|
Lotta people on SA fit that profile too but still manage to rise above Libertarianism.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Polybius91 posted:The more I learn about libertarianism, the more I struggle to grasp how anyone could believe in it without being an outright sociopath. They key here is "the more I learn." Honestly, libertarianism has a good elevator pitch. Lower taxes, government out of my life, maximum Freedom. It's front loaded with policies that seem like a mix of both US parties so you can feel like you're not just picking a team to root for. It all falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny, but most people don't try for reflective equilibrium so it doesn't really come up. The fact that the movement was birthed in the fight against racial integration and is still loaded to the gills with bigots isn't immediately apparent unless you know what you're looking at. In fact, one of my friends got sent one of those "world's simplest political quiz" links on facebook today. My friend posted:It's entirely possible that I don't actually know what the word 'libertarian' means and the common usage is wrong, but otherwise, this doesn't seem right. Fortunately, her other friends were on the case. Her friend posted:If you were a Libertarian you'd be talking about it incessantly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Most of those have to be fake. ...I disagree as a result of the existence of this footage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Lotta people on SA fit that profile too but still manage to rise above Libertarianism. Somebody once explained FYAD to me as "adults pretending to be children pretending to be adults." As immature as posters here can be I get a sinking feeling that it's frequently in jest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I've always found this graph helpful explaining the demographics of Libertarians. Basically they're young Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I've always found this graph helpful explaining the demographics of Libertarians. I was about to post that they are young, white republicans. Then I realized I was repeating myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I've always found this graph helpful explaining the demographics of Libertarians. Why does it not surprise me that 27% report as being 'unaffiliated Christian'? Actually, I think it surprises me more that it's so low.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I've always found this graph helpful explaining the demographics of Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Polybius91 posted:I love how basically every single loving one of the "independent" libertarians voted for Romney. They independently voted for the same party as they always do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Polybius91 posted:I love how basically every single loving one of the "independent" libertarians voted for Romney. Yeah there are a gently caress load of lolbertarians that went third party for the indie cred and to talk about how they totally just vote for the most qualified candidates. Which are, for some bizarre reason, almost always old, white, Republican, and male.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Property rights are necessary because we live in a world of scarcity. Human needs are essentially infinite and the resources needed to satisfy those needs are scarce. Therefore, conflict is inevitable. Conflict arises when two or more people want to use a scarce resource for achieving different goals. Thus, rules dictating which person has the better claim to determine the use of which scarce resources become necessary. Property rights are what has emerged out of this observable reality of scarcity and the desire to reduce and resolve conflict so human civilization can be possible. You should care about property rights if you care about human civilization and social welfare on any level whatsoever. I agree: property rights are necessary because goods are scarce, among other reasons. However, that "...rules dictating which person has the better claim to determine the use of which scarce resources become necessary" in the face of scarcity doesn't imply a libertarian system of private property. In the first place, you beg the question by arguing that property rights should be distributed to particular persons. In the second place, there are other systems of property that could achieve the same end. Finally, it's not clear what ethical principles you're appealing to: is this a consequentialist argument about the proper ends of politics or a conventionalist argument about the stability of political and economic systems? In either case, such an argument grates against the libertarian notion of rights. The point is that you have to establish not just that some system of property is necessary to manage scarcity, but that the only system of property that adequately manages scarcity is the system of private property. It seems clear enough that some system other than private property would better manage scarcity, since there is no guarantee that private individuals or firms will distribute scarce goods to those who need them (consider the example of health care). It seems really disingenuous to appeal to these kinds of consequentialist grounds when the ethical focus of libertarianism if fundamentally deontological - and there you run into trouble, because nobody buys the libertarian notions of self-ownership and entitlements. quote:To conquer scarcity, we need the production side of the equation to become less costly and more efficient. The cheaper and more abundant a consumer good can be produced, the cheaper the price will be to the consumer. This is what we should be encouraging. Full communism now. Edit: I'm tired of libertarians pretending like they're the only ones concerned with property rights. Everyone is concerned with property rights. It's just that not everyone agrees that the best system of property is the system of private property as construed by libertarians. 
quickly fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
I'm starting to think Jrod isn't going to debate me this time either. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm starting to think Jrod isn't going to debate me this time either. Just get into the Jrod spirit, ignore all of history, and you'll be able to believe! Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to watching youtube videos since they're free and I therefore desire them infinitely. It kinda sucks since each one is as free as the next so I have to keep watching the same one until my demand for it runs out which will never happen, it being free and all. Curse my superior knowledge of economics! If only there was an associated time cost I could break free but no, such a thing cannot be for I know the Economic Truth™!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
I actually think that you can trace the whole "all the joy that comes from helping someone instead of joylessly having men with guns distribute money so people are merely left not starving" comes out of a weird Protestant way of thinking, where the point of charitable giving is its benefit to the giver, on a spiritual level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I actually think that you can trace the whole "all the joy that comes from helping someone instead of joylessly having men with guns distribute money so people are merely left not starving" comes out of a weird Protestant way of thinking, where the point of charitable giving is its benefit to the giver, on a spiritual level. Or taking entirely the wrong message from the Didache: quote:Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give. Do you really need secondary education or a refrigerator, hmmmmmm?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm starting to think Jrod isn't going to debate me this time either. Here, I'll do what I can to bring him back: HEY GUYS, I HEAR THAT RON PAUL FELLOW IS QUITE THE RACIST, RIGHT?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I heard tell that that Ron Paul fellar done gon' an' trafficked in the skulls of tha innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I heard tell that that Ron Paul fellar done gon' an' trafficked in the skulls of tha innocent. Because of his racism? I heard that too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I am told that Ron Paul supports gold, because he can forge it into armor to protect him from a fleet-footed young black man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Because of his racism? I heard that too. It's what them high-falutin' college types would call a "contributing factor".
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:It's what them high-falutin' college types would call a "contributing factor". College? That sounds like book learnin', which is a capital offense in this here covenant community!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Welp, looks like Promontorium ditched us. Surprise. Good work all y'alls, better luck next time. Maybe more yelling at him about racism? That's got a proven track record of getting libertarians to stick around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Karia posted:Welp, looks like Promontorium ditched us. Surprise. Good work all y'alls, better luck next time. Maybe more yelling at him about racism? That's got a proven track record of getting libertarians to stick around. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Karia posted:Welp, looks like Promontorium ditched us. Surprise. Good work all y'alls, better luck next time. Maybe more yelling at him about racism? That's got a proven track record of getting libertarians to stick around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Back to the topic. I'll take the time to peruse the last several pages for important posts that I should respond to, but first I'd like to get a few things off my chest as to better explain my ideological identity. It seems that many of you still don't understand where I am coming from, and would like nothing more than to paint me into a corner where my "brand" of libertarianism is merely thinly veiled reactionary right-wing corporatism with not so subtle racial overtones and white supremacy. To me, this is a ludicrous caricature of libertarianism that bears no resemblance to reality. I don't blame you really because many of you (with some exceptions) probably are not intimately familiar with the broader libertarian and classical liberal tradition. So I think it valuable that I take a moment to point out which libertarians I most strongly agree with so as to better express my particular ideological views. I hope there will be no further confusion. Although I am an anarchist, I make a strong point to prioritize which State actions I find most egregious and focus on opposing those policies first, setting aside the less urgent concerns I might have. For me, the absolute most monstrous thing that States do is to wage aggressive war. I suspect that many of you will agree with me on this point, though my confidence in anti-war leftism wavers more all the time. I am, by extension, strongly opposed to military empire and occupation and I believe the United States, as should all nations, ought to be limited in its military policy to defensive war but ought never interfere in the self-determination and sovereignty of foreign lands. As the founding fathers advocated, stay free of entangling alliances and maintain a posture of neutrality on the world stage while freely trading and engaging diplomatically with those that desire such productive relationships. The second action of the State that I find most objectionable is police abuse against the citizens. Black Lives Matter is a movement I genuinely support since it is raising a vitally important issue long spoken about by libertarians regarding police brutality and the inequities in the criminal justice system. Like every American mass political movement (i.e. Occupy and the Tea Party) the Black Lives Matter movement has been infiltrated and co-opted to some degree by left-wing political operatives that have ulterior motives, but the main systemic problem in the criminal justice system that animated the origins of the movement is extremely urgent and vitally important. If you had been listening, libertarians have been voicing these critiques of the criminal justice system and its systemic racism for decades before contemporary police scandals like that seen in Ferguson and the numerous cell phone videos of police abuse of blacks gave the issue national prominence in recent years. Libertarians, myself included, are fond of referring to all State action as a manifestation of "coercion" and "aggression", or threats thereof. This is quite certainly the case, but at the same time it is quite true that if you succumb to the threat and choose to pay your income taxes or your speeding tickets or whatever the State, whether local or Federal, will generally leave you alone. But what of the people unfortunate enough to live in countries that the US has declared aggressive war against? The innocents living in Iraq or Yemen are not even given the option to comply with some edict so as to be left alone. They are subject to direct aggressive oppression by the US regime no matter what. Similarly, citizens who are subject to a warrant-less SWAT team raid on their home at 4am were frequently never even given the option to avoid the violence of the State. For this reason, the libertarians I identify most with are those who focus on opposing empire, wars of aggression and occupation and the police state. Randolph Borne famously said "war is the health of the State" and his dictum has surely been borne out by history. Even if you care mostly about domestic big government many such programs and policies were enabled by war-time conditions which allowed such expansions of power to take place. So, in the interest of brevity, here is my list of the libertarians who most substantially approximate my own beliefs and values, ranked accordingly: 1. Scott Horton 2. Justin Raimondo 3. Sheldon Richman 4. Stephan Kinsella 5. Jeffrey Tucker 6. Anthony Gregory 7. Gary Chartier 8. Tom Woods 9. Harry Browne 10. Murray Rothbard 11. Mary Ruwart 12. Ludwig von Mises 13. Frederick Bastiat 14. Karl Hess 15. Roderick Long 16. Lysander Spooner 17. Ron Paul 18. Henry Hazlitt 19. Robert Nozick 20. Robert Higgs 21. Hans Hoppe 22. Bob Murphy 23. Wendy McElroy 24. Etienne de La Boetie 25. Albert Jay Nock 26. Henry Hazlitt 27. Benjamin Tucker There are too many more even to list so I'll leave it at that. I don’t mean to brag or anything like that, but I do consider myself pretty well read in the libertarian tradition. I didn’t list anyone who I haven’t read, listened to and learned from. I think it is worthwhile to post this because I want to more correctly explain where I fit along the ideological spectrum. Some have chastised me for obsessing on race or racial issues, but that strikes me as an odd sort of critique coming from leftists. I’ll freely admit that it certainly sets me off when I, or people I admired and have learned from, are accused of harboring sinister motives or being so-called “reactionary right-wingers” who are closeted bigots and white supremacists. It is not merely that such accusations and reckless insults are clearly the last refuge of a man who is losing a debate, but more importantly liberalism as an ideology has much more in common with the left as it has historically been conceived and has been associated with the sorts of progressive causes that you somehow perceive as the exclusive purview of modern Statists. You ought to recognize that it was my intellectual forefathers who were fighting against slavery, supporting women’s suffrage, and promoting worker’s rights against State-privileged monopoly corporatism by opposing the State which enabled such moral enormities and supporting laissez-faire while your intellectual forefathers (the so-called “Progressives” and big government advocates) were home to the eugenicists, bigots and white supremacists. Even the anti-State left, including anarcho-communists, Georgists and mutualists like the aforementioned Pierre-Joseph Proudhon have much more in common with myself than they do with you lot. The atrocities committed by the State on a grand scale are what you are blind to while you cling to your fantasies that this institution is, or could ever conceivably be given its inherent incentive structure, a noble provider of social welfare and charity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Now a shorter post. Given that we have been discussing healthcare reform, I have a simple question I’d like to pose: In the interest of productive reform of an obviously broken US healthcare system, would you support changing the mandate of the FDA from either permitting or banning certain treatments, drugs and procedures onto the market to merely recommending or not recommending said medical products but not having the power to prevent their free sale to those who desire them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:How weird that this was the very point that caused this long chain of posts attempting to get you to respond: Here you go jrod.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
No. Leaves the door open for people to get conned into buying snake oil (see the guy in this thread who got conned by his dentist into replacing their fillings.) Consumers sometimes need to be protected from themselves. edit: maybe it was the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now a shorter post. e: Also, please answer sudo's post, would you kindly
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
If anything the FDA should come down harder on all of this alt med bullshit being thrown around. Homeopathy is a loving lie and should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So, in the interest of brevity, here is my list of the libertarians who most substantially approximate my own beliefs and values, ranked accordingly: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before. Are you familiar with Emmanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative? As an essential part of his formulation of just ethics is the principle that moral action must be an action that can be willed to be universal law. Universalizability thus became an essential component of any just ethical rule and, by extension, any just law. From Wikipedia: quote:The concept of universalizability was set out by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant as part of his work Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. It is part of the first formulation of his categorical imperative, which states that the only morally acceptable maxims of our actions are those that could rationally be willed to be universal law. The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. If the action could be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it), then it is morally acceptable. Otherwise, it is not. For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible. Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a performative contradiction, because they undermine the very basis for their existence.[1] The existence of a State necessitates the rejection of Universalizability as the basis for just law. The existence and tolerance of a State in society requires the belief that some human beings be granted the right to seize the property of others yet those not in government do NOT have this right. To simplify this concept "I may steal but you may not". How can this be a sustainable and defensible standard for a just society?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Taxes aren't actually theft? Think of them as a fee you're paying to national, state and local DROs to provide services like air traffic control, provide standards for food safety, freeways, telecommunications infrastructure, a fire department, law enforcement and military protection. If you don't want to pay those fees then you are welcome to 1. stop working in this country or 2. move to a state free society. I however will continue to pay these fees because I like the idea of not having literal minefields to drive through on the way to work in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before. I generally agree with this idea: ethics should be universally applied. I don't see this as a contradiction, though: no individual may steal. However, the people as a whole can perform actions that individuals can't. Some individuals are therefore empowered to perform actions (collect taxes, for example) on behalf of the people and with the people's oversight. They still can't perform those actions on their own behalf, therefore it's not a violation. jrodefeld posted:Now a shorter post. Hell no. We want everyone to have access to effective healthcare, keyword being "effective". Homeopathy getting to pass itself as medicine all of a sudden doesn't do that. Why would you even think we might support this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The existence and tolerance of a State in society requires the belief that some human beings be granted the right to seize the property of others yet those not in government do NOT have this right. Those humans do not have that right. The posts have that authority, granted to them by the consent of the governed, and the humans who fill those posts are selected by the people. Obama does not have the power to sign bills into law, the President of the United States has that authority, and we have selected Obama to be the President of the United States. By this time next year, someone else will be the President of the United States and Obama will no longer sign bills into law. I am sorry this concept seems hard for you to grasp. 1000101 posted:No. It was Jrod. In this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now a shorter post. answer someone else's questions first you fuckin pussy rear end bitch 1000101 posted:No. that was literally jrode who got conned into having his fillings replaced, literally him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Now a shorter post. boy howdy you know what sounds like a good idea, removing protections and instead just suggesting things you fuckin imbecile. you goddamn idiot. i hate you. i curse the ground you walk on. i curse you, and your children, and your children's children, and so on until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
fight me jrod, fight me. my body is willing, my arms are spread wide, embrace me with your tender caress and let us wrestle together, naked, oiled up
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:36
|
|