|
I still can't believe he actually came right out and admitted that. "We're the liberty people! Rule Number One of Liberty: no freedom of speech on private property. Rule Number Two: every square inch of ground is private property. Good luck out there, orphans!"
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is the Libertarian theory on gladiatorial combat to the death? It was historically done by slaves so obviously Libertarians are cool with that as long as the owner freely chooses to risk his property for profit or merely sport. But what about the occasional freeman who wants to have a go in the ring? I assume that there's a long winded explanation of how it would work but the part that matters is that it's very low class to fight in the pit as a freeman. You're supposed to pay extra for the shooting box if you want to kill proles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still can't believe he actually came right out and admitted that. Lacking context, I think you'd have to inform people that it's part of an argument in favor of libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Being an orphan is freedom from the tyranny of having parents, just ask Batman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Gladiatorial combat? Why, that could be done at any time, by order of your employer. What did you think "any additional duties as required" meant on your employment contract?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
It's great how up their own rear end Libertarians are about how non-aggression is the only rational, universal, logically consistent principle on which to base our legal and moral systems, and everyone else's philosophy is some arbitrary self-serving mish-mash. ...but then you dig just a little bit into what aggression is, and you discover there's no universal agreement or consistency in the definition at all, and depending on which Libertarian you ask aggression can be anything from collecting taxes, polluting, forbidding pollution, being gay (Hoppe), being a child anywhere in Gaza (Block), disagreeing with Libertarians, or whatever. It's a pretty neat trick to smuggle in a whole unstated axiom with all sorts of implications and consequences that just so happen to fit your random prejudices and preconceived ideas. But at least it's not arbitrary like the laws in a vulgar democracy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's great how up their own rear end Libertarians are about how non-aggression is the only rational, universal, logically consistent principle on which to base our legal and moral systems, and everyone else's philosophy is some arbitrary self-serving mish-mash. Well, if you lump everyone who believes in taxation into a big bin and write "Left-Progressives" on it, and then pull ideas out of the bin at random, you'd see how inconsistent those ideas are plain as day! Though the pollution thing might be one of the best bits of doublethink in the whole of the last thread. "Why, sure, I can see how even small amounts of pollution in the air could be construed as aggression, but some impediments to personal liberty need to be accepted for the good of society."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But at least it's not arbitrary like the laws in a vulgar democracy! Except when it is and we get some moral principle like homesteading named after a law from a vulgar democracy and flagrantly attempting to reverse engineer some sort of justification for it after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Libertarianism: blacks, Jews, Muslims, Irish, women need not apply (not racist/sexist for realsies)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Except when it is and we get some moral principle like homesteading named after a law from a vulgar democracy and flagrantly attempting to reverse engineer some sort of justification for it after the fact. Oh yeah, I forgot that "property" is the other vague arbitrary definition and it amounts to something like that Eddie Izzard bit about how you don't own anything you didn't have the sense to stick a flag on before white men arrived and put up their flags. Nolanar posted:Well, if you lump everyone who believes in taxation into a big bin and write "Left-Progressives" on it, and then pull ideas out of the bin at random, you'd see how inconsistent those ideas are plain as day! And even when the pollution is bad enough to injure you, you can't enjoin the polluters or collect restitution unless you can prove exactly who was involved and to what degree, so good luck uncovering the specific particulates responsible for each tumor and tracking them back through the decades to their point of origin, and then winning against Dow Chemical in any privately-funded court they'd accept. But you don't have to worry about this, companies will naturally choose not to pollute because no consumer would buy a cell phone from a company that poisoned an entire Chinese village to make it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh yeah, I forgot that "property" is the other vague arbitrary definition and it amounts to something like that Eddie Izzard bit about how you don't own anything you didn't have the sense to stick a flag on before white men arrived and put up their flags. That's based on logical deduction from first principles that just happens to look like a bizarre mishmash of Anglo-American real estate law as codified by someone who doesn't understand the distinction between title in allodium and fee simple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Nah, it's a completely fair non-racist and non-arbitrary and still-not-racist system.Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives. Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good." Hans Hermann Hoppe posted:Thereby, in order to illustrate one's theoretical conclusions, every attempt should be made to compare societies which, apart from the theoretical distinction under consideration, are as similar as possible. It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids, any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:He's actually dedicated his time and effort to finding and fighting Dickeye (current username: Literally the Worst) in real life. i'm a cutter w/ a machine gun on the front, toot toot
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Libertarianism: blacks, Jews, Muslims, Irish, women need not apply (not racist/sexist for realsies) Why is it critics of libertarianism spend all their time harping on debatably racist/sexist things? Even if true, and they're not, such matters are tangential at best to what I came here to talk about, and furthermore- *writes 40,000 more words in a single post focusing squarely on subjects of race and/or sex, somehow managing to confirm worst possible suspicions about libertarians by so doing.* Literally The Worst posted:i'm a cutter w/ a machine gun on the front, toot toot 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Libertarianism: blacks, Jews, Muslims, Irish, women need not apply (not racist/sexist for realsies) Libtarianism: justice is now a commodity. I hope you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Why is it critics of libertarianism spend all their time harping on debatably racist/sexist things? Even if true, and they're not, such matters are tangential at best to what I came here to talk about, and furthermore- Were you there in one of the previous appearances in the jrod thread where he literally did this like a dozen times in a row? Every single post for a week was basically what you typed here and it was endlessly funny. "I wish you guys would stop talking about racism, it's irrelevant to the discussion, furthermore *writes a 1000-word essay about how not-racist libertarians are*".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Were you there in one of the previous appearances in the jrod thread where he literally did this like a dozen times in a row? Every single post for a week was basically what you typed here and it was endlessly funny. "I wish you guys would stop talking about racism, it's irrelevant to the discussion, furthermore *writes a 1000-word essay about how not-racist libertarians are*". Was it jrod that posted about the negroid's inherent propensity for violence or was that just one of the many shitheads he plagiarized?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Why is it critics of libertarianism spend all their time harping on debatably racist/sexist things? Even if true, and they're not, such matters are tangential at best to what I came here to talk about, and furthermore- Oh man, speaking of confirming our worst suspicions, remember the time that JRod said it would be morally okay for a Libertarian to be a literal Nazi concentration camp guard as long as he killed fewer Jews than his hypothetical replacement would? Like, he actually used Nazi prison guards as his example. It wasn't even in response to a hypothetical we suggested, it just sort of happened, out of nowhere. edit: Found it! jrodefeld posted:I'll respond to this post because I think the criticism is misplaced. Libertarianism is NOT a universal system of ethics. It doesn't claim to have an answer to incredibly complex and difficult moral problems. Complicated problems like abortion do not have easy answers. There are continuum problems. When precisely does life begin and when is the taking of that life an act of murder? I don't think there will ever be one definitive answer. Or what about the legal drinking age? Why is it okay for a person at 21 to buy a beer but not at 18? What about at 17? Maybe a person at 16 or 17 should be able to drink beer but not hard liquor? Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Were you there in one of the previous appearances in the jrod thread where he literally did this like a dozen times in a row? Every single post for a week was basically what you typed here and it was endlessly funny. "I wish you guys would stop talking about racism, it's irrelevant to the discussion, furthermore *writes a 1000-word essay about how not-racist libertarians are*". He's done that in more than one iteration of this thread, you'll need to be more specific. Because I've been in all of them.  Malleum posted:Was it jrod that posted about the negroid's inherent propensity for violence or was that just one of the many shitheads he plagiarized? How can anyone keep track at this point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:How can anyone keep track at this point? If they actually used the word "negroid," there's like a 95% chance it was Hoppe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:If they actually used the word "negroid," there's like a 95% chance it was Hoppe. Well yeah, but I don't put it past Jrod to have plagiarized it with a mild edit of the more outrageous terms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Libtarianism: justice is now a commodity. I hope you can afford it. Do not become addicted to justice, or it will take hold of you and you will resent its absence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
I would have been the best Nazi concentration camp guard because *lists off a bunch of absurd hypotheticals* But enough about my hobbies, let me tell you about bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
"Time Preference of the Negroids" sounds like the title of a rejected Doctor Who story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Oh man, speaking of confirming our worst suspicions, remember the time that JRod said it would be morally okay for a Libertarian to be a literal Nazi concentration camp guard as long as he killed fewer Jews than his hypothetical replacement would? Like, he actually used Nazi prison guards as his example. It wasn't even in response to a hypothetical we suggested, it just sort of happened, out of nowhere. Never mind the fact that one man can kill a dozen others, and has only one life of his own to offer in recompense. It's almost like life and liberty and people aren't things that can be dealt with via property law! SedanChair posted:Do not become addicted to justice, or it will take hold of you and you will resent its absence. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
theshim posted:Never mind the fact that one man can kill a dozen others, and has only one life of his own to offer in recompense. It's almost like life and liberty and people aren't things that can be dealt with via property law! Weregild would like a word.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Weregild would like a word.  Members of the Blue Spruce clan approach your ring. "Your weaponthane, Jrodefeld, has slain one of our people on the road for no reason at all and refuses to pay the weregild. We demand that you give him up to face justice, or convince him to pay." When asked, Jrodefeld says "The Blue Spruces were aggressing on Orlanthi property by walking with a higher degree of time preference on my road, thus lowering its value. I did only as Orlanth himself would have done, and protected that which is mine." 1) "Jrodefeld is no Orlanthi, and you may do with him as you please." 2) Force Jrodefeld to pay weregild, violating the NAP. 3) Outlaw Jrodefeld. 4) "We will deal with him ourselves.  "5) "Ron Paul end the Fed."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
theshim posted:
5. Always 5. Also the best post in this whole thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
theshim posted:
6) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:i'm a cutter w/ a machine gun on the front, toot toot admit it you moved across the country so you wouldn't have to fight jrod
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:admit it you moved across the country so you wouldn't have to fight jrod just because i moved from PORTLAND to SUGARNOTCH doesnt mean i changed coasts
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
theshim posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
theshim posted:
7) Tell the Blue Spruce clan to try Jrod while we assemble our own court and try Jrod. If the results are different, we come together and pick a third party court to try the case a third time. Reject any third party court other than one headed by Jrod's brother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
What's all the fuss? Can't his grandparents just fork over the weregild?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:just because i moved from PORTLAND to SUGARNOTCH doesnt mean i changed coasts i thought you were in Charlotte not too long ago?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
It has officially been two weeks since the OP last blessed us with his wisdom. Elapsed time between his first and last posts: 6 days.Literally The Worst posted:so yeah let this play it, it'll last two weeks and he'll run away like a baby You were too kind to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Maybe I should hunt down the other libertarian threads, but there are still a few things that are stuck in my craw. If these have already been posted by jrod or snippets from The Game, feel free to link. How are laws made/passed? Who dictates what laws exist? Can the population at large change and alter laws? Is there a mechanism for recognizing new laws and abolishing old ones? Would it be easy or hard to change laws? What checks would be in place to prevent passing laws that favor one group of people over another? Are laws basically "rules" set by the individual property owners, so that laws can vary depending on whose property you are currently on? How would DROs be able to keep up with which laws which clients have? If I don't personally believe a certain act is a crime, but someone else does, did I commit a crime? Do the DROs themselves create laws, or do they merely enforce them? How would one reconcile or be able to deal with differing laws when travelling between areas Are there no actual laws, but some nebulous concept of global ethics and morality that if broken I will be punished for? How are these defined, and by whom? To expand on the bold parts: Not all crimes are physical, such as "blasphemy" or "vulgarity" or "noise pollution". Not all abuse is physical, much of it can be verbal or mental. Someone already posted that bit from The Game about how true freedom of speech as we enjoy it in the US (completely unfettered with very few, narrowly and well defined categories of 'unprotected' speech) would not exist under "true Libertarianism". How would that even be enforced? Okay, getting side-tracked, but this is what I mean: If I publicly insult you, how will you be compensated? Can you be compensated? Let's say it's something innocuous that's protected under our current government, like saying "I bet you'd gently caress a watermelon given the chance!" Under current laws, this is pure hyperbole. It's not "fighting words", and it's not libel/slander. It passes the "reasonable person" test of whether this is protected speech or not (it is protected). Situation A - Society as a whole decides whether calling someone a "melon fucker" is okay or not. 1) In my favor - you've been aggressed! That's like, totally not cool! My sovereignty has beaten out yours! 2) In your favor - calling someone a "melon fucker" is, like, totally not cool, and "aggressing". So MEN WITH GUNS will tell me what I can or can't say. Isn't that oppression, which Libertarianism isn't suppose to support? Situation B - Individuals define their own laws. 1) Depends on the theater - in which case both of our private property rights are violated in favor of whatever property owner's property we happen to be standing on. Or basically, our bodies as "property" doesn't count as "property" in this instance, or other types of property is more important than our own bodies. The only way for this to directly favor you or I is for it to have happened while standing on our lawns. 1s) I'm standing in my lawn, you're standing in yours. If I am favored, then your laws are made secondary to mine. If you are favored, then I have to obey your laws on my property. 2) My laws are favored. Then your own personal laws are held secondary to mine. I can perform actions which you view as aggressive, and there is nothing you can do about it. gently caress your NAP, melon fucker. 3) Your laws are favored. So now I'm subject to the whims of every person around me, and must base my life upon the unknown rules and laws of every passerby, enforced by MEN WITH GUNS. Situation C - DROs make the rules, and our DROs have different rules. 1) The DRO of the property of where I called you a 'melon fucker.' Same issue occurs as above 1 and 1a, or when we are standing on two separate properties monitored by two different DROs. 2) My DRO is favored. Then what's the point of you paying for yours if the laws you want enforced don't get enforced? 3) Your DRO is favored. Great, my speech is being suppressed by MEN WITH GUNS. 4) Our DROs go to court and try to reach a settlement about what speech is okay. Great, UNELECTED MEN IN BLACK ROBES get to decide what I can an cannot say, and what laws you get to enjoy having enforced. And don't think this is some "extreme case scenario." It isn't. It's poo poo like this why in the US we've decided that categories of "unprotected speech" be so narrow and well defined. It's why many states have passed, or are in the process of passing SLAPP laws. It's why people are pushing for federal SLAPP laws (which we've almost had on at least two occasions). Also, it's breaking my mind trying to figure out how someone could come up with the idea of "a completely state-less laissez-faire society" that has blasphemy laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i thought you were in Charlotte not too long ago? pls stay current on your dadchat epistemes (i moved from charlotte to syracuse)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I believe the idea is that there is no law save what is generated by the gestalt processed of society (but not what we have now, because that's bad) and these sort of inherent social laws will be enforced by anyone with the firepower and inclination to do so (enforcing a law which was unpopular would result in other people shooting you) while more locally, laws are dictated by whoever owns the landmass you're on and if you don't like them you can leave.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
The idea is that all "laws" are simply clauses in explicit contracts you've signed in order to do things like buy a house or get a job or simply have police protection. Basically, take the entire function of all governments and international bodies, and turn them over to HOAs. Because if you want a model for a legislative body that doesn't gently caress with people over stupid poo poo all the time, it's HOAs. Apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 17:23
|
|