|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the fun thing about the States Rights argument is that Southern states imposed defacto slavery on the North through things like the Fugitive Slave Act which allowed Southern slave hunters to travel into states where slavery was forbidden, capture escaped slaves, and re-enslave them in free states And also, you know, kidnap free blacks South into slavery. But hey, what're YF19pilot posted:Florida insurance nightmares Reminder that thankfully-retired shithead Chuck Asay thought this sort of practice was a good thing overall, and it was horrible that those poor, put-upon insurance companies might have to pay out claims: 
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:And also, you know, kidnap free blacks South into slavery. But hey, what're ...which the Confederacy also had, but it just so happens we're willing to overlook it if the funds were needed to defend planters' right to own slaves Captain_Maclaine posted:Reminder that thankfully-retired shithead Chuck Asay thought this sort of practice was a good thing overall, and it was horrible that those poor, put-upon insurance companies might have to pay out claims:  But think how much lower your premiums will be if the insurance company never has to pay out on your claim!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:It's worth noting that if jrode stops responding this will be the second time in a row he was chased out of his own thread for defending literal slave-states. It's almost impressive I'd go ahead and call it the third! He left right after we started calling him out on his Cato list having Qatar and the UAE on it, came back a few weeks later and got really annoyed we were still talking about it, left again after he dropped the "Qatar doesn't literally have slavery, PS income taxes are literally slavery" thing, and then came back for the current round of "poor ol' Confederacy." At this rate he'll pop back up in April to give us some hot takes on how evil Sonthonax was for stealing all those planters' property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:...which the Confederacy also had, but it just so happens we're willing to overlook it if the funds were needed to defend planters' right to own slaves Even by the standards of the time, the Confederacy hardly had a representative government.  But yeah your larger point stands about Jrod's curious blind spot about the peculiar institution. Gosh, I just can't imagine what led to that! quote:
Something something pure profit something something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Even by the standards of the time, the Confederacy hardly had a representative government. You make a good point here; in my rush to accuse libertarians of inconsistency, I hadn't considered that it was the representation jrod objects to, not the income tax. Income taxes imposed from above by a moneyed oligarchy to finance enslavement and conquest are just fine!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I'm reading the Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment, and seeing that Ohio rescinded ratification and didn't re-ratify the amendment until 2003. God, what a poo poo hole of a state. And my grandparents keep saying "when are you coming home?" And all I can think of is "since when is Ohio my home?" Yeah, seriously, gently caress that state. Like I'm going to move back there just to work in a loving call center. You're maybe just too loving stupid (or maybe you're just bedazzled by my good looks, everyone says that I'm handsome) to understand how free markets work and that onerous regulation by the state is why those insurance companies had to keep refusing claims. In a truly free market if an insurer didn't pay your claim then you'd agree to arbitration by an independent third party, who would surely rule in favor of you, the downtrodden citizen, rather than the insurance company with deep pockets. How do I know this? Free market 
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
I discussed a similar topic (hurricanes and insurance) with some libertarians on another website. Their take was that instead of having the government as an insurer of last resort, nobody should live in hurricane prone areas at all. And I mean, I find it kind of hard to argue with the idea of depopulating Florida, but I took a completely different path to get there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Free and unrestricted trade is the backbone of a prosperous Libertarian society! Step one: nobody build or operate a port. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Step 2: Abandon the agricultural breadbasket of the country so insurers don't have to cover tornadoes
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Free and unrestricted trade is the backbone of a prosperous Libertarian society! NO ONE MAY DWELL NEAR THE COASTS! THE
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Step 3: Spread the population of earthquake prone California out throughout whatever disaster-free zone remains. At this point we're all living in.... northern Ontario I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
I've actually seen that argument before in libertarian and conservative articles, and the childish short-sightedness is amazing. Instead of getting together as a country through our representatives and deciding that it's in our best interests to be able to receive shipping through critical port cities like New Orleans, Houston, New York, Mobile, etc and acting as insurer of last resort so the people who live and work there can survive and rebuild after a hurricane, just let them be destroyed, that'll teach those idiots not to take a job unloading oil tankers to fuel my car and cargo containers bringing my precious animes. Let's just try to operate a modern industrial economy without trade everyone, that's got to be better than a few cents on my tax bill going to rebuild the homes of irresponsible poors
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
A lot of people say that the societal Jrod espouses is Mad Max-like, but I honestly think it would be more like the America in Octavia Butler's "Parable of the Sower". And that, frankly, is somewhat more terrifying to consider, because in the former case maybe you can still be a V8-powered road warrior, while in the latter, the gated communities you live in, surrounded by a crumbling society and uncontrolled chaos, just make you a sitting duck in denial. It's both the radical survivalist's fear and yet should also be one of the pragmatic progressive, since it's a potentially plausible nightmare. Which, I think, makes anarcho-capitalism and the like so ridiculous. So you have a gated community, or a defensible suburb, or a rural safehold. What's your job? How are you going to resupply yourself with food, fuel, spare parts for your machines and devices, ammunition (or components thereof) to keep away the angry and desperate hordes? When utility poles and pipes are obvious targets for theft, vandalism, or a siege (so if your at-home business relies on those, say goodbye to it), when businesses have to maintain the added expense of heavy security forces, when transport is potentially hazardous and drivers are faced with the prospect of ambushes, sniper attacks, roadblocks, and so on? When the factories that make goods and components can't get their raw materials or make anything because of the aforementioned factors, then what? A highway gas station works because there is plenty of peaceful traffic safely going by it, because towns, counties, and states maintain law enforcement services to patrol and respond to incidents, because most people have a strong enough social stake to not risk it all for the couple hundred bucks in the till. Take that away, and why shouldn't Crazy Jim's Buckwild Naked Boyz take it all over if the have the firepower and manpower to do it? Crazy Jim's a crazy psychopath, of course, so good luck explaining to him that he's transgressing on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when ending your life with a trigger pull and $0.50 of lead and powder is all that stands between him and everything that isn't nailed down. Admittedly, these are rather out-there scenarios, but for an "out there" belief system (I won't credit A-C as a philosophy), they're still valid. When there is no common social interest, just individuals and groups pursuing their own goals, it seems ridiculous to think any of it will work out in a stable manner. Either one group prevails and we have autocratic tyranny forming and spreading, or we end up with a loss of any sort of traction for economic development and progress, as people try to tread water and hold on. No "non-aggression principle" (a deus ex machina solution) is going to hold or make people behave when they're desperate, or greedy, or have become jaded, cynical, and angry. Not in an anarcho-capitalist world of little state interference and easy access to powerful weaponry. So, Jrod - maybe in your society, I would be a "Crazy Jim". It's not that the presence of the state right now is keeping me from that state of being; I'm a pretty laid back guy who isn't big on violence or avarice and would prefer orderly, peaceful reforms and progress. But everyone is potentially dishonest, potentially willing to break laws solely for their personal gain (look at drug use statistics, and also consider how much violence that use funds), and plenty capable of lashing out or snapping. Break the social trust, break the faith in social stability respective of one's overt participation of such, throw in material stresses (such as climate change affecting crop production, drought, social breakdown and violence, economic collapse, and so on), and neither your bleating about non-aggression or your DRO membership card will save you. You dead, son, so dead. In short, Jrod, you espouse a worldview fit for a corpse. Maybe that is why you can continue to obnoxiously hold on to this nonsense you believe - you are a corpse. After all, a corpse cannot suffer, cannot foresee a future (it's time is over), and if myth and literature are any indication, it either resents its loss of place among the living or does not envision itself as belonging to them any longer. You're a corpse, that's all, incapable of creating new thoughts, because your world (and your mind) is just like the grave - a dark box, buried under six feet of dirt, containing nothing but gross and rotten contents that 99.9% of people find vile and foul to behold. The substance, such as it was, is still there. But now it's just residues and mold, only ever decaying into dust. So I guess, Jrod, that you are indeed unique - a typing corpse, dead meat just regurgitating the same nonsense it had in its actual life. Your absences are due to your loss of energy and motor function due to decay. Your incessant harping on certain topics and meaningless quibbles are just those parts of your brain that haven't yet rotted and fallen out of your skull. I guess the only real question I have is this: Does it hurt to earn your living whoring yourself out to necrophiliac libertarians?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? You're not a leftist, jrod. Your ideology does not come from the left. Yeah, the folks at mises found some of the more kooky abolitionists and anarchists to claim as intellectual forebears, but the lack of interest (or knowledge) in the world as it actually exists brings the true origins to light. You do not want a world where people work together to make things better for everyone, where anyone who wants to help is welcomed and assisted and respected. No, you want a world where there is no welcome, no assistance, no respect. There's no working together, you work for someone and you're reminded often that it's a privilege that you even get that much. You work until you're tired, huge chunks of your life your body is not fully your own, but you're still looked down upon for not being wealthier, for not being educated or savvy or personable enough to get a better job. You're looked down upon for enjoying the too-short moments of freedom you have, for not filling that time with more work or classes or whatever else you could do to make more money. You're judged for daring to have a family, for even trying to live a normal life. And if it all becomes too much to handle and you end up on the streets or you need an operation you can't afford you have to come begging to a charity, trying to look sufficiently penitent for being such a lazy, awful person. And if they do decide to help you you better look grateful. They're doing you a real favor here, and in the world you want that's a big deal because most people have enough on their plates just trying to look after themselves. This is all perfectly acceptable to you, despite some positions similar to those on the left, because you approach everything differently than those who are actually leftists. Actual leftists are moved by the situation of the world to want to do something to improve it. We're looking for the best approach to take to make things better. This is what we're trying to work out when we learn about the world. But you're not like this. You have detected that the world is messed up, but rather than being moved to do something, you decided that somebody had to be to blame, and so you went looking for your villain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
jrod, if you actually lived in your ideal libertarian utopia, how would you make your fortune? I'm assuming you have something grander in mind than selling bootleg blu-rays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I've actually seen that argument before in libertarian and conservative articles, and the childish short-sightedness is amazing. Instead of getting together as a country through our representatives and deciding that it's in our best interests to be able to receive shipping through critical port cities like New Orleans, Houston, New York, Mobile, etc and acting as insurer of last resort so the people who live and work there can survive and rebuild after a hurricane, just let them be destroyed, that'll teach those idiots not to take a job unloading oil tankers to fuel my car and cargo containers bringing my precious animes. Heh, well my friend, clearly you haven't *farts* considered an alternative here where lower income workers pool voluntarily create mutual aid societies which *continues farting* don't rely on coercive taxation to provide relief funds and certainly wouldn't ever be strained far past the point of breaking *farting noises increase, plus some gurgly spattering sounds* by a large-scale natural disaster, on the off chance of which *is now clearly making GBS threads self, with eye-watering sulferous reek beginning to fill the room* they might consider contracting some of their future labor to a better off individual in exchange for assistance. If you can't see how that's both more moral and effective than taxation, which is literal slavery and also worse that historical slavery (which wasn't really that bad), than I don't know what else I can tell you! *collapses into ankle-deep pool of own vile excrement, begins rolling around while moaning "mises.org" over and over*
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:A lot of people say that the societal Jrod espouses is Mad Max-like, but I honestly think it would be more like the America in Octavia Butler's "Parable of the Sower". And that, frankly, is somewhat more terrifying to consider, because in the former case maybe you can still be a V8-powered road warrior, while in the latter, the gated communities you live in, surrounded by a crumbling society and uncontrolled chaos, just make you a sitting duck in denial. It's both the radical survivalist's fear and yet should also be one of the pragmatic progressive, since it's a potentially plausible nightmare. Nice, this is a much more eloquent version of how I've been wanting to ask him how much shouting "But the NAP!" will help someone being strung up in a tree for being the wrong race/religion/etc in his brave new libertarian future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
The big issue with "we should create a stateless society based on the NAP" is the very simple question of "but how do you enforce it?" The answer he comes up with is "DROs, of course!" but how do you enforce them? The free market won't do it. We've seen time and time again throughout history that businesses hate competition and are perfectly happy to collude with their competitors to destroy competition. Just look at the telecom industry. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing...that poo poo is rampant throughout its entire history and the businesses get away with it because how the gently caress can you survive in contemporary America without access to a phone? Plus if you can choose your own DRO you're going to choose the one friendliest to your interests. They're guaranteed to be corrupt if nobody has any power to force them to not be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:07
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The big issue with "we should create a stateless society based on the NAP" is the very simple question of "but how do you enforce it?" The answer he comes up with is "DROs, of course!" but how do you enforce them? The free market won't do it. We've seen time and time again throughout history that businesses hate competition and are perfectly happy to collude with their competitors to destroy competition. Just look at the telecom industry. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing...that poo poo is rampant throughout its entire history and the businesses get away with it because how the gently caress can you survive in contemporary America without access to a phone? Plus if you can choose your own DRO you're going to choose the one friendliest to your interests. They're guaranteed to be corrupt if nobody has any power to force them to not be. Ah but you see, monopolies are secured with the collusion of the state 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:In short, Jrod, you espouse a worldview fit for a corpse. You're alright, Kthulhu. You're alright. ToxicSlurpee posted:The big issue with "we should create a stateless society based on the NAP" is the very simple question of "but how do you enforce it?" The answer he comes up with is "DROs, of course!" but how do you enforce them? The free market won't do it. We've seen time and time again throughout history that businesses hate competition and are perfectly happy to collude with their competitors to destroy competition. Just look at the telecom industry. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing...that poo poo is rampant throughout its entire history and the businesses get away with it because how the gently caress can you survive in contemporary America without access to a phone? Plus if you can choose your own DRO you're going to choose the one friendliest to your interests. They're guaranteed to be corrupt if nobody has any power to force them to not be. That's the fascinating thing about DROs to me. Even if we take obedience to the NAP as given, and discount scenarios like regulatory capture or Valhalla DRO, they still resolve into states almost immediately. People will naturally flock to whichever company offers the best services. And which DRO will offer the best services? The one with the largest network, the best judges, the strongest police. Once everyone you deal with on a daily basis has shifted over to PowerDRO, why would you stick with Mediocracorp? You'd be at a disadvantage in any dispute that broke out. One of them will naturally monopolize their region without doing anything anti-competitive, and once they have a monopoly, why would they create joinder with any upstart DRO that tries to move in? Treat them as illegitimate, and their customers as having no DRO subscription. Social isolation will bring them to heel. The only DROs to respect are others of their stature, ones that have gained monopoly over neighboring regions, that is to say "other countries." The only difference between states and the year 2 of the DRO system is that the social contract between you and your government is literal rather than implied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
But without the State (grrrr I hate it sooo much!!) we'll all be rich! We'll be the ones who get to corrupt the DROs and then they'll have to do our bidding! Then we'll get those stinking bla.... Hhhhachooo! Sorry, had to sneeze there. Anyways, as I was saying, we'll finally have secured our property rights, which we should care about because
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Think of how cheap cotton would be if we didn't pay the people who harvest it. Guys, I have an idea; meet me at the South Carolina state capitol... And that's the thing that gets me about the "slavery was becoming unprofitable, it was on its way out" Civil War argument. Not paying people will always be less profitable than paying people. Hiring and training new people to replace turnover will always be more expensive than just not allowing your employees to quit. It really is just that simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The big issue with "we should create a stateless society based on the NAP" is the very simple question of "but how do you enforce it?" The answer he comes up with is "DROs, of course!" but how do you enforce them? The free market won't do it. We've seen time and time again throughout history that businesses hate competition and are perfectly happy to collude with their competitors to destroy competition. Just look at the telecom industry. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing...that poo poo is rampant throughout its entire history and the businesses get away with it because how the gently caress can you survive in contemporary America without access to a phone? Plus if you can choose your own DRO you're going to choose the one friendliest to your interests. They're guaranteed to be corrupt if nobody has any power to force them to not be. It's honestly not a big mystery. I mean everyone asking these questions I think realizes deep down that they are rhetorical, because even Ayn goddamn Rand realized what "competition in the enforcement market" actually means. Well, I guess I can't say for sure how she imagined it because she just left it as a rhetorical question herself. I think it's more useful to answer the question and put the onus on anarcho-capitalists to refute it: nothing resembles this "DRO/covenant community/mutual aid/private charity/everything's insurance and binding arbitration" model more than archetypal feudalism. Ultimately, the right of exit is a farce when there is no way to survive economically outside the DRO system and opting into a DRO means, in practice, moving into a physically located community which will have its own "covenant" proscribing your actions and which may even be nothing more than the company town of a business. Joining a covenant will probably require, in practice, obeying the regulations and abiding by the judgements of the DRO (signing up for "coverage") that the community contracted with for arbitration and security services. Like healthcare in the US, actually being able to afford the DRO's fees might be offset as a benefit of employment; no prize for guessing how the relationship between your employer and the DRO your employer provides you for justice would work out in any conflict between you and your boss. If mutual aid works in libertopia the way it worked in reality, then this adherence to community norms and DRO regulations will mirror qualification for mutual aid benefits: you have to meet the moral (and possibly ethnic/religious/cultural) requirements of whatever organization provides the aid. It's not hard to imagine aid organizations that operate more as charities being religious in nature and using the aid they provide to convert or at least enforce the adherence of their clients. Mutual aid/charitable organizations may align themselves with DROs, completing the "package." You can already see these related structures merging together into things that resemble medieval monarchies. It will be quite possible for one DRO to obtain an effective territorial monopoly on force and operate as the head of a complex hierarchy of subordinate/franchise DROs and company town covenant communities, and with its practical authority morally bolstered by an interlocking relationship with mutual aid and charitable institutions. On no level will warfare be avoided in this system because, in practice, the complex web of contracts holding this all together and the competing, overlapping, and redundant forms of arbitration authority will provide as many pretexts for "aggressive repossession and recovery of damages" as needed, which can be worked out by the loser transferring ownership and authority of various enterprises to the winner. The outlines of three estates vaguely come into focus, but instead of "warriors, clerics, and peasants" it's security insurance, charity, and employees. Reading Hoppe and Molyneux makes it clear that these are features, not bugs. eta: Nolanar posted:The only difference between states and the year 2 of the DRO system is that the social contract between you and your government is literal rather than implied. And by year ~10 or so, for the first Generation $, it's back to being a social contract in effect. Maybe with a token ritual signature ceremony upon reaching whatever qualifies as the age of majority, or as you might call it, an oath of fealty. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:And that's the thing that gets me about the "slavery was becoming unprofitable, it was on its way out" Civil War argument. Not paying people will always be less profitable than paying people. Hiring and training new people to replace turnover will always be more expensive than just not allowing your employees to quit. It really is just that simple. It's easy to see why these clever loophole justifications for "voluntary slavery" are so appealing to anarcho-capitalists: in slavery, labor is essentially a capital investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:40
|
|
Nolanar posted:And that's the thing that gets me about the "slavery was becoming unprofitable, it was on its way out" Civil War argument. Not paying people will always be less profitable than paying people. Hiring and training new people to replace turnover will always be more expensive than just not allowing your employees to quit. It really is just that simple. In addition black slaves developed innovative working techniques, were often fed diets comparatively high in protein, and were themselves extraordinarily valuable because of the effective end of safe and legal imports (iirc on most plantations the value of the slaves outstripped the value of the land), providing their owners with a growing supply of underlying capital as well as labour that they could reproduce at the biological ceiling for human reproduction. Oh and you can murder and torture them at will if they don't work hard enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I saw a banner ad from across the room, it actually said "DAD vs DAD" (maybe it was for that will ferrell/mark wahlberg movie) but for a minute I thought it said "DRO vs DRO" and I got really excited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Did jrod ever come out explicitly in favor of the DRO-centric society, or did we just latch onto it from HHH and jrod never bothered to deny it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:In addition black slaves developed innovative working techniques, were often fed diets comparatively high in protein, and were themselves extraordinarily valuable because of the effective end of safe and legal imports (iirc on most plantations the value of the slaves outstripped the value of the land), providing their owners with a growing supply of underlying capital as well as labour that they could reproduce at the biological ceiling for human reproduction. And, as I've posted direct evidence of before, slave owners at that very time were complaining that the free states were preventing their equal access to the territories, where they could put their "property" to use in new, profitable ways. The idea that slavery was already dying in the US during the late ante-bellum period is a hot sack of ahistorical garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:And that's the thing that gets me about the "slavery was becoming unprofitable, it was on its way out" Civil War argument. Not paying people will always be less profitable than paying people. Hiring and training new people to replace turnover will always be more expensive than just not allowing your employees to quit. It really is just that simple. At the time of the American Revolution a lot of people interested in political economy were of the belief that slavery was on the way out, would become unprofitable, and disappear of its own accord. This was unlikely but may have seemed plausible to someone with a strongly held liberal notion of society and historical forces. What actually transpired was cotton became first a feasible cash crop and then, with the first industrial revolution in Britain, the most essential commodity in global trade, the petroleum of its day. This in turn created a thriving internal market in human chattel as the established slaveholding regions like Virginia and the Carolinas exported the slaves necessary to develop the burgeoning cotton states like Alabama and Mississippi. Slavery actually became more important and entrenched than ever, and the American South basically developed into a complex machine that turned human suffering into the cotton that fueled the world economy. This in turn fueled plans for the further expansion of slavery into areas where the path had previously been barred; e.g. shredding the Missouri Compromise and launching an armed invasion of Kansas, and many other aggressive and belligerent actions. The reality of the election of 1860 was that Lincoln won because the slave power was then stronger than it ever had been. Slavery became the central, unavoidable issue of the day and forced a response from the majority of the population that had to that point been content to avoid the issue as long as they weren't forced to see slavery in their own communities. They finally understood that the aim of their opponents was conquest rather than coexistence--slave markets in Boston Common, ordinary citizens forcibly deputized as slave hunters by unaccountable out-of-state law enforcement, critics of slavery terrorized into silence by the threat or actuality of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Did jrod ever come out explicitly in favor of the DRO-centric society, or did we just latch onto it from HHH and jrod never bothered to deny it? Hoppe is covenant communities, DROs are Molyneux. Pretty sure he posted Moly's model as a thing he supported.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Did jrod ever come out explicitly in favor of the DRO-centric society, or did we just latch onto it from HHH and jrod never bothered to deny it? I believe he cited Molyneux's DRO writings multiple times, and he only stopped citing Hoppe when we wouldn't shut up about what a monster he was. e: GunnerJ, I'm ratting you out to my DRO! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:e: GunnerJ, I'm ratting you out to my DRO! I've got efb damages coverage so whatever. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Ugh they're so hard to keep straight
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Ugh they're so hard to keep straight Well you better keep straight, 'cuz we don't cotton much to homos in this here covenant community, boy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Ugh they're so hard to keep straight Molyneux is the one who wants everyone to be monitored at all times by an unquestionable panopticon that will sentence you to exile or death at the first sign of disobedience, for freedom. Hoppe is the one who wants all the homosexuals and race-mixers and people who disagree with him to be, ahem, "removed from society," for freedom. To put it differently, Molyneux's ideal of maximum freedom is "society as insurance company," while Hoppe's ideal is "society as homeowner's association."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Molyneux is the one who wants everyone to be monitored at all times by an unquestionable panopticon that will sentence you to exile or death at the first sign of disobedience, for freedom. Hoppe is the one who wants all the homosexuals and race-mixers and people who disagree with him to be, ahem, "removed from society," for freedom. More relevant to the thread: Though both are incredibly misogynistic and racist, Molyneux is more misogynistic, whereas Hoppe is more racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Anybody who knows anything about the 1850's can tell you, jrod, that the issue of slavery made congress into a completely nonfunctioning body. If you think our current congressional deadlock is bad, imagine trying to get anything passed while half the country believes literally every bill is a conspiracy to end slavery. EvanSchenck posted:At the time of the American Revolution a lot of people interested in political economy were of the belief that slavery was on the way out, would become unprofitable, and disappear of its own accord. This was unlikely but may have seemed plausible to someone with a strongly held liberal notion of society and historical forces. Jrod has totally studied the Civil War Era, so I'm sure he'll be along any moment to address these posts. Any minute now...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Step 3: Spread the population of earthquake prone California out throughout whatever disaster-free zone remains. "As long as I get to keep my racial covenants, this sounds good to me." -Ludwig von Mises
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
I am passing judgement on jrod in abstensia since he's failed to show up to property court. Jrod doesn't pay federal taxes and is a poopy head. Libertarian case for self determination is hereby dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:24
|
|
