Why Should We Care About Property Rights? - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

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

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Etalommi posted:

So you're down with a national bank that is funded by a high capital gains tax? With currency that is detached from the gold standard?

I'm down with abolishing the State. That is my primary objective. The mutualist ideology is a cousin of sorts to classical liberalism, with sharp deviations and, to my mind, grave errors that took them off course. But Proudhon is a brilliant thinker and no one interested in anarchist thought can be said to be educated without having read their share of his writings.

It is especially important to expose oneself to the 19th century classical liberal, anarchist and mutualist thinkers if you share the contemporary left's view that all this anti-government talk and the libertarian movement more specifically simply arose in the 1950s because some rich corporations bankrolled some think tanks and wanted an ideological cover to get State regulators off their backs.

These ideas have their roots in the modern (in a relative sense) era during the 17th century European Enlightenment and the breadth and scope of the thought of important anti-State thinkers in the following centuries ought to be properly recognized. Whatever the failings of the modern-day libertarian movement (and there are many) it is the ideas espoused throughout the ages that ought to hold our focus.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 02:17

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

jrodefeld posted:

I'm down with abolishing the State.

No you're not. You want to call the state something else, and also have it be terrible.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:08

Caros: May 14, 2008

jrodefeld posted:

I've read my share of Proudhon and, honestly, if you'd be willing to adopt a Proudhon-style of Anarchism then I'd consider us close enough ideologically to be considered allies on most issues.

But sadly, I guess you'll just settle with using him as a proxy to bash Bastiat with which is a shame. It would be interested to note for the readers who are not exactly familiar with the work of Proudhon and Bastiat, that they BOTH were considered part of the "left" as they sat on the left side of the French legislature, were both anarchists and opposed the "old order" that the conservatives defended. They had a great many debates, particularly in the area of interest, but had much in common on a great number of issues. I've tried to explain the historical origins of anarchism and libertarianism as being more properly and historically aligned with the "left" as it was originally conceived than the right and reading more about Bastiat and Proudhon would serve to hammer home that point further.

That Proudhon quote, while colorful and fun in its own right, doesn't refute poo poo. It is amusing however how articulate past generations of thinkers were when insulting each other. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from their example?

Jrodefeld I could be incredibly eloquent in calling you a goat loving piece of human excrement. I am a published author who has had a book on the goddamn nyt bestseller list. My decision to deride you with insults related to your failed blu-ray business, watermelon fornication and general annoyance should not be taken as a lack of eloquence but a lack of care.

I simply do not care enough to put significant effort into articulately deriding you.

Frankly I'm bored of you. I don't say that to be cruel or even rude at this point, it is just a fact. Every argument you have brought up in your most recent endeavour is one I have previously refuted on one or more occasions. And just as with those previous occasions you are making no effort to address or refute my points. I am arguing with the wind because you would rather respond to "lol free markets are dumb" than anything of substance.

You are an intellectual lightweight attempting to cloak yourself in the ideas of better men. To date I have yet to see you present a libertarian idea or thought that I cannot trace back in relatively short order to one of the encephalitic fools you claim as intellectual giants. You are a fraud and a coward who refuses to engage with any argument that you can't easily google a response to.

But you want an intellectual and polite conversation you know exactly how to get it. I am still on record as being willing to agree to a written debate with you if you can spend the bare minimum amount of effort deciding what format you would approve.

And as always I remain willing to provide you with the means to engage in a verbal debate at a time of your choosing, but we both know that after two years you are far too craven for that. Or your voice is too rich or magical or whatever.

Pro-tip: It is okay to say "I don't want to engage in a verbal debate because I am bad at public speaking". People would respect you a lot more if you did that or came up with some other legitimate excuse that wasn't "I'm too cool and hip".

We both know you won't however, because you are pathologically unable to admit you are wrong or fallible about anything.

So there it is. Give me your rules and I will set up a format for it so you can stop bitching about people dog piling you or making fun of you. Otherwise just get the gently caress out. Your act is wearing thin.

You watermelon fucker.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:11

Caros: May 14, 2008

jrodefeld posted:

poo poo, I'm flattered you guys think that much about me when I'm not around. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

We aren't laughing with you, we are laughing at you. It is important to me that you know this.

I have been immeasurably patient with you, but at this point you are an object of derision at best, one we occasionally get drink and point to like college frat boys laughing at a freshman who gets drunk and tries to gently caress a watermelon on the lawn.

You can be better than this perhaps, you can actually engage in meaningful debate, but not while you continue this argument from false premise and the constant bitching about tone rather than engaging with those who engage with you.

Caros fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:14

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

SedanChair posted:

Never mind, I forgot that jrod pretends to love Lysander Spooner as well, even though he literally was a card-carrying member of the First International

I "pretend" to love Lysander Spooner?! He is one of the greatest American thinkers of the 19th century, at least on par with Bastiat and I'd maybe rank him a bit higher.

As a mere sampling of his ideology, I'll quote the Wikipedia entry on him:

quote:

Spooner believed that it is beneficial if people are self-employed so that they could enjoy the full benefits of their labor rather than having to share them with an employer. He argued that various forms of government intervention in the free market made it difficult for people to start their own businesses. For one, he believed that laws against high interest rates, or "usury", prevented those with capital from extending credit because they could not be compensated for high risks of not being repaid: "If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor...The effect of usury laws, then, is to give a monopoly of the right of borrowing money, to those few, who can offer the most approved security".[25]

Spooner also believed that government restrictions on issuance of private money made it inordinately difficult for individuals to obtain the capital on credit to start their own businesses, thereby putting them in a situation where "a very large portion of them, to save themselves from starvation, have no alternative but to sell their labor to others" and those who do employ others are only able to afford to pay "far below what the laborers could produce, [than] if they themselves had the necessary capital to work with."[26] Spooner said that there was "a prohibitory tax � a tax of ten per cent. � on all notes issued for circulation as money, other than the notes of the United States and the national banks" which he argued caused an artificial shortage of credit, and that eliminating this tax would result in making plenty of money available for lending[26] such that: "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another"

Yep. I agree with every word. What is confusing you is that his tone of many of his ideas strikes you as very much contemporary leftist. But this is not at all confusing to me. In fact, it is a gross error of the modern age that libertarian (classical liberal) ideas are somehow seen as a subset of the American Right. This is ahistorical and has a great deal to do with certain practical, but always uneasy, alliances made between libertarians and the Old Right in opposing FDR's New Deal.

I've mentioned it before, but I highly recommend you read the Murray Rothbard essay "Left and Right, The Prospects for Liberty". This is a short essay that can be read in a single sitting. There is also an audiobook version on Youtube that you could listen to. This essay is Rothbard at his best and he will untangle your mind and get you to understand that the modern concept of "left" and "right" are horribly confused and misguided.

Then you should have no trouble seeing why Spooner is absolutely a libertarian and why we can regard people like Proudhon as, if not libertarian, but at least ideological allies against Statism.

You would do well to read some articles by left-libertarian Sheldon Richman or left-libertarian Roderick Long and get a sense that individualist anarchists of the 19th century are almost certainly part of the libertarian tradition.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:21

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Property rights are dumb and the state owns, sorry.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:21

DarklyDreaming: Apr 4, 2009; Fun scary

So uh... Jrodefeld, you keep going on about how the free market provides better solutions to scarcity. Now you've probably heard the news that my state has a scarcity problem, namely that there's not enough water to go around. My question is, if California was an An-Cap paradise would the drought be less of an issue? And how would it be made easier?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:24

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

GunnerJ posted:

Actually laughed out loud at him identifying his "allies on the left" according to who was sitting on the literal left side of the French legislature. Historical etymology is fun and all but haha wow.

Jesus loving Christ. I am absolutely talking to children.

Do you know that the political concepts of left and right originated from the French assembly based on the two opposing sides, one sitting on the left and the other on the right? It wasn't just a seating chart. The people sitting to the left had certain views and political priorities that were in sharp distinction with the conservative agenda of those that sat on the right.

The fact that Proudhon and Bastiat both sat on the left meant that they had somewhat similar priorities and values.

Let me enlighten you and please pay attention because this is really important. In a retrospective on Rothbard's great essay, left-libertarian Roderick Long wrote the following:

quote:

In "Left and Right," Rothbard makes the same identification:

"[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies � one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order�. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right," of the ideological spectrum."

And Rothbard is surely right in thinking that what we now call free-market libertarianism was originally a left-wing position. The great liberal economist Fr�d�ric Bastiat sat on the left side of the French national assembly, with the anarcho-socialist Proudhon. Many of the causes we now think of as paradigmatically left-wing � feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, the defense of laborers and consumers against big business � were traditionally embraced and promoted specifically by free-market radicals.

So what happened to the political spectrum? This is the question that Spencer and Rothbard, from their different historical vantage-points, are each trying to answer. The version of the question that Spencer is addressing is: how did the Left become associated with statism? Rothbard addresses that question as well, but his primary focus is on the question: how did free-market libertarianism become associated with the Right?

Let's begin with Spencer's diagnosis:

"How is it that Liberalism, getting more and more into power, has grown more and more coercive in its legislation? � How are we to explain this spreading confusion of thought which has led it, in pursuit of what appears to be public good, to invert the method by which in earlier days it achieved public good? � [W]e may understand the kind of confusion in which Liberalism has lost itself: and the origin of those mistaken classings of political measures which have misled it � classings, as we shall see, by conspicuous external traits instead of by internal natures. For what, in the popular apprehension and in the apprehension of those who effected them, were the changes made by Liberals in the past? They were abolitions of grievances suffered by the people�. [T]his was the common trait they had which most impressed itself on men's minds�. [T]he welfare of the many came to be conceived alike by Liberal statesmen and Liberal voters as the aim of Liberalism. Hence the confusion. The gaining of a popular good, being the external conspicuous trait common to Liberal measures in earlier days (then in each case gained by a relaxation of restraints), it has happened that popular good has come to be sought by Liberals, not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained. And seeking to gain it directly, they have used methods intrinsically opposed to those originally used."

In short, Spencer's analysis is that liberals came to conceptualize liberalism in terms of its easily identifiable effects (benefits for the masses) rather than in terms of its essential nature (laissez-faire), and so began to think that any measure aimed at the end of benefits for the masses must count as liberal, whether pursued by the traditional liberal means of laissez-faire or by its opposite, the traditional Tory means of governmental compulsion. In short, liberalism became the pursuit of liberal ends by Tory means.

In "Left and Right," Rothbard offers a similar analysis of state socialism:

"Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means�. Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc."

I am genuinely interested in hearing your reaction to this.

And here is the page this excerpt was taken from:

https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later#2

jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:31

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

Caros posted:

Pro-tip: It is okay to say "I don't want to engage in a verbal debate because I am bad at public speaking". People would respect you a lot more if you did that or came up with some other legitimate excuse that wasn't "I'm too cool and hip".

Sidenote: it's also OK to say this about anything, from "I wasn't aware that Qatar has slaves" to "I've never heard of elasticity of demand" to "This is a novel argument and I'd like to think about it for a few days before responding."

Honestly doing anything other than feeding the trolls and reposting your plagiarized screeds would be a colossal improvement.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:36

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

jrodefeld posted:

Jesus loving Christ. I am absolutely talking to children.

Do you know that the political concepts of left and right originated from the French assembly based on the two opposing sides, one sitting on the left and the other on the right?

Why do you think I said that "historical etymology is fun and all," pumpkin?

Oh... wait... maybe that's not a good thing to call you, I mean, gourds and melons are kinda similar, and, well... wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea, you know?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:36

Caros: May 14, 2008

jrodefeld posted:

And here is the page this excerpt was taken from:

https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later#2

Of course it was.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:37

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Baronjutter posted:

Property rights are dumb and the state owns, sorry.

Ah, but how can you determine if something "owns" without a concept of property? Checkmate. :smuggo:

:smuggo:

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:39

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

:rory:

Murray Rothbard's Idea Of "Liberalism" Was Ending Apartheid :rory:

:rory:

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:39

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

It's ironic that an ideologue who claims to be railing against serfdom and feudalism, advocates so stridently for a system that places unrestricted ownership of the land over pretty much everything else.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:52

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

SedanChair posted:

Murray Rothbard's Idea Of "Liberalism" Was Ending Apartheid

Also he supported notorious racists Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for POTUS.

burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 19, 2016

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:53

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Caros posted:

Jrodefeld I could be incredibly eloquent in calling you a goat loving piece of human excrement. I am a published author who has had a book on the goddamn nyt bestseller list. My decision to deride you with insults related to your failed blu-ray business, watermelon fornication and general annoyance should not be taken as a lack of eloquence but a lack of care.

I simply do not care enough to put significant effort into articulately deriding you.

Frankly I'm bored of you. I don't say that to be cruel or even rude at this point, it is just a fact. Every argument you have brought up in your most recent endeavour is one I have previously refuted on one or more occasions. And just as with those previous occasions you are making no effort to address or refute my points. I am arguing with the wind because you would rather respond to "lol free markets are dumb" than anything of substance.

You are an intellectual lightweight attempting to cloak yourself in the ideas of better men. To date I have yet to see you present a libertarian idea or thought that I cannot trace back in relatively short order to one of the encephalitic fools you claim as intellectual giants. You are a fraud and a coward who refuses to engage with any argument that you can't easily google a response to.

But you want an intellectual and polite conversation you know exactly how to get it. I am still on record as being willing to agree to a written debate with you if you can spend the bare minimum amount of effort deciding what format you would approve.

And as always I remain willing to provide you with the means to engage in a verbal debate at a time of your choosing, but we both know that after two years you are far too craven for that. Or your voice is too rich or magical or whatever.

Pro-tip: It is okay to say "I don't want to engage in a verbal debate because I am bad at public speaking". People would respect you a lot more if you did that or came up with some other legitimate excuse that wasn't "I'm too cool and hip".

We both know you won't however, because you are pathologically unable to admit you are wrong or fallible about anything.

So there it is. Give me your rules and I will set up a format for it so you can stop bitching about people dog piling you or making fun of you. Otherwise just get the gently caress out. Your act is wearing thin.

You watermelon fucker.

All right, a written debate is what I am willing to do with you at this point. What should the topic be about? Let's have a relatively narrowly defined topic (not that it will stay that way) so at least we having a decent starting place.

I propose a three day time limit so we can both get our say in but if something comes up during the day we don't have to be stuck to our computers 24/7. Another rule I'd suggest is that we each have an opening OP where we lay out our position on an issue, then we simply go back and forth. If I make a post, then you respond ONE TIME asking a question or refuting whatever I have written. What I fear happening is that one of us ends up with more free time during those three days and then tries to win simply by posting more times than the other persona and accumulating more words on the thread.

We both get an opening OP, then each of us gets roughly the same number of posts, and then maybe a closing post summing up our argument or we just end at the end of the three day time period.

We could do it here on this forum if everyone would agree to the terms of the debate and we could somehow ensure that other posters don't interfere. Probably a second thread could be created where the other members could discuss the ongoing debate without directly interfering.

What do you think?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 02:57

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

DrProsek posted:

Also he supported notorious racists Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for POTUS.

:qq:

they finally got David Duke :qq:

:qq:

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:06

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

jrodefeld posted:

What do you think?

i've said this many times in jrod threads but it's just so damned delightful that he advocates a system which relies on trustworthiness and personal credibility on a forum where he has long since exhausted both

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:09

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Muscle Tracer posted:

Sidenote: it's also OK to say this about anything, from "I wasn't aware that Qatar has slaves" to "I've never heard of elasticity of demand" to "This is a novel argument and I'd like to think about it for a few days before responding."

Honestly doing anything other than feeding the trolls and reposting your plagiarized screeds would be a colossal improvement.

Okay, fair enough. But I'm not plagiarizing anything. There was one time were I recited basically a historical list of dates and events that I had pasted from another source and forgotten to properly attribute. That was the only time I could be accused of plagiary. And I copped to the mistake and nothing like that has occurred since.

Here is something that I'll admit to not knowing enough about to respond in a meaningful way and I'd like to learn more about. Several times people have mentioned David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5000 Years". Supposedly it is an authoritative take-down of the Austrian theory about the origin of money. I have been vaguely aware of this book as I've seen it mentioned before and I know that Robert Murphy had a little exchange with Graeber a few years back.

I'd actually love to learn more about this particular discussion and what it means for libertarians and Austrian economists. If we discuss this particular topic, I will concede that I don't know much about it and I'll be willing to learn. I don't know everything after-all.

My understanding is that general Austrian theory holds that money emerged out of a primitive barter economy due to the problem of double coincidence of wants, thus necessitating a universally accepted medium of exchange. Graeber's argument is that there is no historical evidence that any barter economy ever existed on any significant scale and, more commonly, debt was the first and oldest means of trade.

Okay, but I'm not sure how much this actually proves. Debt is just as inefficient as barter in an economy of any scale and complexity and the need for a universal medium of exchange becomes necessary regardless. Just giving someone something based on the expectation that they will pay you back (replace the item taken) requires a level of trust that would be impossible in even a slightly large economy.

I am genuinely asking because I haven't read Graeber's book. What is his argument as it relates to libertarianism and Austrian economics? What is the takeaway?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:15

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

jrodefeld posted:

I'm down with abolishing the State.

No you aren't.

You want to be the state in your own little fiefdom.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:15

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

Caros posted:

Of course it was.

I'm sure you're aware, but Mises.org has an explicit mission to literally collect and distribute ALL the major historical libertarian, anarchist and classical liberal books, essays and articles that have ever been published. Criticizing me for using their site for libertarian sources is like criticizing someone for using the library. The "library" is not a person or even a small group of people. Similarly, the Mises Institute website has an online library of hundreds of different authors, both contemporary and modern, who hold often very different views and many issues while still being roughly in the liberty tradition.

I am arguing for the libertarian position. So, shouldn't it be reasonable that I cite libertarians, anarchists and classical liberals in my defense of that position?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:20

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

jrodefeld posted:

Okay, fair enough. But I'm not plagiarizing anything. There was one time were I recited basically a historical list of dates and events that I had pasted from another source and forgotten to properly attribute. That was the only time I could be accused of plagiary. And I copped to the mistake and nothing like that has occurred since.

Here is something that I'll admit to not knowing enough about to respond in a meaningful way and I'd like to learn more about. Several times people have mentioned David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5000 Years". Supposedly it is an authoritative take-down of the Austrian theory about the origin of money. I have been vaguely aware of this book as I've seen it mentioned before and I know that Robert Murphy had a little exchange with Graeber a few years back.

I'd actually love to learn more about this particular discussion and what it means for libertarians and Austrian economists. If we discuss this particular topic, I will concede that I don't know much about it and I'll be willing to learn. I don't know everything after-all.

My understanding is that general Austrian theory holds that money emerged out of a primitive barter economy due to the problem of double coincidence of wants, thus necessitating a universally accepted medium of exchange. Graeber's argument is that there is no historical evidence that any barter economy ever existed on any significant scale and, more commonly, debt was the first and oldest means of trade.

Okay, but I'm not sure how much this actually proves. Debt is just as inefficient as barter in an economy of any scale and complexity and the need for a universal medium of exchange becomes necessary regardless. Just giving someone something based on the expectation that they will pay you back (replace the item taken) requires a level of trust that would be impossible in even a slightly large economy.

I am genuinely asking because I haven't read Graeber's book. What is his argument as it relates to libertarianism and Austrian economics? What is the takeaway?

This is a topic that I brought up at the same time that I linked to the chapter of the book you're referring to. If you had any actual "genuine interest" you could have read it yourself and then talked about what you read.

And it's not "an authoritative take-down of the Austrian theory about" anything. You really overestimate how important your ideology is if you think someone would write a book about that.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:27

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

jrodefeld posted:

I'm sure you're aware, but Mises.org has an explicit mission to literally collect and distribute ALL the major historical libertarian, anarchist and classical liberal books, essays and articles that have ever been published. Criticizing me for using their site for libertarian sources is like criticizing someone for using the library. The "library" is not a person or even a small group of people. Similarly, the Mises Institute website has an online library of hundreds of different authors, both contemporary and modern, who hold often very different views and many issues while still being roughly in the liberty tradition.

I am arguing for the libertarian position. So, shouldn't it be reasonable that I cite libertarians, anarchists and classical liberals in my defense of that position?

You could say the same thing for, I don't know, Scientology.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:31

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

jrodefeld posted:

To again quote the great Frederick Bastiat:

�Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.�

What would make you assume that because I don't support the State providing social welfare for the poor, that I don't support social welfare? And making the claim that you think I'd be "fine" with people needlessly dying is a ridiculous accusation and serves to purpose other than to stir the pot. We can debate issues without resorting to impugning the motives of our opposition.

It's not that you object to these demonstrably good things happening, it's that you object to using what is by far the most effective mechanism for achieving them, and prefer methods that we know from history (and in some cases the present) have largely failed. It's not that we think you "want" people to die in the streets, it's that you're opposing the most effective means of actually preventing it, which from a practical standpoint is more or less the same thing.

jrodefeld posted:

Jesus loving Christ. I am absolutely talking to children.

No, you're talking to people who, due to your own actions, have mostly stopped engaging you seriously.

Like, I don't think you've ever replied to one of my posts, and while I'll be the first to say I'm no Caros, I'm also not the guy who accused you of loving a watermelon. You've given me zero incentive to particularly respect you or put effort into my posts in this thread. What effort I expend is for my own amusement, tempered by the standards of the forum.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:32

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

spoon0042 posted:

You could say the same thing for, I don't know, Scientology.

At least Scientology is supposed to actually be a religion and so citing their holy texts and church leaders makes some sense.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:34

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

DrProsek posted:

Also he supported notorious racists Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for POTUS.

Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Nobody has ever produced a single shred of evidence apart from those early 90s Newsletters that were so obviously ghostwritten and contrary to the expressed views of Ron Paul throughout his entire political career.

Now libertarian organizations, including Reason, Cato and unfortunately Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, courted the far right as potential allies in the early 1990s. Some of the fruits of this disastrous "partnership" are frankly embarrassing. But Ron Paul wasn't a part of that. He was retired from politics at the time. And all of these organizations have either explicitly or implicitly disavowed this "paleo" phase.

Everybody knows that Murray Rothbard swung far-right at the beginning of the 1990s and that was embarrassing and tragic. I strongly believe that had he lived longer he would have abandoned this failed strategy and gone back to a more plum-line libertarianism or even made common cause with the left again as he did in the 1960s.

Much of this can also be attributed to his very public and outspoken feud with the Koch brothers and their attempts to bankroll the major libertarian think tanks and bring them into the beltway as "respectable" not-nearly-as-radical institutions.

Your using the contemporary left's most obscene tactic which is to use the term "racist" so broadly as to destroy a persons character without needing much evidence.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:37

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

It's like clockwork. Say libertarians are racist and he drops everything and comes a-hootin' and a-hollerin' in to set you right, ignoring anything else.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:40

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

jrodefeld posted:

Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Nobody has ever produced a single shred of evidence apart from those early 90s Newsletters that were so obviously ghostwritten and contrary to the expressed views of Ron Paul throughout his entire political career.

So why did he vote against a bill to suspend doing business with Sudanese companies involved in a genocide, otherwise completely congruent with his ideological principles?

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:40

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

(It's because his entire career has been spent paying zero regard to non-white, non-Christian, non-male lives.)

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:42

jrodefeld: Sep 22, 2012; by Shine

GunnerJ posted:

This is a topic that I brought up at the same time that I linked to the chapter of the book you're referring to. If you had any actual "genuine interest" you could have read it yourself and then talked about what you read.

And it's not "an authoritative take-down of the Austrian theory about" anything. You really overestimate how important your ideology is if you think someone would write a book about that.

All right, so you DON'T want to talk about it now that I'm open to it.

Critics of libertarianism and Austrian economics in particular have certainly spoken about that book as if it has delivered a death-blow to Austrian economic theory, but I know to take such proclamations with a grain of salt.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:42

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

i love how "but those letters were ghostwritten! he doesn't believe anything in them!" is supposed to sound absolving, as if ron paul being so hilariously incompetent that he let someone publish horrendously racist poo poo under his name for mad bank over a decade is better than him actually being a horrible racist

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:43

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

jrodefeld posted:

Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Nobody has ever produced a single shred of evidence apart from those early 90s Newsletters that were so obviously ghostwritten and contrary to the expressed views of Ron Paul throughout his entire political career.

They were ghostwritten by Lew Rockwell, who is still buddies with Ron Paul, Ron Paul posts articles on his website along with other neo-confederate fascists.

Let's take a look and see if he still does that Oh Look Here's One From loving Tuesday:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/ron-paul/beginning-civil-unrest/

Surprise, Ron Paul loves white terrorists from Idaho and Oregon, as well as any other hole they crawl out from, and they love him.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:44

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

jrodefeld posted:

It would be interested to note for the readers who are not exactly familiar with the work of Proudhon and Bastiat, that they BOTH were considered part of the "left" as they sat on the left side of the French legislature, were both anarchists and opposed the "old order" that the conservatives defended.

Okay but your brand of American capitalist Libertarianism is a creation of the right and a reaction to federal civil rights legislation with the primary goal of protecting and nourishing segregation in the private sphere by attempting to provide a new "freedom"-based argumentative footing for the old state-enforced Jim Crow laws once explicit eugenics-style racism became unpopular and the federal government started interfering with the states' segregation laws.

And that's why you consistently quote racists and segregationists like Rothbard and Hoppe, apologize for the confederacy, and support neo-confederates like Ron Paul who yearn for the days when state governments were liberated from federal control and free to support your right to own blacks, lynch freedmen, bash gays, control women, etc

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:48

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

jrodefeld posted:

All right, so you DON'T want to talk about it now that I'm open to it.

No, I don't want to waste my time holding your hand through a subject you can easily read about yourself. When you have something to say about the chapter of the book I linked for you, then I'll be interested.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:49

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

jrodefeld posted:

Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Nobody has ever produced a single shred of evidence apart from those early 90s Newsletters that were so obviously ghostwritten and contrary to the expressed views of Ron Paul throughout his entire political career.

Actually they're pretty consistent with his views apart from the desperate protestations that he's not a racist in order to save face and there is some evidence he knew about the content of the newsletters and personally signed off on them. Just a big coincidence, I suppose, that as racism has become more unacceptable in our discourse that Ron Paul suddenly stopped defending them!

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:50

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

even as late as 2004 ron paul was :qq:

:qq:

-ing about how the civil rights act was such an unforgivable repression of PROPERTY RIGHTS

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:52

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Oh and this is the picture they put up when posting his article, every quote of jrod should just be this image:

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:54

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

Q: Senator Paul, how do you respond to the accusation that you're racist.
A: We wouldn't have this problem if it wasn't for thinking of people in group terms. I believe in individual rights and treating people as individuals on their own merits.

Q: Senator Paul, how do you feel about repealing the civil rights act, building a time machine to ensure the confederacy wins the civil war and segregation?
A: Sounds fine to me!

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:58

Wanamingo: Feb 22, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

StandardVC10 posted:

(It's because his entire career has been spent paying zero regard to non-white, non-Christian, non-male lives.)

Don't forget non-straight people, too! Ron Paul fought against the decision of Lawrence v Texas, even though Lawrence was one of his constituents at the time.

# ? Jan 19, 2016 03:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 02:17

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA

hrm

# ? Jan 19, 2016 04:01

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

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.05)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS