|
"Meritocracy" as you envision it has a fundamental problem with stability. If you conceive of a system where individuals are allowed to gather unlimited wealth and power, how do you prevent them from simply using that power to slowly regress towards where we currently are? I just disagree with the idea. Massive inequality is so toxic to societies that I think it's preferable to aim not for perfect equality, but at least to constrain inequality within a range that doesn't produce massive, self-perpetuating imbalances of power. The idea that people can pursue all sorts of wealth so long as the people at the bottom aren't suffering is nice and simple, but Americans in particular should be well aware that once private entities have concentrated power, the compact is quickly erased and forgotten.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Well being a sociologist means you're like...out studying things or fixing social problems or something, right? You don't need to be producing an actual, physical good to be doing something that has value, which is where a lot of libertarians go wrong. This is incidentally why libertarian views on science are pretty loving stupid. The idea is that any form of study is useful only if it quickly and directly leads to something that you can profit on. Don't libertarians also disagree on the idea of "intellectual property," thereby removing people's incentives for discovering non-tangible things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:"Meritocracy" as you envision it has a fundamental problem with stability. If you conceive of a system where individuals are allowed to gather unlimited wealth and power, how do you prevent them from simply using that power to slowly regress towards where we currently are? What I'm arguing in favor of is allowing people to climb without harming others or holding others back in the process. This is why libertarianism and the current state of America are not meritocratic. Creating a situation where some can potentially gain unlimited wealth and power actually also goes against what I'm in favor of. Complete, perfect equality is a nice thing to think about but from a practical standpoint isn't possible. At least not currently. The other thing of it is there just isn't a single one size fits all set of things that will make everybody happy. Some people need to pursue wealth, fancy things, and big houses. Some people are perfectly content with something that isn't boring to do all day, enough to eat, and a warm, dry place to sleep. One of the major flaws of the American system, and the libertarian system, comes from how much control dynastic wealth has over everybody that doesn't have it. To be more specific what I'm arguing in favor of is more or less giving everybody a guaranteed minimum income and providing free schooling and such. A lot of what I'm arguing for focuses on opportunity more than anything. Right now the opportunity is focused very heavily among the wealthy. If you remove the barriers between the poor and opportunity I think you'll find that there is a lot of untapped potential there. More importantly if you have things like a social safety net, GMI, and free school you'll reduce the suffering that poverty causes by, you know, eliminating poverty. This will also reduce the control the rich have over the non-rich. Which is where the regulations come in. With a minimum standard of living guaranteed to everybody and systems that prevent individuals from amassing the amount of wealth and power that the 1% of America have right now then unlimited wealth and power becomes impossible. If somebody has a billion dollar idea then sure they deserve a billion dollars but right now in America the primary way to become a billionaire is "have super rich parents." The problem in America is a lack of meritocracy. The best education and the best opportunities are horded by the rich for the children of the rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Don't libertarians also disagree on the idea of "intellectual property," thereby removing people's incentives for discovering non-tangible things? Oh yeah, Jrod made it a big part of the OP that intellectual works am dumb if not approved by Jrod
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:
I think a combination of these two has always appealed to me in some way. Even growing up with Capitalism being preached at me, you have to admit that at the rate we're going automation is eventually going to replace many of the low-end jobs and maybe even some skilled-labor. I think this will cause a lot of the labor force to be out of jobs and unable to get new jobs, either out of lack of education and training, or because there will be fewer jobs period. Basically we'll eventually have a "robots took our jobs" situation, but the appropriate response being not to ban the robots, but to provide for those people who for whatever reason can't compete in the new job market to either become competitive, or to at least live a life that isn't just barely scratching by. We already see this in many jobs going overseas or being given to illegal/undocumented labor (nothing against those folks) -- the point being that if jobs are disappearing and our work force/population is growing, there are major issues we have to address and evolutionary "survival of the fittest" is not a moral argument I can stand by. I also like the idea of buying nice things. I think people should still be able to pursue wealth and buying fancy cars and nice houses, but I'm not naive enough to not see how wealth is such an enabler for so many things -- that is, there are too many things that everyone should be able to have and enjoy but are blocked by the barrier of "if only I were rich!" Hell, looking at the difference between my life and the lives of my cousins (rich Aunt and Uncle) provides quite a stark contrast!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Don't libertarians also disagree on the idea of "intellectual property," thereby removing people's incentives for discovering non-tangible things? Another thing they share in common with Marxists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Another thing they share in common with Marxists. They share things with Marxists, but they always seem to share them in a stupider, shittier way. Like, Marxists might oppose intellectual property in as much as they oppose all property. Libertarians oppose it because it's an artificial intrusion on free behavior maintained by THE STATE, unlike all other forms of property of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:They share things with Marxists, but they always seem to share them in a stupider, shittier way. Like, Marxists might oppose intellectual property in as much as they oppose all property. Libertarians oppose it because it's an artificial intrusion on free behavior maintained by THE STATE, unlike all other forms of property of course. I'm probably off base, but in addition to that, isn't the Marxist thought more that trying to make money off a very important idea/patent/invention is basically exploitation, so Marxists want to prevent someone trying to make it rich off an invention that everyone should have access to (basically prevent that rear end in a top hat who was in the news recently about buying a drug company and jacking the prices to something ridiculous like $700/pill). Libertarians, on the other hand, oppose intellectual property because they feel that whoever can make something better or cheaper should be the "winner". Basically, that if I made some wonder drug, but for me to produce it would cost $20/pill, Pfizer could come along and steal/reverse engineer the formula (as long as they did so without violating NAP) and sell it at half the cost because they have better facilities and are able to spread the costs out more, and boo hoo if it drives me out of business and into the poor house, capitalism survival of the fittest NAP *faaaart*
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I'm probably off base, but in addition to that, isn't the Marxist thought more that trying to make money off a very important idea/patent/invention is basically exploitation, so Marxists want to prevent someone trying to make it rich off an invention that everyone should have access to (basically prevent that rear end in a top hat who was in the news recently about buying a drug company and jacking the prices to something ridiculous like $700/pill). Marxists believe that if something benefits people then no individual should control the idea. Right now, as it stands, if you own a patent you can literally just say "nobody anywhere gets this until the patent runs out." The libertarian thought is that whoever can do something the best and cheapest gets to do it, end of story. Both criticize the patent system but they ignore a pretty big part of it. Kind of the point of patents is that whoever invents something and patents it gets exclusive control over it for X years (I think it's like ten) in return for creating a public record of exactly how it works. Once the patent ends then anybody can work from that patent record. Libertarians want to eliminate the X years part, totally ignoring that it costs time and money to invent things. The communist answer is that you fund science and scientists and say that whatever they invent is held in common. The scientist gets to slap his name on it of course but he doesn't own it. Inventors should invent for the common good rather than for financial gains (which, incidentally, is what does in fact motivate a ton of inventors). The Marxist answer is that scientists get to science all day and in return they give their innovations freely. Libertarians also oppose public funding on science and argue that the wealthy would fund the innovation that matters as they want new products to sell. Ignoring, of course, that reality doesn't function like computer games and you don't get X advance after you spend Y gold on test tubes. Science is more along the lines of curious people loving around and prodding at various theories, ideas, and what not. Then somebody says "hey I can use that!" and inventions happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
There's also the idea that in a Marxist society you wouldn't need to get paid for your invention, since you won't need money from that to live. Same thing for creative type professions. Without access to the resources you need to survive being gated off behind a monetary barrier, there's nothing stopping you from picking up an instrument and going to town. Unless we're talking the "everyone gets assigned a productive job for the benefit of the People's State" kind of communism, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:There's also the idea that in a Marxist society you wouldn't need to get paid for your invention, since you won't need money from that to live. Same thing for creative type professions. Without access to the resources you need to survive being gated off behind a monetary barrier, there's nothing stopping you from picking up an instrument and going to town. Are you suggesting that the one is not the same as the other, comrade? Perhaps we should discuss further what other counterrevolutionary revisionist thoughts you've been harboring! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I'm probably off base, but in addition to that, isn't the Marxist thought more that trying to make money off a very important idea/patent/invention is basically exploitation, so Marxists want to prevent someone trying to make it rich off an invention that everyone should have access to (basically prevent that rear end in a top hat who was in the news recently about buying a drug company and jacking the prices to something ridiculous like $700/pill). Marxists also believe that all thought and innovation is essentially social; each invention or breakthrough being largely iterative and building off all the knowledge that came before it. So intellectual property is already a communal good, and patents and copyright are essentially the next round of enclosures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:There's also the idea that in a Marxist society you wouldn't need to get paid for your invention, since you won't need money from that to live. Same thing for creative type professions. Without access to the resources you need to survive being gated off behind a monetary barrier, there's nothing stopping you from picking up an instrument and going to town. Anecdotal: I know many scientists and engineers who already live in a situation where they aren't paid for their inventions. Many research centers, universities, and other large employers take full ownership of any patents or inventions that their employees create. Sometimes there's a small monetary bonus associated with getting a patent awarded, sometimes there's nothing. And that's okay if you're already being paid to do what you love
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Yeah now that inventors no longer own their patents, it's just turned into another way to justify people born into wealth and capital taking the lion's share of the rewards from others' creations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah now that inventors no longer own their patents, it's just turned into another way to justify people born into wealth and capital taking the lion's share of the rewards from others' creations. Yeah, thanks to CONTRACTS inventors can't reap the fruits of their labors as was intended by patent law in the first place, and if you invent something too soon after leaving a company, they can sue you over it and try to steal the patent away from you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I may have said this before, but with Jrod I think it's a case of: True rational libertarians don't steal property I am illegally downloading this film/game/book/music I am a true rational libertarian Therefore IP can't be real
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Igiari posted:I may have said this before, but with Jrod I think it's a case of: More like: I can't skull gently caress George R.R. Martin like I gently caress a watermelon, so therefore nobody can "mix his labor" with thoughts, so IP can't be real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Even growing up with Capitalism being preached at me, you have to admit that at the rate we're going automation is eventually going to replace many of the low-end jobs and maybe even some skilled-labor. I think this will cause a lot of the labor force to be out of jobs and unable to get new jobs, either out of lack of education and training, or because there will be fewer jobs period. It's happened before, and you absolutely can manage it with a regulatory approach. The minimum wage, abolition of child labor, and the 40-hour work week are all examples of ways that the state intervened to alter the calculus of the labor market and improve quality of life for ordinary people. They also all had positive secondary effects: kids stayed in schools longer, making them better citizens and more productive workers in the future; people had more money to spend; people had time off for leisure which further stimulated consumption. People should also remember that nobody thought the job was done, most people expected to see a continuing gradual reduction of the work week over time. poo poo, if you've ever watched the Jetsons, you probably heard George complain about working fifteen minutes a day. We're just stuck on the idea that people are supposed to serve the economy rather than vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:It's happened before, and you absolutely can manage it with a regulatory approach. The minimum wage, abolition of child labor, and the 40-hour work week are all examples of ways that the state intervened to alter the calculus of the labor market and improve quality of life for ordinary people. They also all had positive secondary effects: kids stayed in schools longer, making them better citizens and more productive workers in the future; people had more money to spend; people had time off for leisure which further stimulated consumption. People should also remember that nobody thought the job was done, most people expected to see a continuing gradual reduction of the work week over time. poo poo, if you've ever watched the Jetsons, you probably heard George complain about working fifteen minutes a day. I think so many people are just so married to the idea of a 5-day/40-hour work week, that they can't imagine anything else. You mention a 4-day work week, and it's gasping and pearl-clutching. You mention a 6-day work week (which is in place where I live) and it's equally shocking and "those poor people working so much!" Granted, the former is seen as lazy and the latter as hard working, so who knows. I know a lot of people who argue for a 6-day work week in the US because "God said you should work for six days, and rest on the seventh. He didn't say work five and take off two! Four days!? Huh, you know what they say about idle hands!" Seriously, every argument for a 6-day work week in the US has been that argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
6 day work week = "how uniquely American."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Poking around and I found this quote from an article by The Atlantic talking about 4-day work weeks. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/four-day-workweek/396530/ TheAtlantic.com posted:At Treehouse, an online-education company with about 85 employees, the default is a four-day, 32-hour week, and the company claims its salaries compete with those of companies whose employees work five-day weeks. Treehouse’s CEO, Ryan Carson, has worked on that schedule for nearly 10 years. “You get all day Friday off, instead of pretending like you're working when you're not,” he says. “Our investors have pushed us a little bit, saying, ‘It's kind of crazy you do this.’ It may be a little crazy, but just remember, you only have 2,000 weekends, and then you die.” He thinks that companies resist the idea because most CEOs are workaholics, not because the companies can’t afford it. I think that bolded part is the crux of it. America has the "ethics of hard work" boiled into everything we do. Everything is always about hard work. Work hard, do hard work. Go to school, work hard, get an education and work hard, then work hard and one day you will have a job that you will get paid lots of money for your hard work. Working less hours is the antithesis of hard work. Think of that one employee who always leaves work and hour early on Friday. Nobody asks why, or thinks maybe there's some important reason. No, rather everyone views them as being lazy and trying to "start the party early." Whenever anyone takes time off to run important errands, nobody thinks "oh, okay." They think, "well, gee, couldn't they do that during their lunch break, or not take so much time off? They're probably playing and goofing off!" A lot of this is very baby boomer and we see the same attitudes presented when many of today's college graduates are having a hard time finding meaningful employment. It's not "okay, job market is poo poo." It's "why aren't you working three retail jobs, you should be a manager at Wal-Mart by now, why aren't you working hard, why are you so lazy?" Basically we're spoon fed since we're kids to try to be workaholics. GunnerJ posted:6 day work week = "how uniquely American." I'm in Taiwan. Unless that is 
CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Pretty much this: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I'm in Taiwan. Unless that is https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/131983-you-work-three-jobs-uniquely-american-isn-t-it-i-mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Poking around and I found this quote from an article by The Atlantic talking about 4-day work weeks. Wasn't there some article (itt or the other one) showing that CEOs count poo poo like meals, exercise, and other normally personal time as "work time", though? When you only counted time spent working they only worked like 30-40 hours/week e: This isn't the article I was thinking of but it's relevant: How Fortune 500 Leaders Spend Every Minute of the Day. This is basically the result of a big survey of everyone ranking Vice President or higher in several Fortune 500 companies, and the result is roughly an 8 hour work day. The "all CEOs work 80 hour weeks" thing is largely untrue with a number of exceptions that prove the rule. Some CEOs might include dinner with suppliers and/or coworkers as work time, but usually employees aren't allowed to count that kind of time as paid time. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Hey guys since  we're recording tomorrow at 7 PM EST I thought I'd once again try to get everyone's opinion on what specifically to talk about with regards to gold bugs, bitcoin, and whatever the gently caress it is that Eripsa is always on about. If you plan to participate or listen, please contribute your thoughts by expanding the outline found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TMkP7q7f8GJCLYHyDU3iazd3KGvYGW48mRC5qNrlVQ0/edit?usp=sharingDisclaimer: I am totally not trying to move the thread to a google doc this time guys. Here's the hangout we'll be using:https://talkgadget.google.com/hangouts/_/xqy7e6mzn35rj7g6gyr6d4nsaia
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Have fun yall, somehow you always manage to pick the exact times I'm on a plane 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
The plan is working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Have fun yall, somehow you always manage to pick the exact times I'm on a plane Planes got wifi these days, don't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
If you're going to talk about Bitcoin and you don't read the YOSPOS bitcoin thread (because you hate the sound of your own laughter or something) then I suggest reading some articles from http://www.buttcoinfoundation.org/ It won't help you understand how bitcoin works, but it will help you understand how bitcoin works. A little bit. Maybe. Some good examples: Is It Stealing If The Vendor Doesn’t See You Take It? Is It Stealing If The Vendor Doesn’t See You Take It? Part 2 The $22,484.00 Butterfly Labs Mini Rig Bitcoin Miner Is A Huge, Broken, Unstable Piece Of poo poo. ^^^ this was originally an article posted to buttcoin.org, so after reading that you should read: The Story Of When Buttcoin.Org Sold Out And How Butterfly Labs Turned It (And Other Sites) Into A Product Marketing Machine (Butterfly Labs was later hosed by the FTC, causing a federal judge to say "buttcoin") Bitcoiner or Cult Leader? The Silk Road Shutdown And How Its Owner Ross William Ulbricht, A.K.A “Dread Pirate Roberts”, Is Totally, Completely, Undeniably hosed. Silk Road replacement closes shop, owner thanks everyone for free coins And you can always go to the Mining Rig Megapost for pictures of fire hazard monstrosities QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Planes got wifi these days, don't they? "Oh hey rowmate, you're awake now. Well lucky you my 1/8th of a conversation about internet moneys can entertain you while everyone out of earshot gets to sleep"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Oh hey rowmate, you're awake now. Well lucky you my 1/8th of a conversation about internet moneys can entertain you while everyone out of earshot gets to sleep"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Oh hey rowmate, you're awake now. Well lucky you my 1/8th of a conversation about internet moneys can entertain you while everyone out of earshot gets to sleep" See, if we had a freed market you could just use your nanomachines to act as a sub-vocalization microphone just like the Codecs from Metal Gear Solid. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Let's be honest, Jrod and Libertarians in general are pseudo-closet Conservatives and Authoritarians. They pretend to have humanities best interest at heart while secretly wanting to amass massive wealth and kick the poor. Any ideology that admits any hierarchy or control structure is authoritarian. Basically, any group larger than a bar trivia team will have it. Left vs Right tends merely to delineate what personal qualities should place a person in authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Awesome user name/avatar/post combo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Okay, last bitcoin post for today I promise: someone in the YOSPOS thread was kind enough to link to SA poster heresiarch's 2013 Bitcoin FAQ. The other stuff that I posted is all about Bitcoin culture. This link gives a good explanation of how bitcoin works and the state of the bitcoin culture in 2013, right before MtGox closed its doors and it was revealed that someone ran away with all of the bitcoins and all of the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I've been reading through the other thread and I came across a post that kinda solidified another one of those "libertarians aping communists" things I keep going on about :archangelwar posted:The constant insistence on patterning society after what people "should do" rather than what they "actually do" feels way more paternalistic and patronizing than a state that simply seeks to provide minimum level of dignity and comfort to everyone. The corollary that anyone who does something counter to what they "should do" may suffer a socially justifiable death is sickening and evil. This is in reference to "Plastics," not sure if he's still around. He was doing the standard Social Darwinist thing - the point is to ensure that the best and brightest rise to the top, if you are too careless and weak to avoid being defrauded you deserve to die, all that good stuff. But it hit me that many of the arguments against libertarianism amount to appeals to human nature on some level. When they suggest that markets can more effectively discipline economic wrongdoers than laws, "on the other hand, all of recorded history." That's an appeal to "how people actually work." When you say that this or that libertarian policy will result in mass misery, you're appealing to how humans really behave. The response, that anyone who can't keep up with their new social order doesn't deserve to be happy, or even to live... Well, later on Plastics said that he's fine with the human race going extinct if that's the result of implementing his vision of ethical society. I haven't gotten far enough yet to see if he's just trolling, but this is a dead-on (self-)parody of the logical extreme of the deontological ethics they often retreat to. "It is better for humans to die than to violate the NAP ever" is the subtext of all jrode's ethical arguments once you sweep away the fig leaves about how he's just sure that things will really be better, honest, and so that's not something we need to worry about. It reminded me of something from way back in the darkest days of LF, where someone said something to the effect of, "if socialism is incompatible with human nature, that's a good argument for human extinction." This was said in the same sort of gallows humor kidding on the square style as going on about  accelerationism ftw where you can't be sure how much this reflects a genuine moral position or just desperation, but Plastics was playing it 100% straight. They each are responding to the same basic criticism: "actually existing humans don't work the way you want them to." If you don't care about the consequences, only the inherent rightness of your program, then you can declare humanity too evil for a just world, and prefer an empty world that matches your ideal of justice.One of the most common criticisms of communism is that it contradicts human nature and it failed because you can't force human beings to behave in a way contrary to their nature. Ironically, it is libertarians and their fellow travelers who love this argument against communism, but whether that is a fair or accurate argument or not, I am beginning to suspect that it's pure projection coming from them. (And it pairs nicely with "but we don't have real capitalism...")
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:
Psychology and Sociology show us that human nature is bullshit. Communal action is relative to both socio-economic background and cultural region. Problem is I can't say that objection in two words like human nature promoters can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Psychology and Sociology show us that I always interpreted the "Human Nature" argument to basically mean, most people will just keep to themselves or continue practicing their own social norms, but there will always be That One rear end in a top hatTM that will gently caress it up for everyone and ruin everyone's day. Libertarians just want to be the rear end in a top hatTM and get rich off of it. Like, we won't all turn into a nation of backstabbers that Bitcoin has become, but those who would be prone to doing so will do so without check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Psychology and Sociology show us that I agree, with the caveat that stuff like "on the other hand, recorded history" isn't really a statement about some essential nature of humanity. I said "amount to," but it would have been better to say, "are effectively." They are based on the same motive, to reference reality against an ideal, but pointing to the history of human behavioral tendencies is (imo) a less comprehensive and more plausible argument than straight-up human essentialism. eta: Putting it more succinctly, what I'm really saying here is that some of the more theoretically ornate libertarians have beliefs what are exactly what they claim is one of the problems with communism. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
GunnerJ posted:eta: Putting it more succinctly, what I'm really saying here is that some of the more theoretically ornate libertarians have beliefs what are exactly what they claim is one of the problems with communism. That's usually the point where they start to argue that while socialist/communist organization clearly runs contrary to human nature, any superficially similar problems that would appear to occur in a libertarian society are, in fact, due to it either not being libertarian enough, or black people.* *or Jews, or whomever else is the racial or social other of choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:56
|
|