|
Anticheese posted:Where does national identity, or the concept of belonging to a greater society fit into an an-cap worldview? You should be free to voluntarily be a resident of whichever nation you want and, if the nation doesn't suit you, move.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:Reading that Bastiat again is hilarious because it basically says this: I'm not against my kids being fed, I just choose not to feed them. I don't mind if they manage to get some food somehow so see I am not starving them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:From a while back but I think this is a legitimately interesting questions. What could possibly justify apostasy? This is kinda the saddest part of the thread, though: he's not a utilitarian, he's a deontologist. In Jrode's mind, Libertarianism is its own justification. He's said a couple times that he's not interested in determining which social system creates the most good for the most people—he's only interested in a system that preserves property rights, which he believes trump (or are at least synonymous with) the greater good. To him, property rights are the first principle from which all else is derived That's not really the sort of thing you can ask why about. If the reverse happened, and someone asked me why I want the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't know if I could explain in a logical argumentative way. It's such a core part of what I believe to be right that any argument I could make would have to be based on it as an assumption, and if someone doesn't share it, it's very difficult to logic them into it. It's similar to how a Christian might hold at the core of their worldview that God's will is more important than anything else. Well, it does suck for all the homosexuals, members of other religions, etc, but then again they're all going to hell anyway. If the Christian and I agree that God exists, but I don't agree that his will is important to how the world should work, how can he convince me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
That's why I found it interesting that he said there are possible reasons for abandoning libertarianism, I've never actually heard a libertarian say that and when I was one I would have considered that crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This is kinda the saddest part of the thread, though: he's not a utilitarian, he's a deontologist. In Jrode's mind, Libertarianism is its own justification. He's said a couple times that he's not interested in determining which social system creates the most good for the most people—he's only interested in a system that preserves property rights, which he believes trump (or are at least synonymous with) the greater good. To him, property rights are the first principle from which all else is derived lol so why have people been debating this guy for dozens and dozens of pages? That sounds like a solid reason to back away from the keyboard
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:That's not really the sort of thing you can ask why about. If the reverse happened, and someone asked me why I want the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't know if I could explain in a logical argumentative way. It's such a core part of what I believe to be right that any argument I could make would have to be based on it as an assumption, and if someone doesn't share it, it's very difficult to logic them into it. There is a simple logical justification that can appeal even to greed: if the greatest good is spread amongst the greatest number of people, it significantly increases the chances that the benefits spread to you. Of course, for people like you and me this is probably irrelevant since we're probably in a position of relatively security, but a society 'by and for the people' is a solid position to argue: that a population that looks after its own is a stronger one than one divided into competing elements. Competition does not necessarily build the best outcome, see: the arms race, the space race, the rat race, the human race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:26
|
|
Serrath posted:It's a small point to bring up in the sea of other points but arguing that food is efficiently provided by the free market in spite of being essential as an argument that health care can be provided for efficiently is really disingenuous. People starve in Western nations all the time and people in extreme poverty can often end up doing some pretty horrendous things to keep themselves fed. The dumpster behind the convenience store near my last apartment had people scrounging food from it every night until they put a lock on it. My university runs an anonymous food pantry program where students are allowed to take food as needed by entering an office from the student commons (the food is on a shelf behind a wall so no-one can even see you take it) and, having worked there before, I can promise that we had to stock it every night. 'If you make the supply of something free, of course the demand for it will be infinite!'
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:That's why I found it interesting that he said there are possible reasons for abandoning libertarianism, I've never actually heard a libertarian say that and when I was one I would have considered that crazy talk. Notice that Jrod has conciously avoided answering the question of what the valid reasons for leaving libertarianism are. Like most things he says he doesn't actually believe it. Bryter posted:lol so why have people been debating this guy for dozens and dozens of pages? 'Cause it's fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This is kinda the saddest part of the thread, though: he's not a utilitarian, he's a deontologist. In Jrode's mind, Libertarianism is its own justification. He's said a couple times that he's not interested in determining which social system creates the most good for the most people—he's only interested in a system that preserves property rights, which he believes trump (or are at least synonymous with) the greater good. To him, property rights are the first principle from which all else is derived It's a fun position because you can pull in historical or empirical evidence to bolster your argument (the Soviet Union had bread lines, what now statists), but as soon as empirical evidence refutes your argument (oh every developed country with UHC spends pays 1/2 the costs for care the US does and achieves better results) well uhm uh see that doesn't matter because kids with leukemia have no right to Mitt Romney's dancing horse money! So stop talking about superior results, that's an unprincipled and vicious approach. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Notice that Jrod has conciously avoided answering the question of what the valid reasons for leaving libertarianism are. Like most things he says he doesn't actually believe it. He did say at one point that while it is irrational that I reevaluated my beliefs as a result of a strong personal tragedy it wouldn't surprise him if I abandoned them because of a bad breakup with a libertarian girlfriend. So... There is that maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:'If you make the supply of something free, of course the demand for it will be infinite!' Money is the resistor that keeps the fuse of healthcare from blowing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Ok I guess we're done talking about benefit societies
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Bryter posted:lol so why have people been debating this guy for dozens and dozens of pages? That sounds like a solid reason to back away from the keyboard Eh that's like asking why a gym has a punching bag when nobody can knock it out. This helps me flex my ideological muscles and teaches me how to be a better environmentalist 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Eh that's like asking why a gym has a punching bag when nobody can knock it out. This helps me flex my ideological muscles and teaches me how to be a better environmentalist I think you'll find that punching a peaceable bag, which is sovereign over its own being, constitutes an unwarranted violation of the NAP
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Bryter posted:I think you'll find that punching a peaceable bag, which is sovereign over its own being, constitutes an unwarranted violation of the NAP I persuaded the punching bag to sign a deceptive labor contract and then I withheld its passport, so I think you'll find that I have the freedom to punch it as much as I want. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Bryter posted:I think you'll find that punching a peaceable bag, which is sovereign over its own being, constitutes an unwarranted violation of the NAP Under ancap serial killer land, there is no uniform definition of consent. For me, silence rises to the level of consent. This is why I punch the bag and this is why I eat your pie cooling on the windowsill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Ok I guess we're done talking about benefit societies The assumption is that, in the absence of the State, everyone will have a lot more money (think how much you'll be recouping just from taxes!) and everything will cost less (with no drop and frequent increases in quality). This means that we are all bringing up claims with no basis in his hypothetical reality - everyone will be wealthier and happier, and even if someone is faced with a rare, catastrophic event, the fact that everyone has considerably more money available means that they will be freely able to give to charities without coercement, and aid societies would never encounter the issues of insolvency because dues paid in would be able to substantially exceed benefits paid out. It's a beautiful image that unfortunately has absolutely no congruence with observed reality, history, or even a basic understanding of economics. It's sad, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Ok I guess we're done talking about benefit societies What gets me is these benefit societies make a huge lynch pin trying to assuage fears that libertarianism won't immediately turn into an unmitigated blood bath and Jrod has mentioned them in passing a grand total of around 3 times. He won't go anywhere near any argument made against them with a ten foot pole. It's like he completely understands they're bullshit, they didn't really work even at their height, and is paying them not even the bare modicum of lip service. Which is doubly dumb for him because these societies could possibly maybe, given the right material and particular lodges and fraternities, provide some semblance of a point that maybe under the right conditions, women and minorities slightly maybe benefited and made inroads into the larger economy through them to a certain extent. But he's a dyed in the wool white male supremacist at heart and it would pain him to acknowledge that particular, in his views, moral failing where it might have occurred. Assuming it did, of course. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:The last time I went through your posts in the Libertarian thread fully half of all links you provided were links to Mises.org. By way of comparison I went through my own links and the links of two other posters and found that apart from wikipedia links there was almost no duplication of sources on the part of myself or others. That is to say, when you link something, you do so in an orthodox fashion. You pull your information primarily from a handful of sources that are completely separate from what I'm going to call 'the real world'. So you are going to discount any source I provide that is from a libertarian source? What, am I supposed to support my case for radical individualism by making appeals to communist sources? Take the information on its merits, don't attack the source. I'd really like you to actually respond to the substance of that post though. I think it is interesting that you simply ignore the aspects of the libertarian tradition that don't fit into your narrative of it being a white, racist, far-right movement opposed to so-called "progressive" values. That is why you don't believe me when I mention that Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Pierre Joseph Proudhon are indeed a part of the broad libertarian tradition to which I subscribe. Proudhon less so, i'll admit, but the mutualist anarchists are what I would consider cousins to the classical liberals in that they strongly believed that the State was a tool of oppression and the left-wing values they espoused were far better achieved through freedom. Similarly, you choose to ignore modern left-libertarians who carry on in this tradition such as Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman and Gary Chartier. So let me ask you to please respond with some substance to the Roderick Long article I linked to, even if it is from the dreaded Mises Institute website. If there was a single thing I want you all to understand, it is what is articulated in this article. https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later#2
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you are going to discount any source I provide that is from a libertarian source? What, am I supposed to support my case for radical individualism by making appeals to communist sources? If you actually believe that this is the desired alternative course of action, that is very telling about your thought process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you are going to discount any source I provide that is from a libertarian source? What, am I supposed to support my case for radical individualism by making appeals to communist sources? Take the information on its merits, don't attack the source. jrode its not that you cite mises its that mises is pretty much all you cite
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
jrode why are you such a retard
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
jrode wy won't you respnd to people's posts instead of imagining their content and then arguing with what you'd like them to say
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
i for one am shocked that the guy who endorses a system that thrives on dishonesty and information mismatch is an intellectual fraud
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:jrode its not that you cite mises
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
I am convinced that jrod does not pay federal taxes at this point, which makes all his gesticulating even more funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
So Jrod, my suggestion still stands:fade5 posted:You could totally respectfully decline to participate in all of these things. Is there a reason this is not an option for you? ("I don't wanna" is not a valid answer.) fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Jrod, I'm in the mood for some high definition 90s Hong Kong action films, but I don't want to pay full price. Do you have any idea where I could get some blurays for real cheap?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
If you wanted to argue the merits of left-libertarianism, fine, please do so. But don't argue for vehement an-cap only libertarianism constantly and then try to tell us that left-libertarians are basically libertarians and an-caps are basically libertarians and so left-libertarians are really an-caps too. And from there, using the fact that some of us might have some sympathies with left-libertarians, or agree with some statements they've made, or respectfully disagreed with some arguments, and therefore we should just fall in line with an-cap dogma (because its totally the same, guys, see above), is just silly. You're wrong, foolish, and pathetic, clinging to an ideology that is, at best content to reward you with rotting scraps from the people you pretend are your betters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
 quote:So you are going to discount any source I provide that is from a libertarian source? What, am I supposed to support my case for radical individualism by making appeals to communist sources? Take the information on its merits, don't attack the source. The commentary wasn't attacking the material at all. You'll note I didn't actually address the content of your link because I didn't even look at it. If you actually bothered to read and perhaps try and digest what I told you there, you'd realize that the thing I am taking issue with is the fact that over half the links you have ever posted on this forum have been Mises.org links. Do you really not see a problem with that? You don't see any issue with the fact that fully fifty percent of your entire worldview comes from a single homogenous website? Do you think people who post 50% of their links from free republic, or Fox news, or hell even thinkprogress are well rounded people? Because in my experience anyone who draws the majority of their experience and information from a single source is a person with a closed mind who is unwilling to go to other places for their information because the information they get outside their little bubble conflicts with the worldview they have developed. You are insulated in an incestuous, I'd argue perhaps even somewhat cultish circle of getting all your information from a tiny fraction of people you already agree with. This is the reason you can look at Thomas DiLorenzo's books about lincoln, books that have been decried by every major historian on the face of the loving planet by the way, and think 'yeah that makes sense'. You don't look at anything critically because if it is on Mises.org it has already been approved and blended up for you and all you need to do is gum the lovely puree that is put in front of you. This is why I call you an intellectual lightweight with no ideas of your own and why people constantly accuse you of plagiarism. My comment about you using a mises.org link was merely dry humor to point out the obvious of what everyone already knew, that the idiot ideas you espoused above the link were simply something you gobbled up without thinking because it was on mises.org. It is the exact same flaw that had you posting a list of 'free economies' that included loving slave states. quote:I'd really like you to actually respond to the substance of that post though. I think it is interesting that you simply ignore the aspects of the libertarian tradition that don't fit into your narrative of it being a white, racist, far-right movement opposed to so-called "progressive" values. I'd like you to respond to the substance of one of the half dozen posts I have thrown at you since you came back, but if wishes were horses then all beggars would ride. To be fair however I will say this. The existence of a few 'left leaning' libertarians literal centuries ago does not negate the fact that the modern libertarian philosophy is a far right one of racism, classism and corporatism. I think most people would say marxism was a very leftist style ideology but by the time of Stalin I think they'd be singing a different tune. Things change over time and your ideology has been coopted by racists and assholes. Sorry. quote:Similarly, you choose to ignore modern left-libertarians who carry on in this tradition such as Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman and Gary Chartier. You choose to ignore them because you never post anything about their ideas. You namedrop them and then talk about DRO's, or free markets in children or whatever the gently caress. Also for fucksake stop talking about race you obnoxious gently caress. quote:So let me ask you to please respond with some substance to the Roderick Long article I linked to, even if it is from the dreaded Mises Institute website. If there was a single thing I want you all to understand, it is what is articulated in this article. Quid pro quo. Respond to any of the bolded questions I have asked you in this thread and I'll indulge your retardation. If not, go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Jrod have you ever ended a fiscal year without the federal government giving you a refund?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
I noticed this earlier today and I thought it would be appropriate to healthcare chat:The Onion posted:TOLEDO, OH—Displaying a level of strength and mobility that he will never again possess as he paced back and forth across his living room Tuesday, terminally ill man Thomas Halverson reportedly spent the last good day of his life on the phone with his insurance company. According to reports, the 56-year-old with Stage III liver cancer spent much of the morning and afternoon—a period in which he, for the last time ever, maintained a good appetite, a sufficiently functional immune system, and a reasonable level of energy—arguing a claim denial with nearly a dozen representatives across multiple departments, and on two separate occasions, starting his call over from the beginning after being suddenly disconnected. Sources confirmed that Halverson, who will in a matter of weeks be unable to get out of bed unassisted by nursing staff or carry on a conversation with his loved ones without them wondering whether it would be their last, could be seen during an hour-long wait on hold putting his phone on speaker mode while he, still able, stepped out onto his back deck momentarily to enjoy the fresh air. At press time, upon having his call transferred back to the very first representative he spoke with some five hours earlier, sources reported that Halverson could be overheard raising his voice and cursing loudly, the final time he’ll be able to do so without descending into a severely painful coughing fit. If you want one more reason why for profit healthcare is disgusting I'll point to the fact that sick people battling with insurance companies to cover their obligations (something that I'm sure would be improved if those companies had absolutely no oversight or regulation) is such a common theme in the US healthcare industry that you can basically just write it out verbatim and it makes a sad, cruel joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld if you're really so interested in a substantive debate, you should have responded to the bolded question in the Caros post you quoted, rather than just going into your rehearsed spiel about how persecuted your intellectual tradition is or whatever the gently caress. Because it's far more important to making your worldview remotely persuasive as far as we're concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
jrod's idea of intellectual persecution is essentially the condition of being ignored. At least this is the most charitable way I can interpret his past claims that public school social studies curricula contain propaganda to justify the existence and necessity of the State. It only does so in the sense that it assumes from the outset that a government will continue to exist and thus should be understood in terms of how it interacts with the broader society, i.e., by omission, not in the sense that anyone devising public school curricula feel the need to head off the anarcho-capitalist threat by indoctrination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:jrode its not that you cite mises Now, now. He did bring a non-Mises piece of Info to the table, to show us all that Qatar freed all those captive, abused migrant workers from inocome taxes and vaccination!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Imagine what he could accomplish if he put all this tenacity into something productive. Seriously. I've never seen anyone as willing who wasn't a blatant troll sit there and throw themselves into the lion's den over and over again. Jrod, pick up art, music, dancing, whatever. Just do something besides this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Ok I guess we're done talking about benefit societies What's there to talk about. How fragile and undercapitalized your fraternal organizations are doesn't matter because Austrian economics assumes there can be no downturns nor demographic aberrations. And if you can't join one because you have cancer, or yours dropped you for being too expensive or you're the wrong color well you should have thought of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Jrod, if the FBI showed up right now to confiscate all your electronic devices and hard drives, about how many years behind bars would you be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's there to talk about. Nothing, I'm just making fun. I'm about 90% certain that he cited a source he knew only as a mises.org link (maybe this one). I'm thinking he realized I'd actually read it, and he hadn't, so he terminated the dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Jrode, did you know that most of Ron Paul's principled no votes against the machinery of cruellest statism were carefully planned to be symbolic protests, so that he could build his brand and work the rubes? In fact, did you know that most American right-wing political groups are inescapably intertwined with scams? If I scam you out of all of your money but you still have outstanding debts, can I legally enslave you? If I did legally enslave you, would I get the Hong Kong movies free, or your share of the revenues, or what? I mean I'm assuming slave-taking isn't off limits under libertopia, because that interferes with your property rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:48
|
|
