failure" and corruption becomes an easy catch all for law or regulation which is performing to spec but its outcomes or indicators have otherwise been "corrupted" from the valued or intended purpose. How about "bad law" or "bad leadership"? Corruption implies a level of personal and/or familial enrichment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Okay. No, that's "ineffective." To say something is "corrupt," you're stating that immoral action happened under the guise of achieving another end. So for example, if I set up a charity, but due to the lovely way I run things, only 10% of the money goes to the cause, it's ineffective. But, if part of the reason why 10% goes to the cause is because 50% goes into my pocket, that's corruption. It's important to use the right word, because it changes the argument greatly. Corruption has a very negative connotation. If you tell me something is corrupt, I'm going to deal with it in a different way than if it was just ineffective, or misguided. It's also important to understand the root of the problem. If a law doesn't achieve it's intended outcome, in order to prevent future mistakes, I need to know why we failed in the past.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I guess because as someone who works in it I see overly broadly as "this process is a failure" and corruption becomes an easy catch all for law or regulation which is performing to spec but its outcomes or indicators have otherwise been "corrupted" from the valued or intended purpose. If something is an 'easy catchall' then it's worthless for actually discussing the issue. This basically broadens it to all intentional bad actions by the government. You could say the cops are 'corrupt' when they pull someone over for driving while black, but it's not. It's racism, and abuse of power. Calling it 'corrupt' is awkward. It's more descriptive, and more interesting, that in the US cops by and large are very not corrupt. There's some corrupt departments (NOLA hey) and cops who take bribes and steal evidence, but by and large you can't bribe US cops, and the vast majority of guys who would arrest a black kid for cursing at them would not only refuse to do that if you offered them a hundred bucks, they'd probably arrest you. By broadening the phrase out and stretching it to every circumstance of immoral actions by the government, you're both making it valueless as a term of discussion and, I'd say, making it a term that libertarians would be perfectly fine with, because by those standards the US Government, and all governments, are very corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Unless you count abuse of civil forfeiture as corruption (you should).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Unless you count abuse of civil forfeiture as corruption (you should). That's a good case where there actually is corruption, because forfeiture actually involves directly getting money from that abuse of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, this is wrong. Some people will not take advantage of the system. Some people will actually contribute to the system without taking anything out of it. This is the problem with a kind of absolutist religious world view: it flattens the variety of human life and human interaction into one pat attribute. It's not true. Okay, I misunderstood your position, this clears it up for me. On the second part I was trying to circle back around and apply my argument to the Libertarian "body as property" not to necessarily attack your position. In regards to the cis-gendered line, I apologize, obviously it was in bad taste. I had added it in after I wrote everything as a throwaway gag, and obviously it didn't go over well and I understand why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Unless you count abuse of civil forfeiture as corruption (you should). Civil forfeiture is a widespread problem, but I suspect that the percentage of police officers that are actually involved in civil forfeiture is relatively small
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
It's still quite annoying that jrodefeld hasn't answered his own question in the thread title. It's been many days, and it's simply uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:18
|
|