Why Should We Care About Property Rights?

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

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Juffo-Wup posted:

I was all set to start talking about Bayesian statistics and what happens when you have minuscule priors, but honestly this is a much better response.

I think it is worth demonstrating to jrod how irrational it would be to treat any Middle Eastern man in LA as a probable terrorist.

I live and work in the city. I understand that more black people are arrested for property and person crimes per capita here. That doesn't mean I'd be rational to act as if every black man I walked past was about to rob or batter me. Even in cities with high crime rates for black males, the actual likelihood of me being the victim of a crime by a given black man at a given time is effectively 0%.

Honestly, jrod, you're much more likely to be killed by a white terrorist in America. As he continues on his rampage, you'll gaze up from a pool of your own blood and say, "Oh.... hey... I recognize that guy from the States' Rights rally...."

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:54

The Mattybee: Sep 15, 2007; despair.

VitalSigns posted:

Serious question jrod: once we dismantle the federal government, what would stop the KKK from becoming the law in large parts of the country just as it was before the FBI infiltrated and largely destroyed it?

No rational person would ever do that, and furthermore--

[whines to grandparents until they pay for him to have his dental fillings removed]

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:13

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

It's been touched on, but it can't hurt to be explicit. How do you square this:

quote:

Libertarians are incapable of being racists. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice. A libertarian sees all people as not members of groups but as individuals who should be judged by their character and actions, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.

With this?

quote:

But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

That, right there, is you judging people as members of groups rather than by their individual character. There's a massive discrepancy in your opinions here, and you really need to come to terms with that.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:23

Igiari: Sep 14, 2007

Nolanar posted:

It's been touched on, but it can't hurt to be explicit. How do you square this:

With this?

That, right there, is you judging people as members of groups rather than by their individual character. There's a massive discrepancy in your opinions here, and you really need to come to terms with that.

This is character assassination creed, furthermore a priori first principles we can never know if a libertarian is truly racist in his heart of heart of hearts, none may know the soul of another man, if a master of Liberty says something racist it's because they're trying to trick racists to coming to their side [why do libertarians want to do this??] but they never actually THINK or BELIEVE the racist things. Such accusations are baseless, can you read HHH's soul? No.

Of course if a non libertarian disagrees then they are undoubtedly racist. And this goes double if they're black.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:38

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

I have been on these forums for, well, a disturbingly long time, and have from time to time seen some particularly brutal takedowns of this or that poster. I watched Qualnor get demolished for claiming late-19th century America was overwhelmingly middle-class and prosperous. I laughed at Paradol Ex's lengthy and hilariously wrong list of 2008 election predictions. But this is one of those even rarer occasions when a poster, unprompted, destroys themselves with their own words.

I mean god :drat:

, to both argue that libertarians are incapable of racism and then assert it makes total sense to discriminate against swarthy middle easterners because of their race, that's something special.

ps: Jrod please don't run screaming from the thread just I used the "drat" emoticon in the sentence above, the scary black man in it is just a graphic!

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:41

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I think you'll find that liberals are the real racists, look how you liberals jump to defend LA's obvious 80,000-strong terrorist population just because they're Arabs.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:43

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

jrodefeld posted:

You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about. I want to caution people that somehow think that I am somehow obsessing about race, that you all do fine obsessing about race without me. The reason I react so strongly to this character assassination attack against me, is that I personally focus a great deal on the systemic racism and discrimination that the State and private citizens inflict upon minority communities in the United States. This is a passion of mine.

Every single word of this is a loving lie. You have never once done anything of value to support any black causes. What rallies have you gone to? What protests have you taken part in? You're the worst sort of slacktivist, you have done absolutely nothing of value and yet you feel the need to whites plain to the ignorant negroes what their problems are. To lecture them about how they need to stop being welfare queens (hey you racist fucker, are you willing to recant your assertion that women of color strive to have as many children with as many fathers as possible yet?) and how black teens need to be forced to work menial, dead end jobs to keep them from giving in to their violent urges. Now where have I heard that last bit before? Oh right! From the arguments of pro-slavery Civil War southerners!

quote:

I love black culture, black music, black comedy and so forth. And I'm not just saying that. Since middle school, I've idolized black role models and I've identified with civil rights causes as long as I was ever politically aware.

Without googling, name five black Jazz musicians. Name the members of NWA. Name three clack comedians who aren't Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, Bill Cosby, or Wayne's Brothers. Name five civil rights activists who are MLK or Malcolm X.

I guaran-loving-tee your answers will be in the top three results in Google.

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 14:47

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

I cannot loving believe we are talking about racism again.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:03

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Well if it walks like a racist, talks like a racist, and thinks Arabs are likely to be terrorist's like a racist...

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:06

Zanzibar Ham: Mar 17, 2009; You giving me the cold shoulder? How cruel.; Grimey Drawer

So jrod, what's your genius idea for a business that would make you billions and lord of your castle, if only that dastardly federal state wasn't hampering your ingenuity at every turn?

e: also how are DRO fees in any way, shape, or form different from taxes?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:06

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

YF19pilot posted:

Also, please answer my question, Would an airplane built by Libertarians have square windows? Or if that's too broad, Would you build an airplane with square windows?

Can I go ahead and answer this one on behalf of jrode?

The short answer would be something like this:

Yes, Libertarians would make airplanes with square windows. In glorious Libertopia, there would be no pernicious government regulation to stifle the freedom and innovation of airplane entrepreneurs. It would be up to the personal preference and discretion of the consumer to choose between planes with square or rounded windows. Less regulation means more freedom of choice!

However, there is the sadly unfortunate downside that bad actors who make Somali Airlines-quality planes that tear apart mid-flight would also have a stake. Thankfully, after a few broken planes and some negative reviews on Yelp, the hand of the free market will correct itself and force the bad actor out of business. A few casualties are an acceptable price for freedom. Freedom isn't free, after all.

Until then, caveat emptor, my friend! :shepface:

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:10

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Muscle Tracer posted:

I cannot loving believe we are talking about racism again.

The free market of ideas strikes again!

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:11

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

I was excited to see Jrodefeld come back because the posts leading up to his return were pretty great. Of course he chooses to field the softballs instead of anything substantive, and he still failed in doing that by inadvertently outing his own racism.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:16

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

Who What Now posted:

Every single word of this is a loving lie. You have never once done anything of value to support any black causes.

What do you call "supporting the abolition of the minimum wage so that shiftless urban youths can work for pennies and get 'work experience' instead of 'joining gangs,'" smart guy?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:16

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

JVNO posted:

I was excited to see Jrodefeld come back because the posts leading up to his return were pretty great. Of course he chooses to field the softballs instead of anything substantive, and he still failed in doing that by inadvertently outing his own racism.

There does seem to be a correlation to jrode running away like he'd found himself in a room full of black people and this thread's posting quality raising exponentially.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:18

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

I too like Tom Woods. Here's my favorite talk from him, found at Mises.org.
You see, we can't forget that the 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So Tom Woods is right. As long as the schools and water fountains and restaurants are equal, and there's no evidence they aren't, then segregation is perfectly constitutional. You can't argue with the constitution, folks! We're stuck with it.
...Exactly. Those damned activist judges imposed their salacious values of ending Jim Crow, and allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies. We should have just done the peaceful thing and let some states have segregation and illegal abortion.

This is all rather interesting, actually. The core of the Libertarian attack on the US government is that the constitution is an illegitimate contract, never agreed to by every living person in the US, which is an affront to natural law and individual rights because it gives some men the power to use force against others without consent, right? Right okay.

So you would think that when the supreme court makes what can arguably be considered an appeal to natural law by arguing that discrimination violates the spirit of equal protection regardless of what the framers thought, or that the rights to life, property, and due process imply rights of privacy and bodily autonomy, that Libertarians would be all over that, hailing it as a triumph of natural law and individual rights over an illegitimate contract written by various cabals of long-dead white supremacists and imposed upon the country for all time.

And yet for some reason in these instances, we need to respect the rule of law and obey these long-dead white supremacists until three-quarters of the (illegitimate, skull-cracking jackbooted thug) State governments decide on their own to put the guns down and stop violating individual rights, instead of acting in self-defense on behalf of the people whose rights they are violating.

In this case it seems, the ends (weakening the federal government as much as possible) justify the means (giving power to State governments who are gladly using it to initiate force against their own people). But don't feed a starving child with food stamps, that'd be a violation of our deontological principles.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:19

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

Yo, jrodski: once again, you set the tone for the conversation here. If you don't want to talk about how racist you are, don't talk about race or address people talking about your racist views! I guarantee you that you have no "good reputation" to defend against these attacks on your character, you are an object of contempt and amusement but as long as you keep coming back here, try doing something more interesting than perpetually owning yourself on racism. Instead, consider responding to this!

...I'm going to give up on you ever getting back to our discussion of Reconstruction (maybe mises.org does not have a handy set of instructions for its missionaries on this subject?) and take a different tack, now that you're thinking in big grandiose terms about the benefits of hypothetical political economies. While you were out, I outlined my expectations for a libertarian society:

GunnerJ posted:

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.

Emphasis added. I will repeat the claim: nothing resembles this "DRO/covenant community/mutual aid/private charity/everything's insurance and binding arbitration" model more than archetypal feudalism. Why do you think this is incorrect? Please do not waste my time with boilerplate from some propaganda site. Look at the argument I am making and address my specific reasons for believing this is the case. It would go a long way toward making your claim that an anarcho-capitalist society is the most beneficial one for everyone plausible.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:20

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

How many years has JRode been parroting the same talking points and apologetics about libertarianism? Must be north of 5 years now. I applaud anyone who addresses him in sincerity because it's clear he believes he's found the 'right' philosophy and will not budge on any ground.

Has he ever ceded one single point or argument in the entire time he's been here? In my experience he seems to run away when the hardballs become unavoidable, then waits for an opportunity to re-enter the fray at a weak point.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:23

KING BONG: Aug 6, 2009

jrodefeld posted:

...it is likely that during an altercation with Zimmerman, Trayvon became the aggressor and Zimmerman had legitimate reason to fear for his life. It is not unreasonable for the defense to bring up issues with Trayvon's past.

Trayvon became the aggressor because he was standing his ground against a crazy white man who was stalking him. See that there? Is it not funny how Zimmerman gets off on the defense Martin would have used if he was alive and could defend himself? don't see how a couple past mistakes made by a KID outweigh Zimmerman stalking and murdering. Have you seen this guy since? He is a sociopathic attention whore. He does whatever it takes to prevent people from forgetting about him, often with the use of violence.

Your libertarian reasoning is broken and hypicritical. You believe in property rights, but only for the people you deem worthy. Let me guess, you were against OWS, but I bet you support Bundy and his violent occupation of federal property.

KING BONG fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:28

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

JVNO posted:

How many years has JRode been parroting the same talking points and apologetics about libertarianism? Must be north of 5 years now. I applaud anyone who addresses him in sincerity because it's clear he believes he's found the 'right' philosophy and will not budge on any ground.

Has he ever ceded one single point or argument in the entire time he's been here? In my experience he seems to run away when the hardballs become unavoidable, then waits for an opportunity to re-enter the fray at a weak point.

I've been hanging out in these threads for (checks posting history) Christ, three and a half years now, and I've never seen him admit he was wrong even once, no matter how small a point. If it gets to the point where he can't even hope to defend his words anymore, he just cries about how unreasonable we are for talking about it. Or, as you said, he just leaves the thread. The fact that he started this new thread instead of staying in the quarantine thread makes it seem like he thinks we have no way of checking what he's said in the past.

He really is a fascinating figure. Abhorrent, but fascinating. Like George Wallace. I'm sure he's proud to be living up to one of his idols.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:31

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

KING BONG posted:

I don't see how a couple past mistakes made by a KID outweigh Zimmerman stalking and murdering. Have you seen this guy since? He is a sociopathic attention whore. He does whatever it takes to prevent people from forgetting about him, often with the use of violence.
Your libertarian reasoning is broken and hypicritical. You believe in property rights, but only for the people you deem worthy. Let me guess, you were against OWS, but I bet you support Bundy and his violent occupation of federal property.

He did actually touch on this one, he believes the Hammonds are innocent victims of statist overreach, but he doesn't believe in the militia's armed insurrection.

In reality he's probably just annoyed his mom wouldn't let him go and join them, but can't admit that online.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:34

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Jrode I would seriously like you to respond to literally anything I have ever said about the awfulness and uselessness of minimum wage work

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:35

theshim: May 1, 2012; You think you can defeat ME, Ephraimcopter?!?

You couldn't even beat Assassincopter!!!

JVNO posted:

How many years has JRode been parroting the same talking points and apologetics about libertarianism? Must be north of 5 years now. I applaud anyone who addresses him in sincerity because it's clear he believes he's found the 'right' philosophy and will not budge on any ground.

Well, given that the earlier posts on neo-confederacy from straightdope were from April 2010, he's coming up on at least six years now. It's impressively depressing.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:38

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

KING BONG posted:

I don't see how a couple past mistakes made by a KID outweigh Zimmerman stalking and murdering. Have you seen this guy since? He is a sociopathic attention whore. He does whatever it takes to prevent people from forgetting about him, often with the use of violence.
Your libertarian reasoning is broken and hypicritical. You believe in property rights, but only for the people you deem worthy. Let me guess, you were against OWS, but I bet you support Bundy and his violent occupation of federal property.

Not just past mistakes, Trayvon's corpse also has to defend itself against things that are completely made up by racists and believed by jrod like: he bought skittles and fruit drink in order to make the purple drank of which he was a habitual user and which was responsible for the brain damage that made him such a dangerous and violent attacker

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:39

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Nolanar posted:

I've been hanging out in these threads for (checks posting history) Christ, three and a half years now, and I've never seen him admit he was wrong even once, no matter how small a point. If it gets to the point where he can't even hope to defend his words anymore, he just cries about how unreasonable we are for talking about it. Or, as you said, he just leaves the thread. The fact that he started this new thread instead of staying in the quarantine thread makes it seem like he thinks we have no way of checking what he's said in the past.

He really is a fascinating figure. Abhorrent, but fascinating. Like George Wallace. I'm sure he's proud to be living up to one of his idols.

Jrod did, in fact, respond to someone asking if he was wrong about anything. His answer was along the lines of "I've been wrong about lots of things, but none of them important. And I wasn't actually wrong because *faaaaaaaart*".

So no. He hasn't.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:41

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

VitalSigns posted:

Not just past mistakes, Trayvon's corpse also has to defend itself against things that are completely made up by racists and believed by jrod like: he bought skittles and fruit drink in order to make the purple drank of which he was a habitual user and which was responsible for the brain damage that made him such a dangerous and violent attacker

Well think about it purple drank is made using painkillers. That contains the word pain and the word killer. Ergo, he was a killer who spread pain.

Makes you think. *puffs weed from skull bong*

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:43

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

theshim posted:

Well, given that the earlier posts on neo-confederacy from straightdope were from April 2010, he's coming up on at least six years now. It's impressively depressing.

If I went a solid half a decade without re-evaluating my political positions I have failed as an intellectual. I can't think of a single political issue for which my stance hasn't changed somewhat over the past 5-6 years, with the exception of maybe abortion.

The funny thing is in 2009/2010 I probably would have defended JRode as I had a thing for objectivism at the time. A few philosophical debates around then led me to give up my belief in free will however. It was really hard to parrot libertarianism/objectivism in earnest when you accept an indeterminist view that rejects free will. I did a pretty much overnight 180 into libertarian socialism and then the rest is history, with many minor shifts in position and views since that time.

Libertarianism requires buck stopping free will to exist as a tenable policy, otherwise you're essentially saying people deserve to be rich or poor based on factors out of their control, like entrenched/inherited wealth and country of birth. Which is utterly monstrous.

Edit: to be clear I'm not suggesting that libertarianism is preferable if free will exists; I'm merely saying it's completely untenable in its absence.

PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:47

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Yeah, it's kind of sad to see someone so tied to holding the same positions and being Right about Everything Forever. The thought of having the same opinions I had as a teenager is loving terrifying to me. I'm actually going through somewhat of a philosophical ~~meltdown~~ exploratory period right now, due in some small part to the better-quality posts in this thread introducing me to things I hadn't considered before. It's actually part of why I'm curious to hear from honest libertarians. I want to find the strongest arguments from each political tradition and see what I make of them, and what they make of each other. I'm already trying to reconcile ideas I agree with from the liberal, socialist, and anarchist traditions, why not add more to the mix? But I genuinely can't find libertarian thinkers beyond Nozick who aren't absolutely vile, and I have trouble finding any conservative philosophers at all (Burke? Maybe?).

# ? Feb 9, 2016 15:58

Twerkteam Pizza: Sep 26, 2015; Grimey Drawer

jrodefeld posted:

The idea that I am even bothering to defend multiple year old posts about a long resolved criminal trial is absurd. But what if I was concerned about an ISIS attack on Los Angeles? Would I be unreasonable in being extra cautious about Middle Eastern men who were also Muslims? Would that make me a bigot, even though the clear evidence shows that nearly all ISIS members are Muslims who are of Middle Eastern descent?

I do not care if this is the thread where we contain Jrod and therefore this is more relaxed on the rules, but I reported this for racism. This is nothing but straight up racism and if the only punishment that we as a forum can do is give this babbie a time-out than so be it.

gently caress you Jrod you sexist, racist, and fascist piece of fecal matter.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:06

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

I do like that this thread does have relaxed rules because sometimes jrode's stupidity just doesn't deserve the respect we're meant to show in D&D.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:07

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

I do not care if this is the thread where we contain Jrod and therefore this is more relaxed on the rules, but I reported this for racism. This is nothing but straight up racism and if the only punishment that we as a forum can do is give this babbie a time-out than so be it.

gently caress you Jrod you sexist, racist, and fascist piece of fecal matter.

Yeah, wow, that quote you have is suuuuuper racist. *long whistle*

It's not like there have been news reports of Westerners from all parts of the globe leaving to join ISIS for the past several years or anything. :rolleyes:

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:18

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Nolanar posted:

Yeah, it's kind of sad to see someone so tied to holding the same positions and being Right about Everything Forever. The thought of having the same opinions I had as a teenager is loving terrifying to me. I'm actually going through somewhat of a philosophical ~~meltdown~~ exploratory period right now, due in some small part to the better-quality posts in this thread introducing me to things I hadn't considered before. It's actually part of why I'm curious to hear from honest libertarians. I want to find the strongest arguments from each political tradition and see what I make of them, and what they make of each other. I'm already trying to reconcile ideas I agree with from the liberal, socialist, and anarchist traditions, why not add more to the mix? But I genuinely can't find libertarian thinkers beyond Nozick who aren't absolutely vile, and I have trouble finding any conservative philosophers at all (Burke? Maybe?).

Jrod is not an honest libertarian.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:22

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

Zanzibar Ham posted:

So jrod, what's your genius idea for a business that would make you billions and lord of your castle, if only that dastardly federal state wasn't hampering your ingenuity at every turn?

e: also how are DRO fees in any way, shape, or form different from taxes?

They aren't ostensibly states. They're referred to with a different word.

That's it.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:22

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Jrod is not an honest libertarian.

Yeah, I know. It's well-established. I was referring to an older post of mine about how I'm continually giving new libertarian posters the benefit of the doubt, and how I'm continually disappointed.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:32

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Zanzibar Ham posted:

So jrod, what's your genius idea for a business that would make you billions and lord of your castle, if only that dastardly federal state wasn't hampering your ingenuity at every turn?

e: also how are DRO fees in any way, shape, or form different from taxes?

Bootlegged Hong Kong Blu-Rays, clearly.

E: We should charge Jrode an hourly rate for as much personal therapy and one-on-one rhetorical (as in, pointing out writing flaws) counseling we've given him for free for years now.

It's what Von Mises would have wanted. Free market, biiiiiitch!

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Feb 9, 2016

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:39

Zanzibar Ham: Mar 17, 2009; You giving me the cold shoulder? How cruel.; Grimey Drawer

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

They aren't ostensibly states. They're referred to with a different word.

That's it.

I know that and you know that and so does he, but I want to hear his long-winded excuse.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:47

Igiari: Sep 14, 2007

JVNO posted:

Has he ever ceded one single point or argument in the entire time he's been here? In my experience he seems to run away when the hardballs become unavoidable, then waits for an opportunity to re-enter the fray at a weak point.

He accepted that Rothbard's (I think it was him anyway) speaking at white supremacy events was "troubling" or something and accepted that he (that is, Rothbard) might be a 'race realist'. That's only after he tried to pull "b-b-but maybe he was only at a forum for unpopular ideas!?".

Then he went away for months, totally forgot about this, and changed tack to 'libertarians only say or write racist things to try and get conservatives on-side, but they don't mean it.'

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:47

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Igiari posted:

He accepted that Rothbard's (I think it was him anyway) speaking at white supremacy events was "troubling" or something and accepted that he (that is, Rothbard) might be a 'race realist'. That's only after he tried to pull "b-b-but maybe he was only at a forum for unpopular ideas!?".

Then he went away for months, totally forgot about this, and changed tack to 'libertarians only say or write racist things to try and get conservatives on-side, but they don't mean it.'

This right here is a weird track he takes a lot, and we don't talk about it much. He's defended Ayn Rand's writings and Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics" before, not on the basis that their arguments are good, but on the basis that they're persuasive. As long as it gets you on the libertarianism train, it does not matter how it does so. It's one of the most blatant giveaways that he's here as an evangelist instead of an honest discussion partner.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:52

PoizenJam: Dec 2, 2006; Damn!!!
It's PoizenJam!!!

Igiari posted:

Then he went away for months, totally forgot about this, and changed tack to 'libertarians only say or write racist things to try and get conservatives on-side, but they don't mean it.'

You know who else used racial wedge issues as a tool got political manipulation? :hitler:

And a good portion of Republicans.

In all seriousness if you cynically pander to racists but aren't really racist that's not one bit better. You're still reinforcing racism.

As well using bad faith but persuasive arguments is itself scummy as gently caress. I thought liberterians/objectivists tended to reject consequentialist ethics?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 18:54

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

Nolanar posted:

This right here is a weird track he takes a lot, and we don't talk about it much. He's defended Ayn Rand's writings and Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics" before, not on the basis that their arguments are good, but on the basis that they're persuasive. As long as it gets you on the libertarianism train, it does not matter how it does so. It's one of the most blatant giveaways that he's here as an evangelist instead of an honest discussion partner.

This seems to be the playbook he's working from: https://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1977dec-00020?View=PDF

# ? Feb 9, 2016 16:57

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

«‹›115 »