|
Pththya-lyi posted:I'm still wondering how he knows that Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and the Tea Party were all anarcho-capitalist movements that got hijacked by statist infiltrators. Conspiracies are a hell of a drug.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
If someone is really smelly, are they aggressing on me because I didn't consent to smell them, or am I aggressing on them because they did not consent to being smelled by me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
You know, it seems to me that this whole faith healer, "this will cure you, and if it doesn't, the problem is with you" thing is extremely consonant with the whole bootstraps idea; take enough Personal Responsibility, work hard enough, and you'll come out on top... and if you don't you deserved it for being lazy and inferior. (I would separate this slightly from homeopaths and so on because there is in my mind a difference between authentic belief in an unfortunately inaccurate medical model, and "if you will but BELIEVE...')
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The whole argument that "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves" is a very dangerous argument since it justifies all manner of tyrannical Orwellian policies. The whole argument is stupid and has already been tackled, but I'm going to focus on this one line: laypeople aren't qualified to judge results in a technical field. It is necessary to have independent oversight that is not beholden to the drug companies to verify this. Do you seriously think you're qualified to judge the design aspects of, say, a space shuttle? You have no goddamn clue what goes into making a shuttle work or not. Leave that up to the guys at NASA, leave judging drugs to the FDA, because you and most of the public can't tell. jrodefeld posted:A lot of people would agree with you that "drugs are bad". I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that judicious use of marijuana and other substances can have profound and sustained beneficial effects. But putting that aside, the fallacy is in thinking that things we would consider "bad" should be illegal. You accept that drug prohibition doesn't really deter drug use, but you ought to stick to a consistent moral principle. People own their bodies and therefore they have the right to put what they want into their bodies. The purpose of laws is to make society a better place. Some things, like murder, should be outlawed because they are bad for society and because making them illegal can effectively combat them and reduce their negative influence. Other things, like marijuana, make society a worse place, but can't be effectively combated with law (at least not right now) and aren't immediately pressing so they shouldn't be illegal. My views are consistent. But to counter your underlying moral principle? No, I don't think people own their bodies and can do whatever drugs they want. Society owns your body, bought and paid for with the food you eat, the books you read, the air you breath, the roads you drive on, the medicine you take. You want to go pass out in the middle of nowhere and pump heroin, fine, be my guest. But while you're in with the rest of us, you do not have the right to try to escape reality and avoid paying your dues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Mandatory drug treatment is fundamentally wrong. Many, if not most, people who use drugs recreationally don't develop an addiction problem. We have no right to kidnap them and throw them in some treatment clinic against their will. do you know what kidnapping is, or how mandatory rehab works? first of all, no such thing as mandatory rehab, it's court-ordered. as in, the court orders you to go as your sentence, usually in lieu of going to jail second of all that's not kidnapping dickweed gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Jrod I have read your arguments and considered them closely but the convenience of being able to pick up peanuts at the store without having to google the store I'm in to make sure they don't regularly violate health and safety standards, google the company that assessed the store to make sure they're not in the pocket of Big Store, find the name of the farm the peanuts came from, googling it to see if it's a known bad peanut farm, googling the assessor company that assessed the peanuts as edible to make sure they're not in the pocket of Big Nut, googling the transportation company to make sure they store the peanuts in a way that keeps them safe to eat, googling all the previously mentioned companies again to make sure they don't have "no fags, spics, or nigs" hiring policies, etc. The FDA and other similar government agencies save me so much time that it is in my own rational self interest to tax you until the day you die, and then celebrate with one last tax upon your death. Sorry  Pththya-lyi posted:I'm still wondering how he knows that Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and the Tea Party were all anarcho-capitalist movements that got hijacked by statist infiltrators. Wait has he said that? Does anyone have a link because  Tea Party I'd give you, but loving Occupy and BLM as an an-cap movement lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Wait has he said that? Does anyone have a link because Not quite. jrodefeld posted: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. That's right. The Tea Party was taken over by left wing political operatives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Are we sure jrod isn't a Markov chain pre-loaded with random mises.org articles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In all seriousness, can't you see the potential problem with this? Don't you think that a political institution that has the power to ban medical treatments and drugs would be pressured to keep out good and effective medicine from the market if they would undermine the profits of the most politically well-connected medical and drug companies? So, in other words, keep the private sector out of public health? That's our argument, you loving moron. jrodefeld posted:This is an argument that is particularly insulting. I've been persuaded over the years of the correctness of the libertarian position and this fact means that all I do is "intellectually steal and copy from other people"? Everything I've ever written here are my own words and I have actually quoted other articles and linked to other articles rather infrequently. You regurgitate bullshit that you don't understand. Jrodefeld, I would much like to interact with you seriously, but no matter how well-researched nor persuasive my argument, nothing I say can convince. More easily could I persuade a cow to understand the basis of nuclear fission energy production, for the cow at least has short term memory beyond the field beneath its feet. You are too stupid for me to explain grass, you are too wilfully ignorant for me to appeal to words used a page of this thread ago. I hate you not for your beliefs but for your anti-intellectual response to discussion. You are part of the growing first step backward in human evolution, and I resent I have to share a human race with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Not quite. Holy poo poo . Thank you overwhelmingly white Libertarians, for telling black people that the criminal justice system is bad to them, they had no idea at all before Ferguson! Ferguson was a landmark moment where black people finally realized they had it bad after decades of saying and doing absolutely nothing about police brutality because the educated white man hadn't shown them the way yet!Liberals maybe didn't understand the racism of the criminal justice system until Ferguson. Actual leftists and African Americans have been talking about it since before Ron Paul hosted his first white supremacist neo-confederate rally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
A libertarian told me a similar thing about Occupy, that there was so much ideological diversity and common cause before "the left" coopted it, and I do remember seeing some Ron Paul types when I went to Zuccotti Park for a day while it was still going on. But I pointed out to him that if the left "took over," it was by default, because libertarians sure as gently caress weren't going to risk being beaten by cops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. You must support prohibition of alcohol also, right? All kinds of people develop alcoholism and drink way too much. Don't we need to protect people from themselves? That's what I get for not being an insulting dick when I responded to you! This is why people have a hard time "discussing" things with you. Maybe if you'd pause and think about it from the other side instead of taking an opportunity to "put me in my place" you could get somewhere with people. Otherwise you come off like a raving lunatic! No, I don't support the war on drugs at all. Not wanting people to get sold literal poison with the promise that it will cure whatever ails them isn't the same thing as supporting the war on drugs at all. If you really think this then you have to be pretty loving stupid. The problem with your whole "2 people come to an agreement" bullshit is that most people are not equipped to make educated decisions or agreements on complicated things like healthcare. It's up to some 3rd party in those cases to provide that. This 3rd party typically can't be privately held due to the risks of them being in the pocket of some particular drug company. I also don't support the prohibition of alcohol but I do support the regulation of it. Note that none of these acts are coercive in any way and I wholeheartedly support them! None of what I suggested supports kidnapping or otherwise bringing harm on another being. I guess you can call me Conan the Barbarian though if it makes you happy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:I'm still wondering how he knows that Black Lives Matter, Occupy, and the Tea Party were all anarcho-capitalist movements that got hijacked by statist infiltrators. That's simple, in his little mind that's what happens to all protest movements. GunnerJ posted:A libertarian told me a similar thing about Occupy, that there was so much ideological diversity and common cause before "the left" coopted it, and I do remember seeing some Ron Paul types when I went to Zuccotti Park for a day while it was still going on. But I pointed out to him that if the left "took over," it was by default, because libertarians sure as gently caress weren't going to risk being beaten by cops. That's funny, because in actuality the encampments quickly gathered a lot of ron paul types who sat around eager to vote, but not eager to actually run the camps etc. And by the end there were a whole lot more of them proportionately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Jrod.. Two questions for you! Why do you get so mad about people "putting words into your mouth" when you seem to do that to everyone you respond to? I ask because you decided to try to "insult" my position by assuming I support things I clearly don't and then invoked a form of hyperbole (the mention of kidnapping) to try to make your point. The next one is a two parter: You mentioned that fraud is illegal in libertarian society so: 1. Who defines what fraud actually is? 2. Who enforces the law once fraud has been clearly defined? As a sort of bonus question, would these fraud laws be universal across all libertarian societies or could they vary by community or region? If so, how do they get enforced when the fraud is committed by someone in another community with a different standard of fraud?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The whole "chronic lyme disease revelation as justification for dangerous, unnecessary dental work" is making me suspect Jrod's not just a stupid rear end in a top hat, but also legit mentally ill (presuming he's not lying about the whole deal, of course, of which I'm not yet convinced). Why did it take me this long to come around, you might rightly ask? Well so far, he's mostly been posting stupid/evil bullshit that's largely theoretical nonsense that'll never come about, no matter how much he may claim to want it. The dental work and questionable disease diagnosis is the first example I can think of where he's done or said anything about his actual, personal life that comes across as being as loopy as the political nonsense he's constantly blathering on about. I'm actually starting to suspect mental illness as well. Medical conspiracy theories aside, it's hard to believe that someone could be so disingenuous about pretending they've never plagiarized when just a few weeks ago they apologized for plagiarizing. It's not even funny, it's kind of sad and I think he actually believes it. The irony, of course, being that if he did live in a country with socialized medicine he would actually have easier access to getting the help he needs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
I'm not against the mental illness theory, but I know at least one genuinely mentally okay / genuinely intelligent person with a mother reliant on SOCIALISED MEDICINE who also happens to be a far-right libertarian. It's not far-fetched for someone to be a mentally fine piece of poo poo, until we diagnose libertarianism as a mental defect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Oh hey Jrod's back.jrodefeld posted:No "society" doesn't "ask" me to pay my taxes to give medical care to others. I don't understand why clear language is so hard for some of you to grasp. If I don't have the option of saying "no" without being forcefully thrown in a cage, you are not "asking" me anything. You are threatening me and using violence to fund your idea of social welfare. You could totally respectfully decline to participate in all of these things. Just leave the United States. Congrats, by leaving the US you don't have to subsidize any of the things you hate. Is there a reason leaving the United States is not an option for you? ("I don't wanna" is not a valid answer.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:... Gotcha, you sniveling little lapdog of the petit-bourgeouisie . You finally had to come out and actually stake out a position on something about economics. So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Are you aware that that theory has been thoroughly discredited by not only libertarians but most mainstream economists as well? The question was specifically "where do profits come from", and the answer that consumers dictate the profits is not in anyway belittling to the work of the entrepreneur and his or her employees. In fact it is the role of the entrepreneur to make forecasts about future consumer demand and risk his or her capital on that forecast. This takes a great deal of skill and foresight. The only correct theory of value is the Austrian Subjective Theory of Value, which has been largely accepted by many mainstream and non-libertarian economics circles. Value is subjective and exists only in the minds of consumers on the market. There are MANY incredibly labor intensive and difficult endeavors that would simply yield no profit in a market because consumers see no value in that product or service and would not voluntarily part with their money for it. If people want to engage in non-profitable work then that is their prerogative but the effort will come at their own expense. A business, by its very nature, is a profit seeking enterprise. Yet you seem to think that merely due to the fact that a business owner and his or her workers work very hard they are somehow owed a profit. But how could this be? If consumers don't want to purchase their product or service, they won't make any profits regardless of the work put in by the workers. The question of whether workers ought to have certain rights, or be more appreciated, or whatever else is a separate question to the one you posed. You asked about the origin of profits. Profits are realized when the entrepreneur correctly anticipates consumer demand and satisfies it. The value of the product is based upon the subjective value scales of consumers and NOT the amount of labor put into the production of the product or service. This is essentially irrefutable and I don't understand why you went all apoplectic when I simply stated the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's funny, because in actuality the encampments quickly gathered a lot of ron paul types who sat around eager to vote, but not eager to actually run the camps etc. And by the end there were a whole lot more of them proportionately. Ha, seriously? I didn't really know what the composition was by the end, tbh, my point was hypothetical because I didn't buy the narrative that ~the left~ took it over like some sinister subversive plot. So were the Paulites catching nightsticks and huffing tear gas by the end too?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also dollars to donuts says he smells awful. Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" Juvenile doesn't adequately describe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't describe it as "lowering himself" so much as "meeting you halfway."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" If you want an intellectual debate you literally only have to go back to my specific terms that I've posted twice in the thread now. We have a format, you pick a topic and I'd be happy to debate you. You always seem to vanish right after saying that you'd be willing. Also, have you considered just using the ignore list instead of whining?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Don't really think he needs any help ignoring posts, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Ha, seriously? I didn't really know what the composition was by the end, tbh, my point was hypothetical because I didn't buy the narrative that ~the left~ took it over like some sinister subversive plot. Yeah, and also a lot of BUSH DID 9/11 types. I'm just saying though it's the opposite of the jrode type "statists ruined it" argument. They were always the first to run away as soon as any cop stuff was going down, but they'd be right back the next morning when the cop stuff was done. This was consistent between the NYC, Philly, DC, Newark and Baltimore ones that I visited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" Is there a reason leaving the United States is not an option for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Come on idiot, you call us Marxists all the loving time. Why are you surprised when one of us actually is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" shut up you fuckin pissbaby. you did a YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT TO MY FACE at me and when i called you on it tucked your tail. you don't get to talk down to loving anybody here. gently caress yourself, shitbag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I wouldn't describe it as "lowering himself" so much as "meeting you halfway." Lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Not quite. I misspoke there. What I had intended to say was that most mass political movements in the United States tend to evolve away from their original principles and get re-absorbed into the political establishment. The Tea Party is certainly on the Right and Occupy and Black Lives Matter are on the Left. I fear that Black Lives Matter will lose track of its original message and become just another arm of the Democratic Party in the same way that the Tea Party and Occupy lost their principles before they had any lasting influence in reforming government. I'd suggest that the movement stick to its message with a laser-like focus and try to reform the criminal justice system and demand accountability for killer cops, but keep calls for raising the minimum wage or other left-wing pablum out of the movement. These other issues might be important, but to actually achieve results in reforming the criminal justice system and holding police accountable the message cannot be diluted by opportunistic outsiders who want to inject their pet issues into the proceedings. I want Black Lives Matter to be successful in its stated goal. I just fear that it will go the way of previous populist uprisings that sell out long before the needed reforms are enacted. Remember how Occupy broke up the big banks and lobbied for all those bills to reform Wall Street? Me neither.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Jrod,. the labor theory of value isn't 'some value is added by labor'. That's just loving obvious. You don't understand the terms you use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Are you aware that that theory has been thoroughly discredited by not only libertarians but most mainstream economists as well? Are you aware the the austrian business cycle has been thoroughly discredited by not only marxists but most mainstream economists as well? I'm not even defending LToV because I also think it is bunk, I'm just curious if you realize how much of a pot calling the kettle black situation you're in. quote:The question was specifically "where do profits come from", and the answer that consumers dictate the profits is not in anyway belittling to the work of the entrepreneur and his or her employees. In fact it is the role of the entrepreneur to make forecasts about future consumer demand and risk his or her capital on that forecast. This takes a great deal of skill and foresight. Let me help you out here. He did not ask "Where do profits come from" he asked "Who is responsible for that profit?" That is a huge difference in wording, because the former allows you to twist it into your nonsense, whereas the first implicitly is discussing the question of who in the company is responsible for the profit, whose contributions made that profit possible. Is this easier for you to understand? quote:The only correct theory of value is the Austrian Subjective Theory of Value, which has been largely accepted by many mainstream and non-libertarian economics circles. Value is subjective and exists only in the minds of consumers on the market. There are MANY incredibly labor intensive and difficult endeavors that would simply yield no profit in a market because consumers see no value in that product or service and would not voluntarily part with their money for it. Just to be clear, no mainstream economists ascribe to the Austrian Subjective Theory of Value. The fact that the Austrian take on value pulls some of its ideas from mainstream economics due to simple overlap should not be taken as an endorsement of your quack theories. quote:This is essentially irrefutable and I don't understand why you went all apoplectic when I simply stated the obvious. Oooh, you're busting out the  words huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So you subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value? Are you aware that that theory has been thoroughly discredited by not only libertarians but most mainstream economists as well? Both of these things are hilariously untrue outside of Mises.org So once again congratulations on proving you have no idea about what you're talking about. For reference: the Labour Theory of Value is controversial, which is fine. The Austrian Subjective is laughed out of anywhere that isn't white 12 year olds who also think slavery loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I misspoke there. What I had intended to say was that most mass political movements in the United States tend to evolve away from their original principles and get re-absorbed into the political establishment. The Tea Party is certainly on the Right and Occupy and Black Lives Matter are on the Left. I fear that Black Lives Matter will lose track of its original message and become just another arm of the Democratic Party in the same way that the Tea Party and Occupy lost their principles before they had any lasting influence in reforming government. You can avoid paying taxes by either ceasing to earn money or by leaving the country for another place that holds your ideals. Also answer my questions and don't use things like "I don't know how it would work but it just will okay!" That's the argument of a child.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is this honestly the type of rhetorical tactic you've lowered yourself to? "My opponent probably smells bad! He's probably a loser who lives in his parents basement!" I'd have to get a lot lower just to be on your leve- GunnerJ posted:I wouldn't describe it as "lowering himself" so much as "meeting you halfway." GODDAMNIT!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Both of these things are hilariously untrue outside of Mises.org Well the labor theory of value is sort of a joke in most economics departments. One can argue that this is because those economic departments are coming at it from the angle of having spent half a century in direct opposition to socialism complete with threats of being arrested or harassed for being communist, but it is a pretty well established fact that no economics department I've heard of finds LToV credible. You're half right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd suggest that the movement stick to its message with a laser-like focus and try to reform the criminal justice system and demand accountability for killer cops, but keep calls for raising the minimum wage or other left-wing pablum out of the movement. Yeah! Why should "Black Lives Matter" try to improve the lives of blacks?! They should focus only on what I, a white man, deem acceptable for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well the labor theory of value is sort of a joke in most economics departments. One can argue that this is because those economic departments are coming at it from the angle of having spent half a century in direct opposition to socialism complete with threats of being arrested or harassed for being communist, but it is a pretty well established fact that no economics department I've heard of finds LToV credible. You're half right. Hence why I say it's controversial. I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory, but while it's controversial, the idea that the Austrian School's theory is at all respectable... well let's say I have full bottles of rum and whiskey in the cupboard but even downing all of them in the next 10 minutes wouldn't make that theory respectable, let alone true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'd have to get a lot lower just to be on your leve- 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
I specifically mean the Austrian School's concept. I can wax lyrical on labour-value vs. subjective value at length. That's not what this hilarious spiel of a thread is about, though, as-is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd suggest that the movement stick to its message with a laser-like focus and try to reform the criminal justice system and demand accountability for killer cops, but keep calls for raising the minimum wage or other left-wing pablum out of the movement. These other issues might be important, but to actually achieve results in reforming the criminal justice system and holding police accountable the message cannot be diluted by opportunistic outsiders who want to inject their pet issues into the proceedings. Wait I'm confused, I thought Libertarianism was exuberantly pro police brutality against Certain People, may I quote one of your self-described most influential role models on the subject? "Murray Rothbard posted:A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short: Unemployment is illegal, run those bums out of town! We don't need courts: summary cop-administered justice on bad people please. Ah, liberty 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 03:01
|
|
