|
Goon Danton posted:The Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight Murray Rothbard posted:
I'm sure this stallion of marginal productivity is highly qualified to talk about competitive labor markets.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Cingulate: A Socrates gone completely worthless. Sephyr posted:....alright, now I'm stumped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So what is your definition? No, rather, let's play your chosen game. Why do you think that's a valid definition? Cite sources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It seems to me you are still somehow assuming I must be defending libertarianism as a viable policy. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're saying. Have you ever stopped to consider that you actually are but for some reason just won't admit it? As has been said by many people before, if everyone is supposedly "misinterpreting" your position then that's probably your fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:... Oh..okay. Then I would argue against point 2 (Libertarianism is an unknown) a bit. I'm not sure I can point to a nation that tried to get on without regulations at all (except maybe Somalia after it's government collapsed) but I would argue that we can get some ideas of what a libertarian society would look like based on small-scale examples, among which I would count SeaStead, Galt's Gulch chile, bitcoin and its derivatives (maybe not all of them, but I don't care enough to even try and find out what they all might be, nevermind categorize them), the Triangle factory fire and the Raza plaza disaster and basically most other instances of whatever may have happened when regulations against heinous stuff either weren't in place, or were in place but were ignored. Surprisingly, a bunch of heinous stuff happened. And will likely continue to happen. So..yeah. Democratic socialism, ho! I don't think anyone is calling for a totally socialist government ITT. Except maybe Paragon1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A clear failure on Hayek's part, of course. There seems to be a double standard here. When someone "inspired by Marx" supports a brutal dictatorship, we should count that as a point of historical proof that socialism leads to dictatorships. And it's meaningless to object that socialist theory doesn't support gulags and purges because theory is an unreliable predictor and history is much better. This seems all right. But then when someone quotes Hayek supporting Pinochet (or apartheid South Africa as a bulwark against Communism, as Hayek also did) and reasons that a  temporary dictatorship to protect property rights is more liberal than a democratic government with a broadly popular mandate to redistribute land...all of a sudden that's just a personal failing on his part because see according to libertarian theory no true libertarian would support a dictatorship, so that just simply wasn't very libertarian of Hayek.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ah: controversial opinion time! This opinion is still a complete non-sequitur to someone saying "Okay, you don't consider victims of the Irish potato famine to be casualties of capitalism, what about these even more clearly linked example?", so I still don't know why you brought it up unless you want to imply that Native Americans and enslaved Africans somehow deserved what happened to them, or that Europeans were somehow justified in their own violence. Cingulate posted:Replace "the only sensible" with "a" to make it simpler. quote:I'm not good on US history, but wasn't the New Deal basically a response to the Great Depression? Yes? The only people I can think of who dispute this are libertarians and some "fiscal conservatives Pre-New Deal United States is often touted as an ideal time that libertarians wish to return to, and the policies of the times are often pointed out as being basically the same as policies libertarians claim to support i.e. loving terrible.
paragon1 fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It seems to me you are still somehow assuming I must be defending libertarianism as a viable policy. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're saying. Not at all. But I must ask myself (and you) what your understanding of libertarianism is and what/who informs it, or we have no basis for any real discussion and are just talking in circles into the ether.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It seems to me you are still somehow assuming I must be defending libertarianism as a viable policy. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're saying. This is like the fifth time you have posted something to the effect of "I don't understand what you are saying" in the last couple of days. Have you considered the problem is with you? Because at this point it feels like you are throwing that out as a quasi insult everytime someone makes an argument or point you can't easily refute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:This is like the fifth time you have posted something to the effect of "I don't understand what you are saying" in the last couple of days. Careful now. Take that tone with him and he'll PM you to let you know he's putting you on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Careful now. Take that tone with him and he'll PM you to let you know he's putting you on ignore. did this happen to you by any chance
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:So..yeah. Democratic socialism, ho! I don't think anyone is calling for a totally socialist government ITT. Except maybe Paragon1. I am, for the record. Though I don't consider myself nearly well-versed enough in political theory to know how to get there or what specifically to do once we arrive, I want worker ownership of the means of production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Careful now. Take that tone with him and he'll PM you to let you know he's putting you on ignore. loving lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Theoretically we could arrive at a socialist society without changing the government or the government itself intervening at all, as far as I know. I don't think it'll happen that way in a million years, but it is legally possible as far as my understanding of the law and socialism goes. Edit: Unless one means "a socialist government" in the sense of the governing party or parties being socialist ones, but I think the above holds true even then. I'm pretty sure the government could legally nationalize everything right the hell now if they could somehow pony up the cash for that, and had the political will and support to do so, and they didn't immediately ousted in elections, military coup, etc. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Theoretically we could arrive at a socialist society without changing the government or the government itself intervening at all, as far as I know. I don't think it'll happen that way in a million years, but it is legally possible as far as my understanding of the law and socialism goes. Technically speaking, wouldn't full socialism be achieved just by reincorporating all businesses to be employee-owned? The workers would own the means of production, in a very literal sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Technically speaking, wouldn't full socialism be achieved just by reincorporating all businesses to be employee-owned? The workers would own the means of production, in a very literal sense. e: Like, as opposed to the whole "Federal Department of Lunch, massive breadlines everywhere." If there's a robust social safety net you wouldn't even need the government being involved in such things, though you would probably want to nationalize utilities and similar bare essentials. If you and your buddy's shoe factory fails, well, that sucks buddy, fall back into the safety net and get on with your lives. Nessus fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Pretty much what I was thinking, yeah. Co-operatives and employee owned business models already provide a mechanism for achieving "workers owning the means of production", but of course rearranging things such that it is the dominant model when so much wealth is already vested in so very few hands is a huge problem. I have a very hard time seeing that happening without some measure of force, revolutionary or not. Edit: And really redistributing the wealth so that everyone owns the means by which they produce their labor isn't all their isn't my ideal of what socialism, full or not, is, but more of a prerequisite goal for further things to get done. To bring this back to libertarians, I can't really recall ever seeing any sort of proposed framework by libertarians for how to get closer to their ideal outside of vague sentiments of accelerationism, isolationism, and/or just getting everyone to hold hands, and like, believe maaaaaan. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Hey Cingulate, your whole argument rests on the idea that libertarianism is untested but probably a better bet than socialism, even if you prefer "liberal social democracy" above both. That's a soft support for libertarianism, so stop acting so surprised people are arguing against this formulation like it's not what you've been saying. Also, your understanding of the New Deal as a "sensible" solution to the Great Depression makes me think you assume the decision was taken thorough some technocratic analysis disconnected from politics. Totally false, first because large portions of the ideological spectrum of the Us did and still do oppose it, but also because it didn't actually solve the great depression, and the US economy really only recovers fully after than massive production increases from the wartime economy. As far as I can tel,, you treat modern "Western Society" as if it emerged ex nihilo right now, rather than as an ongoing political process. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
There's actually another great entry in the annals of ideological capitalism supporting authoritarian dictatorships related to the New Deal: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plotted-to-overthrow-fdrquote:Critics on the right worried that Roosevelt was a Communist, a socialist or the tool of a Jewish conspiracy. Critics on the left complained his policies didn't go far enough. Some of Roosevelt's opponents didn't stop at talk. Though it's barely remembered today, there was a genuine conspiracy to overthrow the president. eta: Butler was a pretty hilarious choice to be honest. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC posted:War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:did this happen to you by any chance Why, yes! Yes it did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:historical proof that socialism leads to dictatorships Buried alive posted:Oh..okay. Then I would argue against point 2 (Libertarianism is an unknown) a bit. I'm not sure I can point to a nation that tried to get on without regulations at all (except maybe Somalia after it's government collapsed) but I would argue that we can get some ideas of what a libertarian society would look like based on small-scale examples, among which I would count SeaStead, Galt's Gulch chile, bitcoin and its derivatives (maybe not all of them, but I don't care enough to even try and find out what they all might be, nevermind categorize them), the Triangle factory fire and the Raza plaza disaster and basically most other instances of whatever may have happened when regulations against heinous stuff either weren't in place, or were in place but were ignored. Surprisingly, a bunch of heinous stuff happened. And will likely continue to happen. I don't think the beginning and end of your post are fair; first, libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism typically involves something like state guarantee of personal property. I assume that was not given in Somalia. Next, I don't think pointing to instances of ignoring regulations are useful examples; couldn't you just as well say they're examples of how a state built on regulations and norms fails (or a thousand other stories)? So this is IMO not examples for what happens when people decide to build a society inspired by Hayek and Mises. But if there was a somewhat longer list of explicitly libertarian experiments - like SeaStead (never heard of it, but I assume it failed stupidly?), Galt's Gulch - maybe one can find 2 more or so - and they all fall consistently in some way, then that's an indication of what might happen if it's implemented at a larger scale, and without pre-selecting for cranks. Which seems more comical than scary, you must admit. Jack of Hearts posted:No, rather, let's play your chosen game. Why do you think that's a valid definition? Cite sources. Yours? Sephyr posted:Not at all. But I must ask myself (and you) what your understanding of libertarianism is and what/who informs it, or we have no basis for any real discussion and are just talking in circles into the ether. Like, I occasionally stumble across something Ron Paul or Ayn Rand or Herman Hoppe or Tea Party people or whoever wrote, and it always strikes me as various degrees of insanity. I don't find that at all interesting, intellectually speaking. But Nozick provides an IME conceptually very serious challenge to any redistributivist policy. To sum it up in two sentences: Nozick posted:"... individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent. Individuals are inviolable." (Now I am not saying I accept that; I am saying, I consider it a serious challenge.) I also read post-WW2 anti-totalitarian writers - particularly Popper and Berlin - and while they're not particularly libertarian, they're close (e.g., Popper, Mises, Friedman and Hayek co-founding the Mont Pelerin Society, with Popper disengaging because he couldn't convince the others to also invite socialists for an actually open, critical debate). That's for what I'm informed by. My understanding of libertarianism is, I don't really have one - it seems to be more of a heterogenous cluster concept than e.g. Marxism, which is rather well defined, or capitalism or democracy. E.g, Friedman supported a Basic Income, Nozick hated Rand and supported individual's and group's rights to sue firms over poisoning the environment. What we have in the real world right now seems on cursory glance more like a few loosely related cults than coherent political movements. I know there are people who somehow start at "property rights!" and end at "thus, racial segregation" or at least terrible scifi books, but again, while the existing political movement(s) may be somewhere between ridiculous and dumb, the philosophical foundation is not trivially ignored. Maybe one could cite Nozick's take on just distribution of goods here, which is a historical theory; distribution of goods is just only when every good is owned by somebody who has acquired it through a chain of just transactions. And that I would read mostly as a negative argument: that you have to argue on what philosophical grounds you dare deviating from it. So philosophical libertarianism would entail 1. a strict defense of individual rights, of negative over positive freedom, 2. a historical theory of justice. Now all of this is admittedly really academic and I don't see any serious credible politician building anything on it sensible people could consider voting for, but it's a serious philosophical position. As for a positive claim: I believe Nozick's argument is coherent and defensible, and not easily refuted. Not necessarily useful; but philosophically defensible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
That's a lot of words to write without actually adopting a position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
So the argument you thought you were having is Nozick versus an absolutist definition of socialism taken from Lenin. Ok great. That was not the argument we were having though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:So the argument you thought you were having is Nozick versus an absolutist definition of socialism taken from Lenin. Ok great. Not even that. Notice that Cingulate carefully does not take a position on the truth or falsity of Nozick's account. Only that it is 'not easily refuted.' Which, again, is not an opinion about political philosophy, it is an opinion about the proper course for a dialogue about political philosophy, which seems like an intensely boring subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:So the argument you thought you were having is Nozick versus an absolutist definition of socialism taken from Lenin. Ok great. I mean, go and surprise me, but I would not think that the definition of the word socialism is controversial outside of the circles who also take serious the notion of Cultural Marxism and consider Obama a member of the Gay Muslim mafia. Juffo-Wup posted:That's a lot of words to write without actually adopting a position. That's a position I hold. Totally not my original observation, but actually much more friendly to actual libertarianism; it should be controversial enough. Juffo-Wup posted:Not even that. Notice that Cingulate carefully does not take a position on the truth or falsity of Nozick's account. Only that it is 'not easily refuted.' Which, again, is not an opinion about political philosophy, it is an opinion about the proper course for a dialogue about political philosophy, which seems like an intensely boring subject. But it's a bit stronger than how "it's not easily refuted" makes it sound. It's coherent and sound; that's about the second-highest level I go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
'Sound' entails 'has a true conclusion.' Is that the position you intended to take?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
There's nothing about the definition of socialism that requires a planned economy out a strong central state. I provided you examples above. Things like syndicalism area also very closely related and also do not require a Leninist or Maoist construction of society. You cherry pick examples to fit your conclusion. Your reticence to actually starts your beliefs also makes me think your devil's advocate positioning is even more disingenuous than I initially though.
Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:'Sound' entails 'has a true conclusion.' Is that the position you intended to take? That's the position I intend to take. Sedge and Bee posted:There's nothing about the definition of socialism that requires a planned economy out a strong central state JoH was confused about the definition of socialism. I showed that my definition is the dictionary one. (It's trivial to see that Sanders is not a socialist by this definition. He is by Fox News definitions though!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
In which case your philosophical libertarianism isn't actually in direct conflict with it, especially given the idea of historical justice, and using Leninism and its followers as your "means something" counterexample is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sound as in free of obvious defect, or valid given the premises. So when you said '(Now I am not saying I accept that; I am saying, I consider it a serious challenge.)' You were, what, lying? Understating your thesis for comic effect? An argument is valid just in case the conclusion is strictly entailed by the conjunction of the premises. An argument is sound just in case it is valid and all the premises are true. So to be clear: you are now saying that Nozick's account of justice is correct, is that right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
I must apologize, because I did skip most of like the last three pages. poo poo is loving dense as all hell, and not as entertaining as jrode. Cingulate, what the actual gently caress are you trying to argue? Are you arguing Libertarianism vs. Socialism, or are you arguing about arguing? It seems like half of what you go on about is whether or not something is or isn't a valid argument to make, and when someone asks for your actual position you just throw your hands up and go "I'm a special snow-flake, I have no opinion." Do you not see why this is frustrating? People are giving you the run down of why Libertarianism is awful, and all you can do is go on about how there is no "historical evidence" and delving into semantics and splitting of hairs. You want to know why Libertarianism is badwrong and worse than anything Bernie Sanders would ever wish to unleash? Because they use the same loving language and dog-whistle racism that uber-nationalist conservatives do. Trust me, that's no accident. The surface may seem smooth and calm, but there's a torrent under that thin veneer of ice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Those people don't count as libertarian. They aren't "interesting". Only Lenin versus hypothetical Nozwick state here. It also occurs to me that to be fair to socialism, you would also have to include all the communist movements that were suppressed and exterminated of the definition used claims to be more encompassing that Leninism. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Those people don't count as libertarian. They aren't "interesting". Only Lenin versus hypothetical Nozwick state here. So what you're saying is, no Libertarian is a true Libertarian, therefor we cannot conceive what an actual Libertarian would want/do? Is this what Cingulate is trying to argue?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:In which case your philosophical libertarianism isn't actually in direct conflict with it, especially given the idea of historical justice Sedge and Bee posted:using Leninism and its followers as your "means something" counterexample is bullshit. I'm not sure what you mean, but I am not using a particularly leninist interpretation of socialism. I am using the definition given by Merriam-Webster, Wikipedia, my Apple dictionary, UD.com, and every other dictionary you can find. Juffo-Wup posted:So when you said '(Now I am not saying I accept that; I am saying, I consider it a serious challenge.)' You were, what, lying? Understating your thesis for comic effect? Or: it [edit: Nozick's] is an argument I'd be willing to defend as being correct. (Not so much as deserving political impact; personally, I consider both the idea of private property, and the idea of desert highly artificial and potentially inherently incoherent constructs, so the argument is essentially without consequence for me. But if you happen to not share these views, you might have to justify your own before Nozick.) Cingulate fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I must apologize, because I did skip most of like the last three pages. poo poo is loving dense as all hell, and not as entertaining as jrode. I have repeatedly stated a few very clear, simple opinions. If it is impossible for you to figure out any of the following, you are not paying attention: 1. which currently existing societies I consider best 2. what my original point was (buried alive paraphrased it perfectly) 3. if I consider any current libertarians electable, or whom I would vote for
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Let's not get stuck on semantics, especially not given that they are clear. I am, again, using the dictionary definition of sound: clear of obvious defect; valid given the premises. You are us using technical vocabulary in a way that is both incorrect and ill-defined. Turns out, in a debate using natural language, it matters what words mean. Cingulate posted:Or: it is an argument I'd be willing to defend as being correct. Historical evidence suggests this is not the case, or else you'd have done it by now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You are us using technical vocabulary in a way that is both incorrect and ill-defined. Turns out, in a debate using natural language, it matters what words mean. I am using a very simple definition of sound: clear of obvious defect; valid given the premises.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I would be unaware of anyone stating, lest attacking, Nozick's position. But you can link me to a specific attack on it I may have missed, and I promise you to word salad all over it. No, it is not our responsibility to frame your argument for you. If you want to adopt a position on political philosophy, then get to it, because so far you've avoided this like the plague. Cingulate posted:I am using a very simple definition of sound: clear of obvious defect; valid given the premises. I'm sorry, but your definition is wrong. 'Valid given the premises' doesn't make sense, because validity as a concept is already about the relation borne between a set of premises, a set of inferences, and a conclusion. You still haven't said anything about the truth of the premises, which is what you need to establish soundness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up, Cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:I am interested in what enemies can tell us about the flaws in our own arguments. I consider it at best almost without purpose to repeatedly and uncritically agree on something being bad; and at worst, actively harmful to progress. While I understand the best way to evaluate one's position is to examine our weaknesses and flaws, and create counter arguments, that doesn't come across very clearly in your posting. quote:I have repeatedly stated a few very clear, simple opinions. If it is impossible for you to figure out any of the following, you are not paying attention: Like I said, I skipped over a lot because there were lots of words about words and what words are words. Sorry, but your writing style doesn't exactly inspire me to go back and read your posts; nevermind that it's rather late in the evening here and I don't feel much like wasting my time with deciphering your opinions. Also, this: Who What Now posted:Shut the gently caress up, Cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:53
|
|