|
paragon1 posted:libertarianism says its okay to gently caress kids so it attracts a lot of moral paragons of virtue and individualism who want to gently caress kids.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The article will be posted on RationalWiki, though if you guys think it's good enough it can be crossposted to SA's libertarian wiki. lol, literally any effort is good enough for the Libertarians Wiki, it's been really neglected for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The argument lately has been over your side's supposition that only libertarians support the ability to have underage sex. The issue isn't that pedophiles exist within any ideology, it's that pedophilia is a unique fail state of libertarianism, in that as soon as you start applying its principles consistently, you end up with "loving kids is okay". The only way to avoid this is to specifically carve out a special status for children within the ethical framework of libertarianism. When a particular strain of libertarianism holds that the basis for rights is self-ownership, then it effectively has two statuses it can apply to something: an object either exercises self-ownership, or it is itself capable of being owned by others. You own property, or you are property. There are a few ways to handle this: 1) Just ignore this and handle children like most good parents do. The downside of this is it flagrantly contradicts a number of libertarian ideals. Caring for a child responsibly assumes children have positive rights—not just the negative ones usually endorsed by libertarianism—which adults, for some reason, do not have. On the upside, your child doesn't starve to death. 2) Create a status in-between owner and property specifically for children (and possibly for disabled people). This creates a sort of "trustee" role for parents and guardians, whereby they care for someone else's property, except in this case that "someone else" is their own future-adult child. This has the obvious problem in that nowhere else in libertarianism is it possible to create a contract with a party that doesn't even exist yet. i.e., you cannot be a "trustee" of, say, the moon, because there is no owner of the moon to create a contract with in the first place. A transaction needs at least two people, after all, or it is not a transaction. On the other hand, your child still won't starve to death. 3) Don't create any special exceptions for children and assume they exercise full self-ownership. Under this approach, self-ownership cannot be abrogated under any circumstances. This necessitates that all humans are capable of entering into contracts, and therefore, capable of giving consent. (Even in the case of literal babies, it's not that children are special, but that if two parties have no idea what the other is even saying in the first place—they don't speak the same "language" and no interpreter is available—then neither can really consent to anything.) The downside: adults can gently caress twelve-year-olds. The upside: none, but at least you're not breaking your own philosophy. 4) Don't create any special exceptions for children and assume they're the property of their parents. Libertarians who take this approach are probably okay with at least indentured servitude, if not full-blown slavery. In this approach, children can't consent because they don't even "own" themselves—their parents own them. Ergo, if a parent wants to prostitute their 8-year-old child to adults, that's fine. The downside: adults can gently caress children. The upside: still none, but if you take this approach then you don't particularly care about that anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
He's taking Roy off the grid! He doesn't have a social security number for Roy!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Libertarians hold different beliefs about things, therefore no libertarians can ever be accused of holding any belief. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The argument lately has been over your side's supposition that only libertarians support the ability to have underage sex. No it hasn't. The argument has been that pedophiles are more often attracted to the libertarian moral framework because strict adherence to libertarianism allows one to easily justify pedophilia. You might feel like children are off-limits under libertarianism, but that puts you at odds with major libertarian figures (Rothbard, Mises) as well as large swathes of the libertarian population (or at least with the samples of that population that have been posted here and in the bitcoin thread). Also, you're ignoring that "minimal government" libertarianism is not a natural endpoint for the moral framework of libertarianism. quote:I then went on to posit that the views of a tiny portion of supporters of a party is belief do not taint the entire party or belief system. Pedophiles aren't tainting libertarianism, rather libertarianism naturally enables pedophilia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
One of the problems with age of consent laws is that question of "where, exactly, do you draw the line and why?" The libertarian answer is commonly "well people own themselves so they can do whatever they want with their selves, right? See, nobody can seem to agree where that line should be so the maximum freedom answer is to remove it completely." Which is...stupid. So, so stupid. There are very good reasons we don't trust people under X age with Y thing from a legal standpoint. The laws aren't perfect but "destroy them entirely" is the worst possible answer. It's like they heard about the line drawing fallacy and declared all laws invalid because of it. I mean really, prominent libertarian thinkers have argued that the best way to deal with orphaned children is to literally sell them on the free market. If that doesn't say "back away slowly and don't make eye contact" I don't know what does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Libertarians will hear that and think, "It's someone else's kid probably so who cares, also somehow this means less taxes for me."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Do you ever wish the Internet Itself was more Libertarian, and by definition, more FREE? Then you're in luck! edit: wait did we catch a live libertarian? Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the problems with age of consent laws is that question of "where, exactly, do you draw the line and why?" Some people say that weasel words are great xtal fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Sure, libertarianism is openly and vocally designed to promote white supremacy, but saying it's also amenable to rape is just beyond the pale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Do you ever wish the Internet Itself was more Libertarian, and by definition, more FREE? It's open source! Please ignore the bones of Diaspora and MeeGo in the corner over there. This open source alternative to a multi-billion dollar corporation's immensely popular product is completely unlike those other open source alternatives to a multi-billion dollar corporation's immensely popular product. It has a blockchain! (At this point the word "blockchain" is now a reason to run far, far away from any project.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:It's open source! Please ignore the bones of Diaspora and MeeGo in the corner over there. This open source alternative to a multi-billion dollar corporation's immensely popular product is completely unlike those other open source alternatives to a multi-billion dollar corporation's immensely popular product. It has a blockchain! I saw this the other day and posted about it in YOSPOS, can't believe I forgot to post it here as well. One of the lead designers of this garbage regularly posts on the an cap subreddit, which makes it all the funnier that they spend all this time going on about community for a project that would be almost instantly dominated by the wealthy. Astonishingly this is an even stupider idea than synereo, eripsa's fever dream social networking site.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
I dunno, it's hard to get dumber than a system that pelts you in the face with marbles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:edit: wait did we catch a live libertarian? Not really; Nitrousoxide self-labels as libertarian but also supports a guaranteed minimum income, democracy, and a strong court system, all things that are at conflict with most libertarian philosophies
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Not really; Nitrousoxide self-labels as libertarian but also supports a guaranteed minimum income, democracy, and a strong court system, all things that are at conflict with most libertarian philosophies A Hayek follower, then so probably a leftist here in a year or two
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Not really; Nitrousoxide self-labels as libertarian but also supports a guaranteed minimum income, democracy, and a strong court system, all things that are at conflict with most libertarian philosophies My libertarianism comes from utilitarianism, not from a rights-based approach like most libertarians. I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time, but that where it fails to do so, or where non-market forces are necessary to enable the market to work (like courts), other tact's can be used. Jazerus posted:A Hayek follower, then Yeah. Hayek is probably the most influential thinker in my politics. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:lol, literally any effort is good enough for the Libertarians Wiki, it's been really neglected for a while. We have a wiki? I can spare some bandwidth to help (now that my fancy study is... In progress?!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I've stopped clicking links in this thread because having Mises.org and other horrible things leave their mark on my browser history makes me feel unclean. An another note, I've noticed that "libertarian" these days is even more amorphous than "socialist" where the latter is usually used as an insult and the former always should be. From what I see, it's (d)evolved into this vague shorthand in the same way that the word "friend" is used by most North Americans to describe anyone that they know but are not actively trying to kill, except that in this case it's shorthand for "The government once did something that pissed me off. Also, I am an rear end in a top hat*" *Also possibly a paedophile
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time Why would you think this? Surely a system that distributed resources based on need rather than on ability to pay would create a greater good for a greater number, no?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Why would you think this? Surely a system that distributed resources based on need rather than on ability to pay would create a greater good for a greater number, no? Not if it is inefficient like all centrally planned economies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Not if it is inefficient like all centrally planned economies. Inefficient in what way, exactly? And how is this inefficiency inherent to central planning?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:We have a wiki? I can spare some bandwidth to help (now that my fancy study is... In progress?!). http://libertarians.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarians_Wikia I think Goon Danton runs it tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My libertarianism comes from utilitarianism, not from a rights-based approach like most libertarians. I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time, but that where it fails to do so, or where non-market forces are necessary to enable the market to work (like courts), other tact's can be used. Your position is actually called "market socialism", fyi I also developed politically in a Mill -> Hayek direction and once you get over the whole "government is inherently poo poo" thing you discover you're actually on the left. It's why Hayek is poorly thought of among the real shitheads like ancaps. You have acknowledged that the state is useful for collective action so it's just a matter of time. Edit: On a different note, https://twitter.com/rtdnews/status/772260781916352513 here come dat Gary Jazerus fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My libertarianism comes from utilitarianism, not from a rights-based approach like most libertarians. I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time, but that where it fails to do so, or where non-market forces are necessary to enable the market to work (like courts), other tact's can be used. This is literally the way America works right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:My libertarianism comes from utilitarianism, not from a rights-based approach like most libertarians. I think that the market is the best way to cause the greatest good for the greatest number most of the time, but that where it fails to do so, or where non-market forces are necessary to enable the market to work (like courts), other tact's can be used. That's explicitly not libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
"Efficiency" isn't a useful attribute until it's better defined. Efficient at what? For whom?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Providing goods and services to those that need and/or desire them, I would assume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:http://libertarians.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarians_Wikia I'm just the ideas guy. HorseLord posted:That's explicitly not libertarianism. Utilitarianism is actually pretty common among the non-ancap libertarian thinkers. Hayek obviously, but our old friend Ludwig von Mises was Nitrousoxide posted:Not if it is inefficient like all centrally planned economies. The eternal issue with criticisms of central planning is pretty simple: if it's so inefficient, than why do so many successful corporations in the free market run using a central planning model internally?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:"Efficiency" isn't a useful attribute until it's better defined. Efficient at what? For whom? paragon1 posted:Providing goods and services to those that need and/or desire them, I would assume. ------- Goon Danton posted:Utilitarianism is actually pretty common among the non-ancap libertarian thinkers. Hayek obviously, but our old friend Ludwig von Mises was Yeah. Goon Danton posted:The eternal issue with criticisms of central planning is pretty simple: if it's so inefficient, than why do so many successful corporations in the free market run using a central planning model internally? Because the market weeds out those who are inefficient. You don't just have one firm providing phones, you have dozens. If one is hot garbage it'll get bought or go under. Obviously it's not gonna be the ideal market with thousands of producers all making identical widgets but it's close enough to get a much more efficient outcome that a state driven approach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Because the market weeds out those who are inefficient. You don't just have one firm providing phones, you have dozens. If one is hot garbage it'll get bought or go under. Obviously it's not gonna be the ideal market with thousands of producers all making identical widgets but it's close enough to get a much more efficient outcome that a state driven approach. What I mean is, those efficient firms are all under central planning internally. Individual firms don't have competing factories submitting products to competing QA departments. Why aren't they being outcompeted by firms that do those things, if central planning is naturally less efficient? Why did switching to a competitive internal market cripple Sears rather than causing it to dominate the competition?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What I mean is, those efficient firms are all under central planning internally. Individual firms don't have competing factories submitting products to competing QA departments. Why aren't they being outcompeted by firms that do those things, if central planning is naturally less efficient? Why did switching to a competitive internal market cripple Sears rather than causing it to dominate the competition? Because the goods and services being provided are complex enough to require a great deal of team work to deliver. Like the body of an animal requires a great deal of synergy to work correctly, but ecologies don't thrive by mutual symbiosis, but on competition. Individual actors might be made up of non competing parts, but to keep them lean and efficient they need to be challenged by their environment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Because the goods and services being provided are complex enough to require a great deal of team work to deliver. Holy poo poo no way it's almost like that's what people have been saying
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Individual actors might be made up of non competing parts, but to keep them lean and efficient they need to be challenged by their environment. So in summary, they're an exception because they would otherwise disprove your theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I would argue that large firms are also inefficient because of their central planning, and plagued by Sloanist MBA irrationality like the extreme overvaluation of administrative overhead and fixed capital costs at the expense of labor. :mutualism101:
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Markets are efficient, therefore society should be run by markets. Horse-collar-ploughs made farms vastly more efficient, therefore farms should be run by horses. Steam engines are very efficient, therefore all matter should be converted into steam engines. Alternately, all these things are tools which can be introduced into systems to improve their effects in more meaningful ways than "efficiency".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:We have a wiki? I can spare some bandwidth to help (now that my fancy study is... In progress?!). Congrats on the study comrade!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Would Libertarians agree, to make it fair for everyone when everything is deregulated and no law barriers to a market X, all traces that exist already to that market will have to be destroyed and dismantled. For example pharmacy. To make it a true libertarian free market, you would have to destroy Pfizer, Novartis, etc as they would have an unfair advantage to everyone else wanting to sell in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Like the body of an animal requires a great deal of synergy to work correctly, but ecologies don't thrive by mutual symbiosis, but on competition. Thank you for your great insight into the world of biology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:27
|
|