Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Curvature of Earth
Sep 9, 2011

Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

Goon Danton posted:

The Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight
By Murray Rothbard
Originally published May 1970

It is high time, and past due, that someone blew the whistle on “Women’s Liberation.”

Continued.

Murray Rothbard posted:


...irrational discrimination in employment tends to be minimal in the free market ...everyone tends to fill the job he can best accomplish, to work at his most productive efforts. ...If women have persistently lower pay and poorer jobs, even after correcting for the motherhood-dropout, then the simple reason must be that their marginal productivity tends to be lower than men.
Murray Rothbard spent his entire life riding the wingnut welfare gravy train, his career bought for him by wealthy libertarians.

I'm sure this stallion of marginal productivity is highly qualified to talk about competitive labor markets.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Jack of Hearts posted:

Cingulate: A Socrates gone completely worthless.

The "public ownership of the means of production" is not even implicit in socialism.
So what is your definition?

Sephyr posted:

....alright, now I'm stumped.

Pretty much every single libertarian author (really; there's no controversy on this issue) consider the New Deal toxic, and many claim that it CAUSED the Depression. Many more claim it extended the crisis and was worse than doing nothing and just allowing the Free Market to fix itself, which the big bad government prevented.
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.

Tacky-Ass Rococco
Sep 7, 2010

by R. Guyovich

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.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009

Cingulate posted:

...

No, that's a 100% accurate summary. You have perfectly grasped and rephrased the essence of my position. (Maybe the dissonance you perceive would disappear once I could convince you that I am, contrary to public opinion, not in fact pro libertarian, but, as I have repeatedly stated, helplessly skeptic first and a social democrat second?)
...

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.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

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 :airquote:temporary:airquote: 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.

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Cingulate posted:

Ah: controversial opinion time!

Because IMO western civilization is much better than a lot of people give it credit for. Or alternatively, almost every other way of being is much worse than a lot of people give them credit for.


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.
Okay

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 :airquote: "fiscal conservatives :airquote: 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

Sephyr
Aug 28, 2012

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.

Caros
May 14, 2008

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.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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.

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.

Careful now. Take that tone with him and he'll PM you to let you know he's putting you on ignore.

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW

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

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

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.

GunnerJ
Aug 1, 2005

Do you think this is funny?

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

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW
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

Curvature of Earth
Sep 9, 2011

Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

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.

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.

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.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



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.
This would probably constitute a rather major expropriation from the capital class, which makes the idea somewhat questionable, but there's no reason why you couldn't have a socialist economy with what we would recognize as companies and firms providing similar goods and services, just from employee-owned factories and plants rather than the current model.

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

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW
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

Beelzebufo
Mar 5, 2015

Frog puns are toadally awesome


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

GunnerJ
Aug 1, 2005

Do you think this is funny?
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-fdr

quote:

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.

The Wall Street Putsch, as it's known today, was a plot by a group of right-wing financiers.

"They thought that they could convince Roosevelt, because he was of their, the patrician class, they thought that they could convince Roosevelt to relinquish power to basically a fascist, military-type government," Denton says.

"It was a cockamamie concept," she adds, "and the fact that it even got as far as it did is pretty shocking."

The conspirators had several million dollars, a stockpile of weapons and had even reached out to a retired Marine general, Smedley Darlington Butler, to lead their forces.

"Had he been a different kind of person, it might have gone a lot further," Denton says. "But he saw it as treason and he reported it to Congress."

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.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Apr 10, 2016

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

paragon1 posted:

did this happen to you by any chance

Why, yes! Yes it did.

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

VitalSigns posted:

historical proof that socialism leads to dictatorships
There can never be such a thing (historical proof). Find me repeated failures, that's a trend though. (I'm not saying you won't, I'm saying, that's the form of evidence that matters.)

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.

So..yeah. Democratic socialism, ho! I don't think anyone is calling for a totally socialist government ITT. Except maybe Paragon1.
Okay, I think this is one of the best responses so far, in that you're actually responding to my point. In principle, this is just how one would show I'm dead wrong.
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.
Same as in my post; also see Merriam-Webster or Wikipedia (with 7 further links) or Lenin's definition in State and Revolution.
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.
I'm mostly coming from having read a few words by Nozick. (I wrote a bad term paper on his criticism of Rand once, and actually went into his position on libertarianism for the sake of a D&D exchange a year or two ago.)

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.

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug
That's a lot of words to write without actually adopting a position.

Beelzebufo
Mar 5, 2015

Frog puns are toadally awesome


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.

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug

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.

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

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.

That was not the argument we were having though.
FWIW, the Lenin reference was literally the last thing I added to the post; I just thought, hm, that's the mainstream definition of socialism, maybe I should look at what Marx actually said? And he didn't say much, but Lenin provided exactly the same definition as everyone else.

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.
Nozick's theory of justice is sound and reasonably robust.
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.
I guess I am easily excited.

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.

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug
'Sound' entails 'has a true conclusion.' Is that the position you intended to take?

Beelzebufo
Mar 5, 2015

Frog puns are toadally awesome


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

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Juffo-Wup posted:

'Sound' entails 'has a true conclusion.' Is that the position you intended to take?
Sound as in free of obvious defect, or valid given the premises.
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
Yes, and ..?

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!)

Beelzebufo
Mar 5, 2015

Frog puns are toadally awesome


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.

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug

Cingulate posted:

Sound as in free of obvious defect, or valid given the premises.
That's the position I intend to take.

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?

CovfefeCatCafe
Apr 11, 2006

A fresh attitude
brewed daily!
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.

Beelzebufo
Mar 5, 2015

Frog puns are toadally awesome


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

CovfefeCatCafe
Apr 11, 2006

A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

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?

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

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
How is a historical theory of justice not in absolute opposition to socialism? Nozick for sure thinks so.

Sedge and Bee posted:

using Leninism and its followers as your "means something" counterexample is bullshit.
What?

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?

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?
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.

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

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

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.

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.
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.

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

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug

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.

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

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.


Historical evidence suggests this is not the case, or else you'd have done it by now.
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.

I am using a very simple definition of sound: clear of obvious defect; valid given the premises.

Juffo-Wup
Jan 13, 2005

Pillbug

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.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth
Shut the gently caress up, Cingulate.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CovfefeCatCafe
Apr 11, 2006

A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

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:

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

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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply