Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Ravenfood posted:

Its definitely one of those "imagine a perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres..." situations. Yeah, libertarianism would probably work under certain conditions, but those conditions are pretty clearly not feasible given our current understanding of humanity. Its like that dude who shat up the RWM thread trying to tell everyone about his great idea to stop racism forever: "what if...nobody was racist??" I mean, that'd be swell, but...

Except that "perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres" can be a close enough model to real world things that it's actually kind of useful. There are a ton of things you can treat mathematically as a sphere and get the calculations close enough. Cows, for example.

Libertarian theories? Yeah, not so much. This is more like "perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres that are whatever diameter I need them to be at any given moment to make the numbers come out how I want them." Which is, of course, why current libertarianism and current right wing ideals are insane. They're deciding on a solution and working backwards from there. Instead of gathering data then figuring out what it means they're gathering data after the fact then either massaging it to support their conclusion or just outright fabricating whatever they need.

It would be like an experiment coming out wrong and the libertarian saying "well you picked the wrong perfect vacuum and I actually meant cubes."

# ? Nov 6, 2015 19:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 08:47

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Ravenfood posted:

Its definitely one of those "imagine a perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres..." situations. Yeah, libertarianism would probably work under certain conditions, but those conditions are pretty clearly not feasible given our current understanding of humanity. Its like that dude who shat up the RWM thread trying to tell everyone about his great idea to stop racism forever: "what if...nobody was racist??" I mean, that'd be swell, but...

I think it would work as intended in the real world. Not as advertised, mind you. It would let some rich fuckers be double king poo poo for their remaining lifetime and be absolutely ruinous for everyone else.

# ? Nov 6, 2015 20:18

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

I've always liked how blatantly two-faced libertarian ideology always is. If you want to make sure that restaurant owners can't refuse to serve black people, then the explanation is "surely the free market is a force for good that will make sure that these places go out of business". But if you're a racist then the explanation becomes "surely the free market is a force for good that will ensure that these places prosper".

DROs are awesome because libertarians will try and browbeat everyone over the importance of total freedom and privacy while pining for an Orwellian surveillance dystopia that has neither of those things.

# ? Nov 7, 2015 01:59

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Except that "perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres" can be a close enough model to real world things that it's actually kind of useful. There are a ton of things you can treat mathematically as a sphere and get the calculations close enough. Cows, for example.

Libertarian theories? Yeah, not so much. This is more like "perfect vacuum inhabited by perfect spheres that are whatever diameter I need them to be at any given moment to make the numbers come out how I want them." Which is, of course, why current libertarianism and current right wing ideals are insane. They're deciding on a solution and working backwards from there. Instead of gathering data then figuring out what it means they're gathering data after the fact then either massaging it to support their conclusion or just outright fabricating whatever they need.

It would be like an experiment coming out wrong and the libertarian saying "well you picked the wrong perfect vacuum and I actually meant cubes."

They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed.

# ? Nov 7, 2015 15:19

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

CommieGIR posted:

They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed.

I reject your reality and substitute *extremely expensive wet fart*

# ? Nov 7, 2015 18:40

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

CommieGIR posted:

They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed.

Look, the history of philosophy goes Locke, whatever anarchists I feel like co-opting, von Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe. I don't see Karl Popper on that list, so all your "data" and "facts" can go gently caress themselves.

# ? Nov 7, 2015 19:06

Twerkteam Pizza: Sep 26, 2015; Grimey Drawer

Nolanar posted:

Look, the history of philosophy goes Locke, whatever anarchists I feel like co-opting, von Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe. I don't see Karl Popper on that list, so all your "data" and "facts" can go gently caress themselves.

CO-OPTING YOU SAY?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johndobosz/2014/06/18/friedrich-engels-worker-exploitation-drives-profits/

# ? Nov 7, 2015 19:09

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Cerebral Bore posted:

Your scenario relies on unrealistic assumptions about Libertopia. First of all, how would the child have made it past my minefields and automated machingun turrets to get to my SUV in the first place?

Someone repost the Libertopia fanfiction where the protagonist scurries past the feral wolves gathered in the lobby of his workplace's office building.

[e]: Never mind, I've got it:

quote:

I sat in my living room sipping my cup of chicory and looking out my window and pondering my choices. overhead flocks of ghang gliders soared through the soot, taking advantage of the unregulated skies to make their morning commute. I shifted, somewhat uncomfrtable. i needed to make a decision soon, before my neighbor rumbled out of his driveway in his Abrams tank and the vibrations from the tearing of pavement made the decision for me

I read through the billboards on the sidewalk again. Joe's Sewage: faster than anyone! poo poo-B-Gon [as i read the name I silently thanked z0r for the death of the nanny state and the freedom to curse in public]: no clogs! there were five others that I passed over, but I knew, that morning, I was a poo poo-B-Gon man. I trotted outside and grabbed the sewage hose that sat dribbling on my lawn. where was the nearest linkup station? I jogged down the street, briefly warming my face on the fire from my neighbor's house, before I tripped on a stray corpse and fell face first onto the sidewalk. As I pushed myself up and wiped the blood [not mine] from my hands, I saw the linkup station. After paying my thirty dollar day-fee [a small price to pay for freedom] and jogging the mile back to my house, I was soon happily doing my business. Like a free man

I jammed my foot on the gas and grinned as my engine roared. It was free of catalytic converters and other emasculating controls, and at last, was the robust and mighty machine I had always known it could be. I flipped my sunglasses open and jammed them over my eyes and the cloud of black smoke behind me was witness to the power of my works. The rumble of gravel beneath me was like glorious harmony to the howl of the engine. For nearly fifteen seconds I was grinning like a maniac as the car jolted and crunched down the crumbling street. Of course, I had to slow and toss my tiny cube of gold into the toll box, and wait for my neighbor to wave me past, but soon I was back to full speed, living life as free as the birds used to do before we shot them all.

I downshifted into third as I caught side of an unfamiliar barricade ahead. Smoke rose in a plume behind the stacked wood and bodies. As i came to a stop a man with a cigar gritted in his teeth and a shirt soaked red and cracked sunglasses waved me to roll down my window.

"What seems to be the problem?"

"New repairs on this stretch. Going to need double tolls till we've got it fixed"

I grimaced as I searched around my glove box for an extra cube. At this rate I'd never make the public hanging...

I run into the center of bear-baiting ring. My stomach churns as I face the beast. Howls and cries from the crowd wash over me like hypodermic needles at the beach. I feint left but as I push off the blood-soaked earth my foot explodes through the my shoddily-constructed shoe. With a silent curse for whatever nameless ten-year-old sewed it I kick it off and dash to the right. Thank z0r I always ccw, I think to myself as I air-somersault past the bear. The crowd of mercenaries roar at the sight of my acrobatics.

If i can win the crowd then perhaps the king of this stretch of road will let me go...good thing i have an ace up my sleeve.

Make that two, I think as I pull out my twin desert eagles, locked and loaded with the finest hollow-tip bullets that our local toy/gun store carry. The recoil from both firing at once knock me back against the blood-drenched wall of the arena but I keep firing at the bear.

As it finally staggers back and crashes to the ground I air somersault forward again and kneel, crossing my arms in front of my chest and holding my guns against my shoulders and feeling the cheers of the crowd wash over me. I have won my freedom. I let only the briefest pity for the less skillful travelers wash over me, but content myself with the thought of penning a scathing letter against these mercenaries tonight. Then I grin. Score one for the market, motherfucker

Shoeless and gasping I run down the road toward the city, dodging shards of glass and the bones of long dead children. I had paid the last toll with my car itself. Once the consortium has purchased enough of sick and dying bodies from the local hospital to grind into cement, we'll have our new roads [or so the ads promise], but it's too late for my car.

I hear a faint stirring in the underbrush that stretches out toward the asphalt. With all the nimbleness of an unregulated manufacturer responding to demand, I do a three-quarters cartwheel while simultaneously firing ten shots from my dual DEs. I chuckle at the crashing and groaning from the brush in the silence after my deafening barrage. One step closer to that new road.

I take off running again. By three p.m. I'm at the office. As I approach the elevators there's a deafening crash and smoke comes from behind the elevator doors. I note the name of the manufacturer and use my bleeding feet to write a message of warning on the floor of the hall. I ignore the moans and take the stairs to my office.

My manager scuttles toward me as I enter. "Eight hours late? You're fired. And you can be sure no other company will hire your scummy rear end in the future"

My left eye twitches as I calmly respond. "You forgot one thing."

"What's that?"

"There's only one monopoly we don't tolerate. A monopoly of force. "I backflip as I pull out my DEs and start firing. The screams of the dying fill the air like mercury. This is one market that just got regulated.

Before I leave the office, I loot the bodies of my dead coworkers, murdered by my hand, like an IRS employee mailing a 1040. I leave the office a tomb; a blood offering to the hungry god I worship now. Stepping back into the stairwell is like stepping through a looking glass. S am wearing shoes ripped from the dead feet of my former boss. Call it an audit.

With a ninja's grace I leap from stair to stair as I exit the building. Light bulbs flicker and dim; the local smallpox epidemic is two weeks old and they've almost run out of bodies to burn for power. They're talking about charging customers one child per year as fuel. Some people were upset about it but at least the government isn't behind it.

My shoulders are heaving as I crash through doors into the lobby. A pack of wolves lurk around the receptionist's desk. Night is almost here. They begin to howl as I jog outside into the gathering darkness

I check my watch�6 o'clock. I had meant to run a few errands before going home. Just one, actually. I run down the street until I see a dimly-lit verizon store. The salesman doesn't even blink an eye when I enter, dripping blood and gore, desert eagles jammed in my waist. Then I pull out my guns and point them in his face.

blinks.

"I paid 5 bucks more last month, you know?" i growl between gritted teeth

"So?" he says

I put the guns back in my waist. The salesman exhales in relief

Then i kneel and draw my katana. With one smooth motion I behead the clerk.

"I wish to file a complaint," I say, as gouts of arterial blood spray paint the ceiling.

At last I'm home. I recline back in my babyskin chair and swirl some orange juice in a mug. As i bring the mug up to my limits i feel a sudden pain in my lip. I fish around in the juice and pull out a shard of glass. Rolling my eyes i toss it on the pile in the corner.

My pet tiger pads into the room. Not for the first time i offer a silent thanks that no gang of criminals can tell me not to keep it. Then i see the blood dripping from its jaws.

I curse as I ease out of my chair and walk into the next room, following the blood. The corpse of my neighbor's son is still warm on the floor of the kitchen. I turn on the alarm system and set up the house defenses just in time for the doorbell to ring.

I look out my front window; my neighbor is carrying a shotgun and has a crazed look on his face. I call out:

"What do you want?"

"I want that damned tiger."

"No."

"GIVE ME THE TIGER."

"Come and get him."

My neighbor shudders as he considers his options: 1) wait to ambush me later, 2) attack now, 3) write a scathing letter and mail it to all our neighbors. He cocks his shotgun and fires it at the door.

My defense system activates. With fury and power that would warm the heart of a Blackwater soldier it reduces my neighbor to ash. As the whir of the chainguns slows i walk back to my babyskin chair. it feels soft. it feels warm. it feels like freedom.

Alarms wake me from my slumber. Not my house; the neighborhood co-op alarms are ringing. I listen to the sound. Next to me my slave girl stirs. I casually backhand her across the mouth to keep her quiet. Three horns followed by a low ringing�possible outsider invasion.

I check to see that her chains are secure then lower myself out of bed. A low whistle summons my tiger. I press a button next to my bed; a slave child scurries in. I order him to bring me my katana.

Wrapped in my robe and with my sword strapped across my back I slip outside into the ringing night. The noises are coming from the south. I see a neighbor across the street slap his wife in the face as she begs him not to leave and I thank z0r no slave has tempted me.

The light from torches flicker in the distance at the watch point. There are already several neighbors gathered in a circle. I can hear a low muttering but I cannot see what they have surrounded

I reach the outside of the circle with my tiger at my side. It carelessly bites one of the men in the circle on the leg. He falls to ground and i take his place and see...

It is worse than I had feared...a face as dark and soulless as the night sky looks up at me. Tears stream down his face. I shudder at the thought of more of them...out in the darkness...I lope away from the circle and call my tiger to my side. Tonight...we hunt.

I see the fear in their eyes as i approach the campfire. I wear a chain of tiny ears around my neck and my face is spattered with blood. I grip the head of my enemy in my right hand.

Ashen-faced, my neighbor asks me of the forces in the darkness

"it's a group seeking medicine for sick children," I reply. "it was." I suppress a giggle. I toss the little head into the middle of the circle.

"Are you ok?" one asks

The others mumble, afraid to look me in the eyes

I look him in the eyes. He twitches. I say

"Sanity is like a rule. A regulation. I am free."

I heft my katana in my right hand, then bring it to his neck

"Will you question me, or will you do as I say?"

It is not a question.

"A man chooses" I say.

They kneel before me. Alarms wail in the distance. I see the earth soaked in a tide of blood. I finger the necklace of ears like a rosary.

"We are strong," I say. "Together we are free".

They murmur in assent. One man remains quiet. I remove his head, then hand it to one of my followers.

"We are free. Put it on a stake, to warn those who would oppose us."

I order the rest of the men to secure the neighborhood gold. We will keep it at my house; I will disperse it as necessary. the gold is mine...the precious...

...

I sit on a throne of skulls inside my new house. Palace. I run my fingers through the head of the slave who kneels at my side. In my other hand I grip the femur of a dead enemy. A slave used a rock to hone the end of the bone to sharp points. The walls and floor are red, spattered with blood and smeared with dirt; the ceiling is black with soot. My tiger stalks outside.

When the snows come we move to the caves in the hills for warmth. I will spread my seed.

A beast stirs. I breath in the fetid air, thick with blood and death. Law is dead. I am the law. The market is dead. I am the market. I scratch at my fur loincloth and crush a louse. Government is dead. I am the government. God is dead. I am a God.

Somewhere in the distance i hear the howl of the alarms and the chatter of guns.

And this is heaven.

But you remember one thing: if you screw up just this much, you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog poo poo out of Hong Kong!

EPILOGUE

The cave is dark but warm. The women huddle under furs and blankets for warmth during the day. I lead the hunting parties out in search of game but any creature larger than a chipmunk has long since been slaughtered. We hunt squirrels and rodents with our AK-47s; sometimes a scrap of meat is still left after the hail of bullets.

One of the women is heavy with my child. I alone may mate with them. The heads of the men who objected rot on stakes outside the cave mouth.

One evening after we have returned from our mighty hunt with two squirrel carcasses and a dead robin someone almost tripped on, we spy a man in the distance staggering toward the cave. We watch as he winds his way through the badlands. black snow falls, mixed with ash. his powder blue shirt is badly torn and bloody and there is no spark in his eyes.

He begs us for shelter. I explain that our food supplies are low but that there is room in our cave if he will hunt and accept my rule. He nods, exhausted, and starts to shuffle past me to the fire.

Then i catch sight of the patch on his sleeve. A stylized white eagle on a field of blue. The mark of the oppressors. I grab his collar and growl in his face "you're one of them"

"What? What are you talking about"

"One of them. the patch. the eagle."

"P-p-please...I just...delivered mail"

I grip his throat in my hand and lift him and shout "A CRIMINAL!!!!!"

My tribe huddles around me.

"HE WORKED...FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!!"

I see the rage in their eyes. Hooting, they jump up and down, calling for blood. I lower the man to the ground and they mutter with disappointment. I beckon for a slave to bring me my club: all sharpened bone and shattered glass. I put my mouth next to the man's ear and i grasp the club and hold it in front of his eyes. "If you want a vision of the future," I say. "Imagine my warclub, smashing a human face, forever."

Then i swing it against his head, and it crunches, and he falls to the ground. "We eat meat tonight" I say with a smile. The cheers are deafening.

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 7, 2015

# ? Nov 7, 2015 21:27

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

They don't even bother with actual data, either, and have been pretty clear that regardless of the data, their theories cannot fail only be failed.

It seems that instead of saying a sort of action or outcome is bad, it is only one particular form of the expression of action (government doing a thing) is bad. Any outcome is permissible, as long as it does not come from governmental force or power being expressed.

# ? Nov 8, 2015 01:51

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Nessus posted:

It seems that instead of saying a sort of action or outcome is bad, it is only one particular form of the expression of action (government doing a thing) is bad. Any outcome is permissible, as long as it does not come from governmental force or power being expressed.

Deontological ethics with the only rule being "government is always wrong" is certainly one way of looking at the world.

# ? Nov 8, 2015 02:32

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Nessus posted:

It seems that instead of saying a sort of action or outcome is bad, it is only one particular form of the expression of action (government doing a thing) is bad. Any outcome is permissible, as long as it does not come from governmental force or power being expressed.

Which is funny because it requires you to break other forms of ordinary [claimed] libertarian rules, like ever examining people as a class or group instead of individuals (the libertarian purported solution to racism and sexism).

When agents of the government act, they aren't individuals who act, they're part of a pervasive force of 'statism'. When my agent acts, an ordinary commercial transaction between consenting adults.

They have a very limited concept of what the state is, and their definition is such that it can only conceptualise it as something in opposition to the people rather than being constituted out of them.

# ? Nov 8, 2015 19:57

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

VitalSigns posted:

I don't need to be able to give you all the details, because the free market will include the best minds in the country, and once the government gets out of the way, those minds will be unleashed to solve these problems faster and betterer.

Couldn't it be argued that an anarcho-capitalist libertarian system incentivizes only the meanest, baddest motherfuckers to the top? Sure, this might correlate with intelligence, but only those best able and willing to consolidate power (ie capital, the means of production, etc) and would immediately set up barriers (physical and economic) to prevent others from encroaching on their accumulated power. The Bush family is pretty good evidence on this story of consolidated power and privilege not resulting in more intelligent or wise guardians of society.

As it is, hedge funds and Wall Street firms tend to promote those with psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies. I'm on my phone, otherwise I'd link to these studies. Nevertheless, these are supposed to be the captains of industry and vanguards of capitalism and show, time and again, they are willing to screw over society if opportunities arise (eg subprime lending, manipulating LIBOR, etc).

So, given this evidence, why would removing regulations and the State suddenly result in a net boon for society? Why wouldn't said power brokers go "hey thanks!" then pillage society even harder with said checks against their destructive potential removed?

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Nononono, that would never happened, not at all because, because you see, *loosens tie, runs hair through increasingly disheveled hair* the market would necessarily intervene in those cases where- and I don't mean "intervene" here like those statist men with guns but rather that mutually involved arbitrators who, yes, would need on occasion to be armed, *begins sweating noticeably* but that's not reason to think that devolution into feudalism, which wasn't even that ba, err, uhh HELP THIS GUY'S AGGRESSING AGAINST ME!!!
*mashes Valhalla DRO panic button*

This made me laugh and chuckle a whole lot; thanks for that, friend.

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Nov 9, 2015

# ? Nov 8, 2015 23:55

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

...
So, given this evidence, why would removing regulations and the State suddenly result in a net boon for society? Why wouldn't said power brokers go "hey thanks!" then pillage society even harder with said checks against their destructive potential removed?

...

1) Praxeology, ergo your evidence is wrong. QED.
2) Companies only get away with this because people put misled trust in these checks. With no checks people will naturally become more savy about where their business/money goes, stop doing business with unscrupulous ne'er do wells and go to a competitor instead. If there are no competitors to fill that niche, some enterprising individual will fill that gap.

For any questions or objections, see 1).

# ? Nov 9, 2015 00:33

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Buried alive posted:

1) Praxeology, ergo your evidence is wrong. QED.
2) Companies only get away with this because people put misled trust in these checks. With no checks people will naturally become more savy about where their business/money goes, stop doing business with unscrupulous ne'er do wells and go to a competitor instead. If there are no competitors to fill that niche, some enterprising individual will fill that gap.

For any questions or objections, see 1).

I get where you're coming from here (tee hee), but taking this approach in good faith:

1.) Wouldn't it be more efficient for society to avoid falling into pitfalls in the first place via proper safeguards and checks against abuse versus letting people get maimed or killed and then learning from others' mistakes?

2.) Wouldn't powerful, established individuals and companies set up barriers to entry for a given gap (eg an old-school-Ford-esque company sell cars only in black and has a monopoly on the market; if you want a different color, gently caress off) to maximize profit/rent-seeking, thereby preventing enterprising individuals the chance to fill other niches in the market? This happens already today in monopoly/oligopoly-controlled markets, so what would stop this in Libertopia?

# ? Nov 9, 2015 01:34

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

nah, free markets create perfect societies and any interference with the free market is by definition less than perfect, ergo ipso facto end the fed

# ? Nov 9, 2015 04:05

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

I get where you're coming from here (tee hee), but taking this approach in good faith:

1.) Wouldn't it be more efficient for society to avoid falling into pitfalls in the first place via proper safeguards and checks against abuse versus letting people get maimed or killed and then learning from others' mistakes?

2.) Wouldn't powerful, established individuals and companies set up barriers to entry for a given gap (eg an old-school-Ford-esque company sell cars only in black and has a monopoly on the market; if you want a different color, gently caress off) to maximize profit/rent-seeking, thereby preventing enterprising individuals the chance to fill other niches in the market? This happens already today in monopoly/oligopoly-controlled markets, so what would stop this in Libertopia?

Uh-oh! Somebody didn't read the thread!

1) Things actually were that way in the past, then States came along and hosed things up.

2) No, the market would prevent such things from happening. Barriers to entry caused by the nature of the product itself will be solved by plucky individuals with nothing but tenacity and gumption. All other barriers are actually State induced (factory inspections, having to actually register as a corp., making sure information you put out there is honest, etc) so if you remove the State you also remove those barriers.

Basically what the guy above me said, but with more words.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 05:01

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

What it boils down to is libertarians think that in their society all information will be objectively perfect, and all of society will be perfectly informed. If you're not perfectly informed, it's your fault, because people won't lie for fear of poor reporting scores and possibly becoming a non-entity in the eyes of other's or their own DROs. It's your own fault if you get fooled, and you can only prove otherwise if you can prove you were "agressed" by whoever abused your trust.

At least that's what it sounds like to me. Remember, there is no free speech in their society, so lying could be outlawed, no matter how innocuous.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 05:25

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

ToxicSlurpee posted:

The answer to that gets...strange. OK, humans are, in fact, fundamentally logical creatures in that we do what we think is best at the moment given the information we have. Emotions color that information. If I am scared "get the gently caress away" is probably the most logical conclusion. It may not seem logical to others but to me it is. Think about phobias. For a very long time I struggled with a fear of heights. Elevators bothered me so much I'd just flat out refuse to get on them. Emotions are really factual information. "I am afraid of *thing*" is a factual statement if I am, in fact, afraid of *thing* and will act accordingly.

Most people are not afraid of elevators so my behavior seemed illogical. However, it was logical because I was avoiding the unpleasant feeling of being on an elevator. We avoid things we fear. Avoiding or being wary of things we're afraid of is of course logical. What was not logical was the fear of elevators. I had no reason to fear elevators but I did. Eventually I got over it and can ride them fine now (I still prefer to use the stairs because doing something like taking an elevator up a single floor makes me feel like a lazy rear end on account of the fact that I am still capable of walking up stairs).

So if a commercial comes on preaching the virtues of an amazing new product I may very well think "wow that thing is good! I should get some of that thing." Once again it's a logical decision; "this is good" is the information. "I should buy good things I can afford" is too. However, that information may be wrong. Said thing may, in fact, be a hideous lie. That's why false advertising is, you know, slightly illegal but also why so many businesses just love spreading misinformation about their products around. Tobacco is one that comes to mind. Also in the case of tobacco the unpleasant feeling of shaking the addiction combined with the pleasure of smoking will often override the possibility of cancer in the future. Humans are also extremely habitual. Ceasing the habit of smoking takes like a month.

Of course this is why the shenanigans the tobacco companies got up to is so horrible. They make smoking sound so good, be so addicting, and also so pleasurable that "you have a high chance of developing lung cancer and dying oh and also you won't be able to breathe at all when you're 55" is the lesser evil in the mind of a smoker. Yes, I used to smoke, why do you ask?

The major assumption libertarians get insanely wrong is based on the information side not the logic side. ...

Eh this isn't want praxeology claims, it's actually simultaneously not as stupid as you're portraying but yet sooooooooo much more stupid. Von Mises recognizes that people don't have perfect information nor perfect logic to unerringly satisfy their desires, nor even necessarily desires that you would see as rational. He brings this up, then disposes of it instantly by declaring that it doesn't matter and adopts a total subjectivism on the subject: whatever someone wants to do in that moment is what he thinks will make him happy, thus happiness is maximised by letting people do whatever they want (except initiate force because that stops other people from doing whatever they want). If someone wants to smoke a cigarette, it doesn't matter if he's bad at long-term thinking, or he has been lied to and relying on false information, or any of those things you said because his desires are completely subjective and you're not in a position to judge them.

Human Action posted:

Human action is necessarily always rational. The term "rational action" is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.
...
When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable--although faulty--deliberation and an attempt--although an ineffectual attempt--to attain a definite goal. The doctors who a hundred years ago employed certain methods for the treatment of cancer which our contemporary doctors reject were--from the point of view of present-day pathology--badly instructed and therefore inefficient. But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. It is probable that in a hundred years more doctors will have more efficient methods at hand for the treatment of this disease. They will be more efficient but not more rational than our physicians.
...
The teachings of praxeology and economics are valid for every human action without regard to its underlying motives, causes, and goals. The ultimate judgments of value and the ultimate ends of human action are given for any kind of scientific inquiry; they are not open to any further analysis. Praxeology deals with the ways and means chosen for the attainment of such ultimate ends. Its object is means, not ends.

In this sense we speak of the subjectivism of the general science of human action. It takes the ultimate ends chosen by acting man as data, it is entirely neutral with regard to them, and it refrains from passing any value judgments. The only standard which it applies is whether or not the means chosen are fit for the attainment of the ends aimed at. If Eudaemonism says happiness, if Utilitarianism and economics say utility, we must interpret these terms in a subjectivistic way as that which acting man aims at because it is desirable in his eyes. It is in this formalism that the progress of the modern meaning of Eudaemonism, Hedonism, and Utilitarianism consists as opposed to the older material meaning and the progress of the modern subjectivistic theory of value as opposed to the objectivistic theory of value as expounded by classical political economy. At the same time it is in this subjectivism that the objectivity of our science lies. Because it is subjectivistic and takes the value judgments of acting man as ultimate data not open to any further critical examination, it is itself above all strife of parties and factions, it is indifferent to the conflicts of all schools of dogmatism and ethical doctrines, it is free from valuations and preconceived ideas and judgments, it is universally valid and absolutely and plainly human.

I give jrod a pass because he obviously hasn't read Human Action, just inaccurate summaries of some points from it that form part of random essays on lewrockwell.com, but how does someone like my dad who is a smart guy, read those paragraphs and still believe in it arghh.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 07:33

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

That's a lot of words to say "praxeology is axiomatic; I'm right, you're wrong, shut up."

# ? Nov 9, 2015 08:24

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

VitalSigns posted:

If someone wants to smoke a cigarette, it doesn't matter if he's bad at long-term thinking, or he has been lied to and relying on false information, or any of those things you said because his desires are completely subjective and you're not in a position to judge them.

So how does the NAP deal with second hand smoke?

# ? Nov 9, 2015 09:09

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

VitalSigns posted:

human action posted:
The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 13:29

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

So how does the NAP deal with second hand smoke?

Well since you haven't proven that it wasn't errant cosmic rays or, conceivably, vengeful leprechauns, that caused your lung cancer, after careful review your DRO has decided to take no action and informs you that any further allegations of "aggression" against rational tobacco consumers or indeed against PolluTech itself will result in the cancellation of all coverage.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 14:31

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Alternatively, bodily harm doesn't need to be proven, only violation of your property rights, so anyone who puts unwelcome molecules into your air is guilty. All of them are aggressing against you, and you are allowed to do anything in your power to stop them. Some dude drives past your house in a non-electric car? Shoot out his tires. Your neighbor is burning leaves? Confiscate his daughter as compensation. A factory two counties over has a smokestack? Prep the war rig, motherfuckers.

Seriously though, both Captain and my arguments have been made by actual libertarians.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 14:52

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Disinterested posted:

Which is funny because it requires you to break other forms of ordinary [claimed] libertarian rules, like ever examining people as a class or group instead of individuals (the libertarian purported solution to racism and sexism).

When agents of the government act, they aren't individuals who act, they're part of a pervasive force of 'statism'. When my agent acts, an ordinary commercial transaction between consenting adults.

They have a very limited concept of what the state is, and their definition is such that it can only conceptualize it as something in opposition to the people rather than being constituted out of them.

YF19pilot posted:

What it boils down to is libertarians think that in their society all information will be objectively perfect, and all of society will be perfectly informed. If you're not perfectly informed, it's your fault, because people won't lie for fear of poor reporting scores and possibly becoming a non-entity in the eyes of other's or their own DROs. It's your own fault if you get fooled, and you can only prove otherwise if you can prove you were "agressed" by whoever abused your trust.

They say you've lost when you start psychoanalyzing your opponents, but it's almost as if this philosophy mainly appeals to people who only care about the social contract insofar as it protects them.

Edit: Serious question, though: What is the libertarian definition of the state, since apparently having a monopoly of force throughout a geographical area doesn't count?

Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Nov 9, 2015

# ? Nov 9, 2015 15:08

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

YF19pilot posted:

At least that's what it sounds like to me. Remember, there is no free speech in their society, so lying could be outlawed, no matter how innocuous.

Semantically untrue as laws are artifacts of the state.

Now, if the feudal lord that owns the land you live on, or the DRO you are contractually obligated to belong to in order to continue living on his land say so, your face could be outlawed

# ? Nov 9, 2015 15:10

The Larch: Jan 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

So how does the NAP deal with second hand smoke?

As an esteemed libertarian thinker, I can tell you with absolute confidence that second hand smoke does not cause cancer, or even any problems whatsoever, and in fact is actually good for you. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to cash this check from Philip-Morris.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 15:20

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Halloween Jack posted:

They say you've lost when you start psychoanalyzing your opponents, but it's almost as if this philosophy mainly appeals to people who only care about the social contract insofar as it protects them.

Edit: Serious question, though: What is the libertarian definition of the state, since apparently having a monopoly of force throughout a geographical area doesn't count?

Monopolies are artifacts of the state, friend. If a DRO became overwhelmingly popular in one area, others would simply move in on their market share and no monopoly would occur. So that definition of a state you gave still applies.

As for your first paragraph, we can only lose the argument if there's one actually going on. Our esteemed opposition is ~~a total coward who ran off when we caught him endorsing slave states~~ inexplicably absent, and we need to do something to amuse ourselves until his return.

Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 9, 2015

# ? Nov 9, 2015 15:43

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Nolanar posted:

Monopolies are artifacts of the state, friend. If a DRO became overwhelmingly pulsar in one area, others would simply move in on their market share and no monopoly would occur. So that definition of a state you gave still applies.

Pulsar?

# ? Nov 9, 2015 16:01

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

StandardVC10 posted:

Pulsar?

Popular. Autocorrect is awful.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 16:07

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

The more your DRO tightens its grip, the more star systems will slip through its fingers.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 16:24

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Halloween Jack posted:

They say you've lost when you start psychoanalyzing your opponents, but it's almost as if this philosophy mainly appeals to people who only care about the social contract insofar as it protects them.

Edit: Serious question, though: What is the libertarian definition of the state, since apparently having a monopoly of force throughout a geographical area doesn't count?

They mostly want to dispute the contractarian position, whereby it's their claim that states aren't things they truly have a right of contract with. In that respect you can see where the sovcit tendency comes from: they're essentially people trying to renegotiate their 'social contract'.

A lot of 19th century liberals took it to be a fairly serious problem with the state that you couldn't elect in to a position of voluntary outlawry: you couldn't refuse the state's protections in exchange for refusing its liabilities and do your own thing. That's why the motif of the 'road argument' et al was developed - classical liberals who didn't transmogrify in to libertarians, like T H Green, eventually came to argue that the benefits of the state are so many and so broad that you can't help but profit by them and therefore you constructively opt yourself in to the social contract by taking advantage of them. Infrastructure is one example, but so is the peace in to which you are born, etc. Libertarians see that as a deep violation of their freedom and also have various arguments to deploy about how freely associating individuals could accrue similar benefits to themselves without this apparatus.

It must be said that the sociological/poli sci definition of the state (whereby it's a monopoly of force over a given area or similar) is always an unsatisfactory one for any real political discourse anyway, since it doesn't ever really meaningfully define our relationship to the state or who specifically the agents of the state really are.

To delve a little deeper, in relation to their view of the state: libertarians have a very simple, negative view of freedom that freedom is a freedom from impediments. If that's your philosophy then you're setting the state up automatically as an enemy of your freedom: if, instead, you think of freedom (for example) as the ability to make your own law, suddenly you're in a totally different universe.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 17:25

Igiari: Sep 14, 2007

Jrod has said that all pollution, including air pollution, counts as violence and aggression by corporations against individuals, so presumably cigarettes are the same.

Jrod also said that we have to accept this violence from corporations as part of the price we pay for living in the modern world. This is different from taxes because

# ? Nov 9, 2015 17:33

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Igiari posted:

Jrod has said that all pollution, including air pollution, counts as violence and aggression by corporations against individuals, so presumably cigarettes are the same.

Jrod also said that we have to accept this violence from corporations as part of the price we pay for living in the modern world. This is different from taxes because

...most people would rather have apple products and asthma than pay taxes.

I guess.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 17:36

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Disinterested posted:

...most people KNOW THAT TO have apple products and asthma IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, BUT NOT TO pay taxes.

I KNOW.

# ? Nov 9, 2015 19:22

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

Nolanar posted:

As for your first paragraph, we can only lose the argument if there's one actually going on. Our esteemed opposition is ~~a total coward who ran off when we caught him endorsing slave states~~ inexplicably absent, and we need to do something to amuse ourselves until his return.

Fortunately, the means of bringing him back are well understood.

*Ascends to ceremonial bullhorn, clears throat self-importantly*

HEY! I HEAR MURRAY ROTHBARD IS A KLANSMAN IN ALL BUT NAME! LIKE SERIOUSLY! A GIANT RACIST!

# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:20

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Oh, we're trying to bring him back, are we?

*draws alchemical symbol for gold on the floor in chalk*

Chant with me: The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience. The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience...

# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:36

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Halloween Jack posted:

Edit: Serious question, though: What is the libertarian definition of the state, since apparently having a monopoly of force throughout a geographical area doesn't count?

It depends on the libertarian but mostly "state" refers to "the laws I personally don't like."

# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:40

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

Nolanar posted:

Oh, we're trying to bring him back, are we?

*draws alchemical symbol for gold on the floor in chalk*

Chant with me: The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience. The Civil Rights Act was an unambiguous good. Praexeology is pseudoscience...

Ia! Ia! Lincoln fhtagn!

(seriously, in the collection of jrod's greatest hits, the time when he went off on Lincoln was one of my favorites)

# ? Nov 9, 2015 21:27

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

theshim posted:

Ia! Ia! Lincoln fhtagn!

(seriously, in the collection of jrod's greatest hits, the time when he went off on Lincoln was one of my favorites)

"No of course I don't long for a resurrection of the Ante-Bellum South or mourn the brief-lived Confederacy, what on earth would give you that idea?"
*posts thousands of words about how secession wasn't that big a deal then and should be legal now, as well as why Lincoln was worse than Hitler by a substantial margin*

# ? Nov 9, 2015 22:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 08:47

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

How does libertarianism abide by their own collectivist view of The State as a large social construct centered around a monopoly of legitimate force, but then proclaim that their own ideal existence to solely contain individuals rather than another collective with a different view on violence and its legitimacy?

# ? Nov 9, 2015 23:53

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

«‹›115 »