|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:17 |
|
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...
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 20:18 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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:
Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 7, 2015 |
# ? Nov 7, 2015 21:27 |
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.
|
|
# ? Nov 8, 2015 01:51 |
|
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 |
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 |
|
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!!! 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 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans 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).
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 00:33 |
|
Buried alive posted:1) Praxeology, ergo your evidence is wrong. QED. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:I get where you're coming from here (tee hee), but taking this approach in good faith: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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. 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 |
|
That's a lot of words to say "praxeology is axiomatic; I'm right, you're wrong, shut up."
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 08:24 |
|
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 |
|
VitalSigns posted:
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 13:29 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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). 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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 9, 2015 |
# ? Nov 9, 2015 15:43 |
|
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 |
|
StandardVC10 posted:Pulsar? Popular. Autocorrect is awful.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 16:07 |
|
The more your DRO tightens its grip, the more star systems will slip through its fingers.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 16:24 |
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. 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 |
|
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 |
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. ...most people would rather have apple products and asthma than pay taxes. I guess.
|
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 17:36 |
|
Disinterested posted:...most people KNOW THAT TO have apple products and asthma IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, BUT NOT TO pay taxes.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 19:22 |
|
Nolanar posted:As for your first paragraph, we can only lose the argument if there's one actually going on. Our esteemed opposition is 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Nolanar posted:Oh, we're trying to bring him back, are we? (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 |
|
theshim posted:Ia! Ia! Lincoln fhtagn! "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 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:17 |
|
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 |