|
Man you guys are testy.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Man you guys are testy. And expecting you to actually state your position on something that could be refuted is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, since this is really the socialist thread not the libertarian thread, ...you should resume the argument about central planning you abandoned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Grognan posted:And expecting you to actually state your position on something that could be refuted is impossible. What? Can you provide an example of a position I didn't state a position on but was asked about? I mean there are probably some since I generally get like a dozen people arguing with me everytime I post in this thread so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed some stuff or just got burned out trying to hold a bunch of separate conversations at once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:...you should resume the argument about central planning you abandoned? I dunno I got burned out arguing with like half a dozen people at once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I dunno I got burned out arguing with like half a dozen people at once. Congrats on admitting you suck at posting Worse than me goddamn
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I dunno I got burned out arguing with like half a dozen people at once. Too busy to actually say anything, got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I dunno I got burned out arguing with like half a dozen people at once. There's no law saying you have to engage any more than however many you think you can handle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, since this is really the socialist thread not the libertarian thread[/url] Nitrousoxide posted:Man you guys are testy. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait how are anarchists and traditionalists both good? Don't they have opposite views on very important moral questions like "is slavery good", "should we force everyone to be $MY_RELIGION" or "is race-mixing fundamentally evil" ? I'm pretty sure anarchism is basically "Let's tear down the current government and replace it with a decentralized version of [preferred ideology]." Since the preferred ideology can be basically anything, that's how you get anarchists on all sides of the political spectrum. Spectra.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
I think that's the first bit of snark I've shown in this entire thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
A professional poster doesn't whine about how many people they have to reply to, Nitro. I'm reporting you to the posting guild to get you posting disbarred for this! eta: lol nice edit tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, since this is really the socialist thread not the libertarian thread, and this topic came up in the last few weeks, I'll post this here. It's the thread to mock Libertarians in, actually. This has been explained to you before more than once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
From the C-SPAM thread:Sebadoh Gigante posted:It seems like it'd be easy to catfish someone from the other party with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Whatever. I think that experiment is cool and look forward to the data from the result. It'll be interesting to if the major concern with a GBI (discouraging the unemployed to find employment, or seek under employment) will coalesce or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Whatever. I think that experiment is cool and look forward to the data from the result. It'll be interesting to if the major concern with a GBI (discouraging the unemployed to find employment, or seek under employment) will coalesce or not. What do you mean by "seek under-employment"? As in only work one part-time job instead of three in order to survive? What would that be a concern?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Would either result sway your political opinions in any significant way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What do you mean by "seek under-employment"? As in only work one part-time job instead of three in order to survive? What would that be a concern? Jobs where they don't have the largest comparative advantage since those would be sub optimal from a pure economics perspective. But then maybe they would enjoy the non optimal job better so it's an effective wash. Who's to say. But that is the concern. Juffo-Wup posted:Would either result sway your political opinions in any significant way? I suspect that a GBI would be a better solution than a minimum wage, but there is basically 0 data on GBI so I can't really support it yet at least at a national US level. I'm looking forward to getting data on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm looking forward to getting data on it. Same
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I suspect that a GBI would be a better solution than a minimum wage, but there is basically 0 data on GBI so I can't really support it yet at least at a national US level. I'm looking forward to getting data on it. Okay, fair enough. Follow-up: if it turned out to be a matter of empirical fact that the hedonically best society involved seriously, extensively limiting individual autonomy, would you begin to advocate for a similar system? If so, do you find it uncomfortable that a huge portion of the people with whom you share a political appellation differ from you radically on the question of the fundamental purpose of society and government?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Okay, fair enough. Follow-up: if it turned out to be a matter of empirical fact that the hedonically best society involved seriously, extensively limiting individual autonomy, would you begin to advocate for a similar system? If so, do you find it uncomfortable that a huge portion of the people with whom you share a political appellation differ from you radically on the question of the fundamental purpose of society and government? Well, what are we getting into here? Like there are challenges to utilitarianism in a similar vein. Like suppose it were possible give people brain surgery which would make them incredibly dumb but make them experience intense joy every moment until their death. A simple reading of utilitarianism would say that is the moral thing to do to even unwilling people (ignoring the is/ought problem). Is that what you're talking about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well, what are we getting into here? Like there are challenges to utilitarianism in a similar vein. Something like that, but by way of modus ponens and not, as you're suggesting, as modus tollens. I'm not attacking utilitarianism, just noticing that it's a little strange to continue calling yourself a libertarian when it gives even educated people precisely the wrong idea of your fundamental values and political ideals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Well Libertarianism and utilitarianism aren't the same thing. Your actual position appears to be some kind of market socialism or social democracy, but you call yourself a Libertarian anyway so it's rather confusing. If it were proven tomorrow that a centrally-planned economy were the most effective and efficient way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, would you become a communist, or would you just self-identify as a Libertarian who supports central planning on practical grounds. Is there any political or economic system that wouldn't qualify as Libertarian under your definition provided the evidence existed to support that system on utilitarian grounds?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Something like that, but by way of modus ponens and not, as you're suggesting, as modus tollens. I'm not attacking utilitarianism, just noticing that it's a little strange to continue calling yourself a libertarian when it gives even educated people precisely the wrong idea of your fundamental values and political ideals. Well. A couple of things here. Your example of the oppressed but happy people I think while an interesting thought experiment, does not hold true in our universe, at least for the biology we currently have. We derive a great deal of "headons" from freedoms as evidenced by people willing to fight to the death for them. So it is unlikely that such an intense pleasure could exist to overcome that for the population at large. But as to why I call myself a libertarian, as my ultimate policy positions align with traditional libertarian ones the vast majority of the time, I think it's useful to use that description, even if the path to get there is different. You can take the highway or the back roads to the water park, but you're still in the same place at the end, and that is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Well. A couple of things here. Your example of the oppressed but happy people I think while an interesting thought experiment, does not hold true in our universe, at least for the biology we currently have. We derive a great deal of "headons" from freedoms as evidenced by people willing to fight to the death for them. So it is unlikely that such an intense pleasure could exist to overcome that for the population at large. This is a weird argument. People have fought and died for pretty much every conceivable political ideology, so I hope that's not the extent of your evidence that free markets are good for people. Anyways, that's beside the point. Obviously I don't have any real control over how you choose to present yourself, I'm just saying that you're probably hindering rather than helping people who are interested in understanding your political views.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well Libertarianism and utilitarianism aren't the same thing. Hayek and Mises, both central players in libertarianism, were proponents of utilitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
To a degree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Hayek and Mises, both central players in libertarianism, were proponents of utilitarianism. Mises, for example, used utilitarian arguments to support a libertarian political system. If it turns out those arguments are wrong, and there's a better case to be made for a different system on utilitarian grounds I wouldn't say that system magically becomes "libertarianism", because the definition of a libertarian political system is not "a system founded on utilitarian principles".
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm pretty sure anarchism is basically "Let's tear down the current government and replace it with a decentralized version of [preferred ideology]." Since the preferred ideology can be basically anything, that's how you get anarchists on all sides of the political spectrum. Spectra. Nah, anarchism is always left-wing. Opposition to capitalism and nationalism are at the heart of the philosophy. Hardcore classical liberals started calling themselves anarchists thanks to Murray Rothbard's writings and their hatred of "government", but the vast majority of us consider anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Nah, anarchism is always left-wing. Opposition to capitalism and nationalism are at the heart of the philosophy. Hardcore classical liberals started calling themselves anarchists thanks to Murray Rothbard's writings and their hatred of "government", but the vast majority of us consider anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron. That kind of strays into "No true Scotsman" territory, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Slave societies did this and the math worked out in favor of slavery in the majority of cases, though. It was a very profitable institution even given the security overhead costs. Sparta was kunda unique though. They had to establish an organisation to control their slaves (the crypteia) which is something I don't think other slave dociety had to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
I think it is funny when someone demands empirical evidence to convince them of the incorrectness of policy that was never supported by empirical evidence in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:That kind of strays into "No true Scotsman" territory, though. Arguing that words have actual definitions is not a No True Scotsman. Read up on the history of anarchism. It's an explicitly socialist ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Arguing that words have actual definitions is not a No True Scotsman. Read up on the history of anarchism. It's an explicitly socialist ideology. Definitions change. Note how you had to specify "classical liberals" just now to explain where the ideology originated. When the other side can also argue that you don't understand what words mean, I don't think arguing over the words serves any purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Sure, you can adopt this really weird stance where anybody can call themselves anything because they can string some words together in lieu of a solid argument, but it doesn't mean I have to take their claims seriously. Anarchism is about the opposition of hierarchy and authority in the context of all human relationships, in both the historical definition and the opinion of the majority of contemporary anarchists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:When the other side can also argue that you don't understand what words mean, I don't think arguing over the words serves any purpose. I think arguing over words and what they mean matters a whole lot, actually. It kinda literally sets the terms of any arguement, and agreement or lack thereof on things like that are necessary to determining whether there is any point to having the conversation at all. For examples in this thread: Coercion, violence, government, Lyme disease paragon1 fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Also from that last article: I just noticed the bizarre pattern in this chart: rather than peaking between $35k and $75k a year, the odds of someone self-identifying as middle class keeps going up and up with the more money they make. Almost three-fourths of rich fucks think they're "middle class", despite in practice being paid more than 87% of Americans are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I just noticed the bizarre pattern from this chart: rather than peaking between $35k and $75k a year, the odds of someone self-identifying as middle class increases the more money you make. Almost three-fourths of rich fucks think they're "middle class", despite in practice being paid more than 87% of Americans are. They think of their millionaire bosses when they fill in that circle, I'm guessing. Or just assume that they're still middle class because they were raised that way, and don't live in a literal manor estate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
I'm just saying that arguing about which words a fascist should use to self-define is less important than establishing how and why their beliefs are going to cause a lot more harm than good. Every specific argument and debate can and should define which words mean what beforehand, but they don't have to be externally consistent. The fact that they aren't is what causes a lot of miscommunication between ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Is social class in America based solely on the money you have or do you distinguish between old and new money? The UK is an appalling aristocracy, so Wayne Rooney will never be upper class and Jacob Rees-Mogg will never be working class no matter what their bank balances say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 08:36
|
|
