|
I use this post to summon back Jrod to answer questions about misogyny and if he believes in the good ole breadwinner family.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I use this post to summon back Jrod to answer questions about misogyny and if he believes in the good ole breadwinner family. Considering he thinks the homesteading yeoman farmer is the natural state of humanity, I'm betting he does, but if we ever use the word "Sexism" he'll remind us that women will actually have a billion times more rights in a stateless society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Considering he thinks the homesteading yeoman farmer is the natural state of humanity, I'm betting he does, but if we ever use the word "Sexism" he'll remind us that women will actually have a billion times more rights in a stateless society. Like the right to live in a covenant community where everyone* agrees women are property. And the right to buy herself out of slavery at a mutually-agreed on price with her husband if she decides it's not in her best interest to remain. *Everyone that matters, ie landowners** **Landowning requirements: heterosexual, white, Christian, male, with Libertarian politics
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I use this post to summon back Jrod to answer questions about misogyny and if he believes in the good ole breadwinner family. This is from memory because I'm on my phone, but I'm pretty sure HHH is a big fan of the bourgeois virtue of the traditional nuclear family as a cornerstone of superior western culture. Sooooo...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like the right to live in a covenant community where everyone* agrees women are property. Community? Agrees? What is this mob rule? Women are property as long as they're on my property and anyone who says differently is aggressing against me and mine own property. I also own that road you just drove down, should have checked the EULA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
But then she just has to escape your property and she's home free. That's why you, as the fabulously wealthy capitalist tycoon you would be if Obama weren't keeping you down with his environmental regulations and civil rights, buy up or homestand all the land that's to become the town, develop it, and then write easements into all the deeds that the buyer has to agree to abide by and support [insert long-rear end list of your particular bigotries and nutty hang-ups here] in perpetuity, thus if any outsider with dangerous new ideas like racial or gender equality, liberal democracy, or some infidel religion like Second Reformed Baptist comes into your town, they won't be allowed to travel, shop, work, own property, or sleep under a park bench without agreeing to all the insane draconian demands of whichever original rear end in a top hat real estate developer who founded it (you, obviously, you'll be on top in a free meritocracy) Ah, freedom!    
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But then she just has to escape your property and she's home free. Hang on, does this also make trespass not an offence as long as you're not caught in the act?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Show me an honest libertarian and I'll show you a drat chump. *holds up high school senior yearbook photo*
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:But surely you'll grant that if anyone helps her escape it naturally becomes theft? If they have Valhalla DRO, their DRO insurance adjustor will judge this act as rightful booty of war
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
So some people in Arizona are trying to start a competitor to Uber and Lyft, called Dryvyng (yes, really). Their marketing guy is Craig R. Brittain, best known for running a revenge porn website, and he's been cozying up to Gamergate, whining about #SJWs (with the hashtag), and occasionally going on rants that make it clear he's a nutty libertarian and then some. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Hopefully, he'll get to go through the sort of educational process all an-caps should experience at least once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:So some people in Arizona are trying to start a competitor to Uber and Lyft, called Dryvyng (yes, really). Their marketing guy is Craig R. Brittain, best known for running a revenge porn website, and he's been cozying up to Gamergate, whining about #SJWs (with the hashtag), and occasionally going on rants that make it clear he's a nutty libertarian and then some.  I am da smartest than those libertariums
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:So some people in Arizona are trying to start a competitor to Uber and Lyft, called Dryvyng (yes, really). Their marketing guy is Craig R. Brittain, best known for running a revenge porn website, and he's been cozying up to Gamergate, whining about #SJWs (with the hashtag), and occasionally going on rants that make it clear he's a nutty libertarian and then some. Sorry, but I can't read any of that, except the last post. Do you have larger pictures? For more about Craig R. Brittain, here is his legal saga with one of my favorite blogs, Popehat: https://popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/ CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Howdy, thread. Bumping because I came across something that relates to what I said about eerie parallels between libertarianism and communism. Anyone heard of the phrase "barracks communism"? It's a term Marx used to poo poo-talk a really wild-rear end revolutionary named Nechayev who sounds sort of like a comic book villain caricature of a communist come to life (from the very little I have read). Here's the quote: Marx posted:What a beautiful model of barracks communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, Our Committee, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme dictator. This indeed is the purest anti-authoritarianism... That last line is there because Nechayev was part of an anarchist movement. Which is kind of the first hint at what I thought was relevant to this thread about these ideas of his that Marx felt were worth taking shots at: Nechayev posted:The ending of the existing social order and the renewal of life with the aid of the new principles can be accomplished only by concentrating all the means of social existence in the hands of our committee, and the proclamation of compulsory physical labour for everyone. Does this, too, seem familiar somehow? Where have we heard... Stefan Molyneaux posted:In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life — without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school. Any DRO will naturally ensure that its contracts include penalties for violent crimes — so if you steal a car, your DRO has the right to use force against you to get the car back — and probably retrieve financial penalties to boot. ...oh. 
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld: secret communist? I'll start the whisper campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
I am writing the letter to HUAC right now. Just wanted to let you guys know that the recording should be up sometime this week. Some of our commentators had unavoidable circumstances that delayed them getting their portion of the audio to me. The good news is I figured out how to record from my microphone and soundcard at the same time, so this shouldn't be a problem ever again!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's a term Marx used to poo poo-talk a really wild-rear end revolutionary named Nechayev who sounds sort of like a comic book villain caricature of a communist come to life (from the very little I have read). She wears red, this checks out  
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Hint: they're making fun of jrod. That was a good find/read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:That was a good find/read. Cool. I've been thinking that I should pull together a masterlist of this poo poo. It's just so, idk, transfixing for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:
This is one of the few threads in DnD where we don't tend to eat our own... as often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is one of the few threads in DnD where we don't tend to eat our own... as often. Would you say we've formed a Popular Front? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:
I think in any group of extreme thought, everyone wants to be able to turn the non-conformists and dissenters into outcasts. Everyone wants to live with their friends and not anyone who might disagree, because they might have a different perspective on things. Which is ironic when this is brandied behind a banner of more freedom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I think in any group of extreme thought, everyone wants to be able to turn the non-conformists and dissenters into outcasts. Everyone wants to live with their friends and not anyone who might disagree, because they might have a different perspective on things. Which is ironic when this is brandied behind a banner of more freedom. I've been thinking that it's something similar to this, that it basically derives from Marxism and libertarianism both being essentially "heterodox ideologies" and so similar patterns of ideas and values will manifest under the same pressures. But this also goes together with what Corey Robin says about the "counter-revolutionary" as being a conservative who defends the old regime by adopting the ethos of the revolutionary: http://www.thenation.com/article/first-counter-revolutionary/
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
IT LIVES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvUMmDF0I4
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
That was actually entertaining and informative. I also didn't expect a shoutout but I think it's important that I mention one very important thing for listeners. JRode has never once replied to anything I've posted. Ever. I've engaged him and refuted his arguments and he just ignores it. Every now and again I figure "maybe he'll reply this time!" and he just doesn't. edit: If you do this again let me know, I'd love to participate. I just couldn't this time. Glad it went well. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Sometimes I think it might be a major improvement for the thread if someone just played the role of jrod, or hell just devil's advocates libertarianism. Chances are good whoever stepped up would make a better case for it (or at least a more concise case).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Sometimes I think it might be a major improvement for the thread if someone just played the role of jrod, or hell just devil's advocates libertarianism. Chances are good whoever stepped up would make a better case for it (or at least a more concise case). That wouldn't be much fun for the person doing it. That and they'd have to quit interacting with SomethingAwful entirely and just vomit out long, meandering walls of text that were effectively meaningless. I don't know if I should be impressed or horrified that there is somebody in the world that can say absolutely nothing in 20 paragraphs other than "read this Mises article and it will make you believe what I do which is the right thing to believe."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
They could just plagiarize them. Which is also a part of the jrod experience, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:They could just plagiarize them. Which is also a part of the jrod experience, isn't it? Now that I think about it it's likely that jrode can never be truly recreated. Somebody posting such things as jrode would actually understand what they were plagiarizing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Sometimes I think it might be a major improvement for the thread if someone just played the role of jrod, or hell just devil's advocates libertarianism. Chances are good whoever stepped up would make a better case for it (or at least a more concise case). I can make a good case for some forms of libertarianism, like libertarian municipalism, but anarcho-capitalism or minarchism fails pretty much immediately due to the main concerns raised by the thread: 1. Why won't warlords arise 2. Who can be a trusted 3rd party like Weights and Measures 3. How will contracts be enforced No anarcho-capitalist or standard US jumble of incoherent thought libertarian like Jrod has ever even approached a good answer to any of these challenges, instead relying on a gestalt change in human behavior or a non-factual assertion. But really, philosophically the concept of maximizing autonomy is fine, as long as you are trying to maximize it for each individual in the society. Anarcho-capitalism and Jrods brand of bullshit don't do that, they turn liberty into a commodity, so that you can have infinite amounts if you can afford it but the poor get hosed and have no rights. That's the underlying thesis of the economic libertarians: rights should scale with wealth. I should note Libertarian municipalism isn't property-rights centric. Its civil-rights centric. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
About the closest I can get to justifying libertarianism is explaining whey I quit being a libertarian and started being a socialist. Part of that was hanging around libertarians and realizing the party was becoming increasingly "Republicans but worse."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:About the closest I can get to justifying libertarianism is explaining whey I quit being a libertarian and started being a socialist. I went to college and realized that people from different backgrounds faced wildly different challenges and that economics was actually kind of difficult. Then I realized my 'libertarianism' was mostly just me being butthurt about being a geeky nerd and thinking if society was different I'd somehow have been valued more. Then I started actually figuring poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
I could give a shot at presenting a case for libertarian socialism and you guys can try and pick it apart as brutally as you would libertarian capitalism. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
I was actually reading something that I think got posted in another thread about what I assume is the "left-libertarianism" jrod goes on about sometimes. It seems less crazy, not perfect, but probably salvageable. What I mean is not libertarian socialism (I don't think?), but something that has the same self-ownership conceit while also recognizing that nobody owns the Earth, it is the common property of humanity, and anyone claiming a piece of it has to give back. It also has the idea of a "being with moral standing" that is useful but seems like a just-so conceit that "there's thinking/feeling entities that we don't want to see come to harm but who are not autonomous self-sufficient individuals" as a way of getting around the problematic implications of self-ownership. Still, it's a beneficial component. Here's the link: http://klinechair.missouri.edu/docs/ll_primer.pdf This primer does not make a case in favor of this ideology. It simply lays out some of the common basic beliefs, the variations and interpretations of them, and the challenges that proponents may run into. The part that interests me most is the idea of a "being with moral standing" that I don't see jrod-style libertarians ever bring up. Combined with its theory/definition of justice, it seems like a morally tolerable version of this set of ideas that can provide an answer to the challenges of non-autonomous individuals (children, etc.) and the implications of self-ownership that are so unsavory (voluntary slavery). The primer operates on this definition of justice: quote:We shall focus, as is standard, on left-libertarianism as a theory of justice, where justice is understood to be concerned with legitimate (i.e., morally permissible) coercion. In this sense, an action is unjust if and only if others are morally permitted to coerce one not to perform it. Some just actions may be morally impermissible (e.g., refusing to help an elderly neighbor, where one has a moral obligation to help, but others are not morally permitted to coerce one to help), and (more controversially) some unjust actions may be morally permissible (e.g., stealing a car to save someone’s life). Instantly, I like this approach better than all that crap about NAPs. The main upside here is that it doesn't have some simplistic, superficially compelling, but ultimately circular standard like "don't initiate force." It does not claim to be able to define what counts as "initiation" in all cases, it simply specifies that some actions are so dangerous and damaging that it is OK to forcibly prevent them. This a little bit of a dodge because it's hand-waving about what constitutes a "moral" action, but that's all right with me to some extent. It's a political theory, it's not claiming to be the one true system of understanding all of the human experience. This lets it be flexible enough to adapt to many systems of morality, although one can see cases where particular definitions of morality lead to what we might think of as unjustified coercion; e.g., is it morally permissible to forcibly stop someone from having an abortion? But that's moral subjectivity for you. It does base its idea of what counts as unjust on, in part at least, "violations of one's full self-ownership" which is annoying but probably inescapable. I don't think that it claims that this is the only set of actions that constitutes an injustice, though. The more controversial implication, that it is morally OK to steal to save a life even if it also unjust to do so, at least indicates that the distinction between justice and morality makes this theory more robust than what jrod's presented (I think he maintained that stealing food when one is starving is flat-out immoral, full stop). So, with that said, what I want to consider is the concept of a "being with moral standing" and how it relates to the other parts of the system: quote:Libertarianism (both left and right) construes basic individual rights as property rights. We shall therefore focus on the ownership of things in the world. Here we must distinguish among beings with moral standing (beings that matter morally for their own sake), natural resources (unproduced resources, such as land, air, water, etc.), and artifacts (products). For simplicity, we shall initially assume that all beings with moral standing are agents (rational choosers), and we shall thus ignore the important and difficult problem of the status of children, fetuses, and animals. Libertarianism (both left and right) is committed to full self-ownership for rational agents. Admitting that there's a problem is the first step to finding a solution. The primer does not provide one, but I think one can put the pieces together and come at a non-monstrous and potentially comprehensive political ideology, in contrast to the ways that jrod-style libertarianism is both monstrous (the case example here is voluntary enslavement) and not comprehensive (in that, e.g., it cannot account for humans who are not capable of acting as autonomous self-directed self-sufficient agents). Whether it is practical is another story, but one of my biggest problems with right-libertarianism is that there's some basic premises that need to be really examined before there's any sense in even talking about implications. I want to first consider the issue of voluntary enslavement. The primer raises the issue but does not resolve it (again, it's a description, not an attempt at persuasion): quote:More specifically, one objection to full self-ownership concerns voluntary slavery. Full self-ownership includes not only first-order rights of control over the use of one’s person, but also the right (power) to transfer (e.g., by gift or sale) these rights to others. This seems to entail that one has the right to voluntarily enslave oneself, which strikes many as wildly implausible. The primer uses the concept of "plausibility" throughout in ways that I don't really understand because I suspect it's a term in political philosophy I am not familiar with. Functionally though, it seems to denote where an implication of an ideology seems to contradict its basic values. In other words, a theory claiming to maximize liberty probably should not potentially allow for people to be slaves. Again, recognizing that one has a problem is the first step to finding a solution! It goes on to say: quote:An important but generally unrecognized response to the objection about voluntary enslavement is that full self-ownership on its own does not entail that voluntary enslavement is permitted by justice. Full self-ownership includes the right to transfer one’s rights over oneself, but it does not ensure that others have the right (power) to acquire these rights. Transfer of rights from one person to another (by exchange or by gift) requires that both that the transferor have the power to transfer the rights and consents to do so and that the transferee has the power to acquire the rights and consents to do so. Full self-ownership is thus compatible with no one having the power to acquire by transfer rights over another person. Full self-ownership ensures that one has the power to renounce (i.e., abandon) one’s rights over oneself (which does not require a recipient), and that one has the power to consensually transfer one’s rights to anyone who has the power to receive them. It does not, however, require that anyone have the power to receive them. That issue concerns the powers that others have with respect to one’s person (viz. the power to acquire rights over one under certain conditions.) Of course, most left-libertarians will hold that all agents initially have these powers to acquire rights over others (as well as over natural resources and artifacts), and so the objection is indeed applicable to most versions of left-libertarianism. The point here is that the legitimacy of voluntary enslavement does not follow from self-ownership alone. In other words, you might have the right to sell, but that doesn't mean it is just for anyone to buy. This is also a bit of a dodge and it claims that "most left-libertarians will hold that all agents initially have these powers to acquire rights over others," so in practice it seems that left-libertarians aren't taking this seriously either (accept in as much as "initially" here indicates that in practice, these powers may be curtailed). So I will. Why would someone not be justified in acquiring the consensually offered rights of another person's self-direction? If it is not just, then people can morally force someone to not buy anyone as a slave. This suggests that there is something in the nature of acquiring a slave, under any circumstances, that is dangerous and damaging enough as to sanction a forceful social response. Most people would agree. The "implausibility" of self-enslavement as a consequence of a system for maximizing liberty suggests that no one interested in this ideology should disagree. I'll argue that the key is that a being with moral standing should not ever be subject to what slavery allows others to do to them. The objection to this is that this may actually constitute a violation of my moral standing: one should respect my choices to do with myself as I please, and so while the proviso that no one may buy me as a slave may technically not be a limit on my actions, there is no point in putting myself up for sale if no one may buy. Thus, it is paternalistic in some way to step in and prevent me from selling myself into slavery as if I were not competent to make decisions in pursuit of what I consider my own best interests. One reason why the question of voluntary enslavement is so potent even beyond libertarianism is that its moral quandaries can be applied to less dramatic forms of economic exploitation which are just fine with anyone whose ideology leans libertarian-wards. Here I mean basic pro-capitalist conservatives who are compelled by slogans like "taxation is theft" but don't see it as anything but a useful justification and don't take the underlying argument to any conclusion. The idea of paternalism is a powerful part of conservative discourse. It is inherent to the idea of the "nanny state," it asks people whether they know better what's good for them than some bureaucrat in Washington. The fact that these same rationals can be used to argue for my right to sell myself as a slave should give anyone who finds them compelling pause. What's important here is that this objection in some sense implicitly rests on an understanding of the status of children as being different from the status of adults. "Paternalism" implies having benevolent authority over someone as a father. "Nanny state" invokes the idea of the government as a maternal figure infantilizing the citizenry. This necessarily raises the question of the status of children. I'll turn to it now because it has implications for voluntary enslavement among other things. One of the reasons why l object to right-libertarianism is that it has no way of dealing with the status of children. It is so focused on the self-sufficient autonomous rational actor as its subject of analysis that any human being who cannot be considered a part of that category is unaccountable. This is a major problem because, I think, even though it might theoretically provide a an answer to the childhood question, in practice, trying to account for children would undermine the actual agenda of this ideology, i.e., the protection of the power of the rich. Left-libertarianism, for any of its other faults, does not have this agenda. Left-libertarianism recognizes that people can have moral standing separate from their status as self-owners. So how does this allow us to account for children as self-owners? We consider them in the way we would a child who inherits a vast fortune. She might be the owner of her parents' estate, but she is not allowed to dispose of that wealth as she pleases until she is an adult. The estate is held in trust and managed by a guardian. So it is with children's self-ownership. They may own themselves, but until they are adults, their parents or guardians specify the limits on how a child may exercise her right to own herself. Since a child, although not a competent self-owner, is still a being with moral standing, the precepts of justice specify how parents may infringe on the child's rights. The reason why the paternalism objection is so powerful as rhetoric is because it implies that someone is treating you, a grown adult, as if you were as incompetent as a child. But just because childhood is one case where the demands of justice imply a limit to one's own choices in self-direction, this does not mean that that is the only basis for such limits. Limits to a child's right to enter contracts with adults are based not just on the child's incompetence, but on the relative power imbalance between the child and the adult. Adults have more experience, knowledge, typically wealth, and simple physical strength that there is too great a moral hazard to allow adults to freely contract with children. In other words, it is not only a question of the competence of one of the signatories to a contract, but the power imbalance involved. If justice demands that child self-owners must nonetheless have the permission of the guardian-trustee of their self-ownership to enter a contract, then justice may demand these limits in other cases. This then is the justification for limits on self-enslavement. Recall that Walter Block's case presents it as a boon to the would-be slave, who otherwise would have no way to pay for his child's medicine. (Once again, we see how arguments for voluntary enslavement may cause us to reconsider arguments for economic "freedom" that generally present exploitation as a boon to the desperate and limits on it as harmful to them.) Justice here recognizes a power imbalance such that we must question whether someone can justly make offers to pay someone else for the right to use and abuse him indefinitely. It's one thing for someone to (as a wild example) consent to his romantic partner harming him as part of some BDSM sexual activity. In that case, the participants are consenting adults of equal status. (And were they not, the same problems would arise.) It's another to say that it is a positive boon for me that the rich may offer to purchase me as a sex slave forever because they have things that I need. What form would the limitations take? They might not even entail flat-out banning any such contract. They might stipulate that anyone who enters into this condition has certain justice-demanded protections, or actually, that those who own slaves have limits on their power. I may agree to work for someone as a servant for an indefinite term, but my owner/employer may not beat me or sexually abuse me or grossly endanger me in the course of my work. If I do not comply with the permissible implicit terms of my contract, my owner-employer may formally sue me for non-compliance which may involve ending the contract and requiring me to provide some restitution. I'm bringing this up not because I find it acceptable, but because it shows that there can be a limit to the kind of "radical free self-direction" that self-ownership entails without there being a completely monstrous extreme that these ideals move towards. One final question concerns how the left-libertarian society might enforce these kinds of stipulations. Well, left-libertarianism provides a more coherent basis than the usual DRO nonsense, it may even allow for entities like states in the sense of their universality as an ultimate decision maker but without some of the problematic features anarchists object to. I am honestly not really sure whether this is fully compatible with the left-libertarian ideal but we can say with certainty that there is a more practical basis for supporting such an organization. Left-libertarianism does not have a principle of homesteading. I've written a lot of words here about why I find this form of libertarianism more appealing than what jrod's been arguing for, but I probably could have just said "it does not rely on homesteading" and been done with it. It holds that the Earth (and the universe more generally) was not made by any human being and so is not owned by any human being, is in fact the common heritage of humanity, and so for anyone to claim sole ownership of any part of it entails them owing a debt to the rest of the human race. Ownership, here, is distinct from other kinds occupation or use. One may move across the Earth unhindered and gather food or other resources sufficient to sustain oneself, but only so long as this use is not exclusionary. This provides a basis for various forms of taxation (whether direct or as a form of rent). How one can organize a system for collecting and fairly distributing the revenue so generated is another question, but I'd say that something like a representative democratic government would be a good starting point for whittling down to something more compatible with anarchism. At the very least, any such organization could fund its activities, such as a justice system. People cannot claim that its taxes are a forceful imposition because no one must own real estate. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I went to college and realized that people from different backgrounds faced wildly different challenges and that economics was actually kind of difficult. Then I realized my 'libertarianism' was mostly just me being butthurt about being a geeky nerd and thinking if society was different I'd somehow have been valued more. Then I started actually figuring poo poo out. For me, having been raised a Conservative Republican, Libertarianism was always presented as "we're the real Conservatives while the Republican party is being slowly devoured by RINO Neo-Con Statists." Even before I knew that Ancap was a thing, I knew that Libertarians preferred a very radical reduction of the government, having even heard some friends argue for a return to the Articles of Confederation. I think James Madison's oft quoted Federalist #51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," always seemed like a stark warning against abolishing the state. That, and I never liked their isolationist views, because of two world wars; on top of being raised a military brat, I don't like their idea of drawing down the military to a defense force (or complete abolition in the case of AnCaps.) Otherwise, the more recent years of my life have been moving me away from the right-wing parties, due to various experiences. Also, these were top hits when I googled the phrase "If men were angels" to give exact attribution: Cato republishes and article that misses the point of Madison's "angels". Mises article, in which it is inferred that Madison couldn't think for himself, and stated in plain English that Somalia is a great example of a stateless society. Mises.org posted:One need not spend much time, however, to find theoretical arguments — some of them worked out in great detail and at considerable length — about why and how a stateless society could work successfully. Moreover, researchers have adduced historical examples of large stateless societies, ranging from the ancient Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley to Somalia during the greater part of the past decade and a half. Given the enormous literature that has accumulated on stateless societies in theory and in actual operation, we may conclude that, if nothing else, such societies are conceivable. Also, I don't have a lot of knowledge about ancient civilizations, but I'm pretty sure that Crash Course World History on Youtube stated that the Indus Valley civilization checked all the boxes for what historians consider "a civilization" including having a functioning, recognizable government. And honestly, I trust John Green's witty and cute animated shorts more than I do anything that Jrod quotes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Also, I don't have a lot of knowledge about ancient civilizations, but I'm pretty sure that Crash Course World History on Youtube stated that the Indus Valley civilization checked all the boxes for what historians consider "a civilization" including having a functioning, recognizable government. Also, they never really seem to think about the implications of the fact that none of their examples are modern industrial capitalist societies, do they? quote:And honestly, I trust John Green's witty and cute animated shorts more than I do anything that Jrod quotes. That's probably fair but it says more about jrod than John Green. Some of his world history videos are garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Also, I don't have a lot of knowledge about ancient civilizations, but I'm pretty sure that Crash Course World History on Youtube stated that the Indus Valley civilization checked all the boxes for what historians consider "a civilization" including having a functioning, recognizable government. And honestly, I trust John Green's witty and cute animated shorts more than I do anything that Jrod quotes. I don't know the specific case mentioned but I strongly suspect a large part of why mises and others might laud some of them as "stateless societies" comes from the 20th century anthropological practice that Lawrence Keely aptly describes as "pacifying the past" ie: ignoring evidence that suggests organized violence and coercion due to the combination of subconscious shame of the world wars and rest of the bloody 20th and a neo- Rousseaun desire to project onto earlier societies those largely imaginary values feared lost to industrialized society. While I'll grant there are a few truly pacifist cultures that a libertarian might hold up as a model for non-state organization, they are rare, small, and require very unique historical conditions to exist/thrive, the most notable of which being separation from more conventional models of human organization (which usually involve forming states and twatting each other with blunt objects). That is of course ignoring the very real possibility that mises.org is just making poo poo up because, like all libertarian "thinkers," it is populated exclusively by dishonest racists and shitlords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Sometimes I think it might be a major improvement for the thread if someone just played the role of jrod, or hell just devil's advocates libertarianism. Chances are good whoever stepped up would make a better case for it (or at least a more concise case). It ain't hard but it's not a very prolonged discussion when you make libertarian arguments concisely.  : There shouldn't be any states, only corporations. : Wouldn't that result in rampant exploitation?: Yes, and I will benefit from it.: Will you really?: Yes.: But you are not a millionaire?: I will be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
This is surprisingly high-quality and entertaining. Thank you for this.  You should make this into a regular podcast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:53
|
|
