|
paragon1 posted:Yeahup That's what I do. *puts feet up on desk, hands behind head* Doin' the real work, solvin' the big problems. *crosses off entry in to do list* *next entry is FULL COMMUNISM NOW* "Ehhhhhhh, this can wait till tomorrow I guess" *drinking ensues*
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
I don't actually have enough text to make carobot work properly, but here's my first swing at it. quote:He talks... When it came down to this: A court has not adjudicated me mentally incompetent and I realize what I'm getting into. Brah. The challenge stands, as do the proposed stakes. I know I may lose. Now I ask him to run this part? He needs to be uniformed anyway. I do not want to handicap Cmdr. quote:He shouldn't be this afraid? Charities if we get sponsors? It'll be good? You giant idiot, just say that my intention is to run this part? He needs to be a clean fight. In the event of some kind of sponsorship or pledge system with all proceeds going to an appropriate charity. Also that it's a boxing match where one guy goes crazy. Also, in truly DC fashion, my evening last night started with two men arguing over who could explain their work's data visualization software (Palinteer?) to me. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I don't actually have enough text to make carobot work properly, but here's my first swing at it. Probably Palantir, the intelligence software company brilliantly named after the seeing stones in LotR which were twisted into tools of evil by Sauron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
That's the one they use to choose which weddings to target, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Also, in truly DC fashion, my evening last night started with two men arguing over who could explain their work's data visualization software (Palinteer?) to me. Palantir. Don't let either of them borrow your phone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Palantir. Don't let either of them borrow your phone. Letting someone else borrow my phone would be a mess of privacy/confidentiality and linguistic issues, but why do you say that? Edit: my computer is updating so I can neither do work nor libertarian analysis. The grad students are beating me in Core Wars.  E2: I was just hungry. I got this. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:*crosses off entry in to do list* heh yeah me too Anyway, here's the skinny on Palantir
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
So here is a thought experiment that I thought that this thread would like to engage in, in addition to Wren's fascinating work re: libertarian dating profiles. I have only one openly libertarian friend on Facebook. Not only are they libertarian, but they also volunteer at my Alma Mater for Johnson/Weld 2016. Swerve time: this person is a woman of color who is bisexuals and polyamorous. I've engaged with her in the past (she supported, or at least went to great lengths to defened, Ron Paul), and after I asked her about how she felt about the ties between libertarianism and white supremacy, I was bombarded by people of color (absolutely 0 of the people who responded to me were white) accusing me of race baiting/making poo poo up/being a shallow virtue signalling liberal (sidenote: my friend was completely mum on the subject). So my question for the thread is, given that there are a non zero number of poc who identify as libertarian, and given that there is a non zero number of non cis het men who identify as libertarian, why would libertarianism appeal to these people? I know we asked this question to JRodimus, but because he was a fuckwit who lacked basic empathy he was unable to answer. So thread: what are your theories that someone who is not a white cis het male be drawn to libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
The system is bad so outsiders are good, and it's easier to pin your hopes on people who will never have to disappoint you with their actual governance. e: I find the motivation understandable, and as a putative ally, I'd rather spend my privilege badgering other white males than convincing minorities I know what's best for them. And besides, the Libertarian party could only be improved by more involvement from women and people of color. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:I know we asked this question to JRodimus, but because he was a fuckwit who lacked basic empathy he was unable to answer. So thread: what are your theories that someone who is not a white cis het male be drawn to libertarianism? The same reason it attracts a bunch of suckers who will never be rich enough to live like the feudal kings that they think they would become in libertopia, or the same reason actively disenfranchised people support Republicans. There's that sales line about individual empowerment or sometimes morality, and then anything uncomfortable after that isn't "real X."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:The same reason it attracts a bunch of suckers who will never be rich enough to live like the feudal kings that they think they would become in libertopia, or the same reason actively disenfranchised people support Republicans. There's that sales line about individual empowerment or sometimes morality, and then anything uncomfortable after that isn't "real X." Eh, this rings pretty hollow to me. These people, at least publically, don't want to lord over people. They seem pretty genuine in wanting to be free from government tyranny. I mean obviously they're wrong, but they still seem pretty comitted to those ideals. For an analogy, it'd like saying that socialists just want to be the fat cat bureaucrat who gets to decide who gets grain or a teactor. It feels like a cheap jab that doesn't actually explore the underlying ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:The system is bad so outsiders are good, and it's easier to pin your hopes on people who will never have to disappoint you with their actual governance. To the first part of your post, I have to say that it rings fairly hollow. These are people who think even Johnson is the lesser of 3 evils, that he isn't a good libertarian but he's the best they have. They belive just as strongly as Jrod in the inherent values of anarchy liberrarianism. gently caress, I should add that my friend is not an an cap. She supports feminism and the BLM movement so she's honestly kind of an oddball that I can't quite wrap my head around. As to tour edited point, I completely agree. I don't often engage with her because I'm a straight white dude so what the gently caress do I really know about what she's going through. Edit: sorry for the double post, I'm phone posting and also a luddite so I have no idea how to make this poo poo work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
Most libertarians claim to be against all lording over people but think that BIG GOVERNMENT is the only way to lord over people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Most libertarians claim to be against all lording over people but think that BIG GOVERNMENT is the only way to lord over people. Yeah, but why is private power okay? Is it ignorance of how coercive private powers can be or is it something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
I think it comes from this obsession with contracts. Each contract should be between one person and one other person. Since all people are equal, it stands to reason that they'll only agree to a contract that's fair to both. For some reason only a government circumvents the Fair Contract principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Yeah, but why is private power okay? Is it ignorance of how coercive private powers can be or is it something else? It's part of the way libertarianism is as an ideological structure- its basis is a fairly particular set of logic that considers all private transaction to be sacrosanct but also inherently consensual. The only means of coercion in libertarian philosophy is outright violence. Everything else is a choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Well I can't speak for your friend, but because MY SEXUAL IDENTITY WAS TURNED INTO A MEME BY IDIOTS, getting the government out of my life meant an end to government-sponsored discrimination against me. It's a simple solution that sounds good and gives you a boogeyman. And if you can convince people to accept the NAP then it doesn't matter if they're grossed out by the gays or not because they would agree that a government that oppresses me is also powerful enough to oppress them so they wouldn't support it. And they wouldn't discriminate in business because a gay person's money spends like anyone else's and a gay employee is as capable as a straight one so rationally discrimination could only hurt their competitiveness in the market. Jim Crow and sodomy laws had to be enforced by government after all, obviously because bigotry is not competitive without government support. There are a lot of baked-in assumptions that you have to challenge if you want to convince a minority Libertarian. A big one is that police power is the only way to exert control other people and that other organizations (churches, traditions, social constructs like race and tribalism, institutions, corporations, etc) can't meaningfully control my life. Another assumption is that people are consistent, that they won't vote for freedom for themselves and oppression for other people and rationalize that using the NAP ("homosexuals are a threat to children/decent society/God/the future of the human race, the NAP says the government should protect us against them"). Another one is that people are rational profit-maximizing machines and/or that markets are efficient, therefore no one who would choose to value bigotry over profitability could possibly make it in business. Etc. Just pointing out "so-and-so is a bit/a lot racist" doesn't work because according to the prior assumptions it doesn't matter whether Rothbard or Paul is privately racist, under a Libertarian order his racism will be powerless to harm me. You virtue-signalling liberals are the real enablers of racism because you support a government that has the power to pass discriminatory laws and welfare that insulates racists from the full punishment of the free market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well I can't speak for your friend, but because MY SEXUAL IDENTITY WAS TURNED INTO A MEME BY IDIOTS, getting the government out of my life meant an end to government-sponsored discrimination against me. This analysis is really what I'm looking for. I guess to distill it to irs base, the assumption is you can theoretically opt out of a private or whereas with a public or you're forced to go in or have Men With Guns come at you. Which given America's current situation with Men with Guns is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It's part of the way libertarianism is as an ideological structure- its basis is a fairly particular set of logic that considers all private transaction to be sacrosanct but also inherently consensual. Or I could have read the thread and also quoted this post. But that really raises another question for me. People of color, people who aren't heteronormative, people who've been on the bad end of private power; why are they so sure that libertarianism presents them with an out? These are people who've read Triple H, these are people who've read Rothbard. Are they in essence separatists? People who are okay with being excluded as long as they are legally (and morally I guess) allowed to have their own enclave?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
If you were coerced then there must have been violence involved. The Libertarian explanation here is government interference is why private entities can exert power over you. You would have had other options without government coercion restraining competition and choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:I have only one openly libertarian friend on Facebook. Not only are they libertarian, but they also volunteer at my Alma Mater for Johnson/Weld 2016. Swerve time: this person is a woman of color who is bisexuals and polyamorous. I've engaged with her in the past (she supported, or at least went to great lengths to defened, Ron Paul), and after I asked her about how she felt about the ties between libertarianism and white supremacy, I was bombarded by people of color (absolutely 0 of the people who responded to me were white) accusing me of race baiting/making poo poo up/being a shallow virtue signalling liberal (sidenote: my friend was completely mum on the subject). So my question for the thread is, given that there are a non zero number of poc who identify as libertarian, and given that there is a non zero number of non cis het men who identify as libertarian, why would libertarianism appeal to these people? Unless all of them are rich as gently caress, it probably has to do with the superficial queer-friendliness of libertarian ideology which manifests in a "libertine spirit" that folks like Triple-H detest. I don't even mean this in the sense of, gay and trans libertarians oppose government curtailment of their sexuality (ignoring that libertarianism will do exactly jack poo poo about private curtailments), although that's a part of what I mean. When the philosophy presents itself as "permissive" in contrast to the restraint and conformity of "proper society," people who don't fit into that mold will be attracted to it... for good or ill, as this also has as its dark side the stuff we talked about before with pedos and libertarianism. How do people of color fit into this? Well, this is a bit outside my area of specialty and I'd have to ask a colleague who specializes in queer theory to really get it right, but the gist of it is that people racially coded as "other" will have alternating imperatives to either conform to a white majority culture that is also a straight and patriarchal culture (you can see this in the work the mainstream Civil Rights Movement did to "exorcise " queerness from black culture in the 1950s), or to embrace alterity: to rebel against the mainstream white/male/straight supremacist culture as a whole and form one's own identity, which will be a partially "queer" identity for rejecting the sexual and gender propriety of the mainstream. You can even see this tension within the gay community: radical detractors might say that the "mainstream" members of the movement for LGBT rights want to be straight in all but the sex act. From there it is possible to see libertarianism as the ideology which is (or has the potential to be) most accepting of that alternate identity. Which, again, requires believing that the government is the only organ of maintaining that mainstream conformist culture. So I guess there has to be some ignorance about how power actually works in our society, which is easy to be confused about since in American political thinking there is a nonsense dichotomy drawn between government/power/control and market/autonomy/choice. (eta: And I don't mean this in some "I know better than queer people and people of color how their oppression manifests" way, a lot of people don't understand this because the prevailing liberal ideology actively impedes understanding, and marginalized people might actually be less vulnerable to this than people who benefit from privilege but no one is completely immune to the dominant ideology.) As a side note, this dichotomy also probably explains the peculiar attitude of many ordinary libertarians towards private curtailments of their autonomy. I have seen these types rail against various private restrictions and even the nature of "corporations" as conformist and controlling work environments. It is very important to trace all of these to the government in some way. Hence, "corporatism" rather than capitalism. You can usually find a connection between private curtailments and the government, but this is more because the relationship between the state and private power is complex, rather than the government is the source of all evil. But if you already believe the government is the source of all evil, it's not hard to find an excuse to blame any private sector restrictions on your freedom on the government. eta: welp, I was beaten about 5 different ways and somehow missed the critical police violence as state violence factor. 
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/781362783363461122/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Eh, this rings pretty hollow to me. These people, at least publically, don't want to lord over people. They seem pretty genuine in wanting to be free from government tyranny. I mean obviously they're wrong, but they still seem pretty comitted to those ideals. Perhaps like many white guy libertarians, they lack an understanding of exactly what the government does? Or perhaps they see more of the bad in it than the good (the government does kill a lot of black people so this is hardly unreasonable) and think the solution is "abolish the government and then we'll be free" Essentially, perhaps they're anarchists who don't know that anarchism is a much better political ideology 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
With regard to today's conversation, I can check to see if I have enough mathematical power to compare white and non-white Libertarians in the sample, but I'm eyeballing it at "hell no." More statistics when I am less hammered at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Essentially, perhaps they're anarchists who don't know that anarchism is a much better political ideology Can you explain this? Because, perhaps superficially, there seem to be a lot of similarities. Obviously AnCaps are incredibly similar to the point that it seems close to a distinction without difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
EnjoiThePureTrip posted:Can you explain this? Because, perhaps superficially, there seem to be a lot of similarities. Obviously AnCaps are incredibly similar to the point that it seems close to a distinction without difference. So my guess is that minority libertarians are the ones who buy into the surface ideology without diving too deep into it, while simultaneously feeling like they're being oppressed by the government more than they are by the people around them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
EnjoiThePureTrip posted:Can you explain this? Because, perhaps superficially, there seem to be a lot of similarities. Obviously AnCaps are incredibly similar to the point that it seems close to a distinction without difference. Anarcho-capitalism as a term makes as much sense as "dry water". Anarchists are, or should, be opposed to any form of power differential between people that isn't based on collective decision making. So, an anarchist might be OK with a community of people enforcing rules that they have collectively agreed on for their own wellbeing, such as using group violence to stop a murderer or something, but they absolutely would not be OK with libertarianism because libertarianism's whole schtick is that they love wealth as a decider of power, what they hate is the government putting checks on that power. I suppose if you really internalize the non aggression principle stupidity then maybe you might actually be able to conflate anarchism and libertarianism but the general libertarian love of wealth being unchecked by anything but the principles of the wealth-holder and some nebulous belief that acting against the non-aggression-principle would make a business unprofitable, is completely incompatible with a political ideology which sees people ruling over other people, kyriarchy, essentially, as the fundamental evil in the world. You can criticize anarchism for a lot of reasons relating to it being woefully unstable and unequipped to perpetuate itself even if it was established, and the lack of a credible plan for actually getting to the ideal classless state to begin with, much like you can with communism (the two are very similar, self-professed communists just tend to be socialists as well, in that they favor using the state to crush other forms of power accumulation then letting it wither, anarchists would be unwilling to empower the state because they see it as being very bad in and of itself) But fundamentally, anarchists necessarily desire a society where people are not motivated by a desire to wield power over others, because such a thing is incompatible with an anarchist society. They are, fundamentally, collectivists. They believe that people should work together freely, and want to work together freely, not work for their own empowerment at the expense of others. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian collectivists, socialists (and people who call themselves communists, generally) are authoritarian collectivists, at least as a method if not as a goal. Libertarians really aren't the same thing, they desire a society where every individual is free to do whatever they want, and gently caress everyone else. Whoever can grab power first should be free to use it however they want. Which is why they love capitalism and the free market. They are either blind to, or completely accepting of, the inherent imbalances in personal power that entrenched wealth brings and either think that this imbalance is just, or they believe in the myth of the self made man and that everyone could have that power if only they tried harder and the EVIL GUBMINT wasn't holding them back. Libertarians are individualists and prefer competition to co-operation. They see competition as justifying the victor and rightly punishing the loser. I would suspect this is because they like to imagine they would always be the winner. An anarchist dislikes the state because they see the state as a tool of entrenched power being used to control the masses. A libertarian dislikes the state because they see the state as a tool of the masses being used to unjustly shackle the Captains Of Industry into doing things like "paying taxes, sometimes, maybe, please." If they're true believers in the sense that they actually do believe in the principle of non aggression then they may, very distantly be compatible with anarchists but would probably get kicked out of the anarchist club for being too thick. I don't have that great blog post from the dude who went to greece to chat with the anarchists about ancapism but someone should post it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Another reason ancap is an incoherent ideology is that capitalism requires state violence, to the extent that if the state did not exist they would have to invent it in a new form: the DRO, the "covenant community," things which wield the power of the state and are about as accountable as feudal lords, but none of the Freedom Rules are technically violated, so it's OK (and much better for people who can buy the system since that is a feature and not a bug).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Yeah seriously if I sound like I'm not taking ancaps seriously it's because I can't even begin to square their ideology in my head because it literally doesn't make sense with itself, so I can't write a proper contrast without sounding like a lunatic. Working from premises I don't accept I can do, but ancaps draw different conclusions from themselves from the same premises in the same idea. So the only way I can make it make any sense is that the people sincerely expounding the NAP and the people writing articles defending slavery on mises.org are two completely different groups of people who happen to share a name. The other options are that they're all very stupid, very deliberately trying to mislead people, or the internet is actually breaking the dimensional barrier and we are receiving transmissions from two different versions of earth where libertarian means two very different things. I am open to argument as to which explanation is more probable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah seriously if I sound like I'm not taking ancaps seriously it's because I can't even begin to square their ideology in my head because it literally doesn't make sense with itself, so I can't write a proper contrast without sounding like a lunatic. Working from premises I don't accept I can do, but ancaps draw different conclusions from themselves from the same premises in the same idea. e: Its worth separating ancaps from libertarians as a whole. Not that all libertarians are any less crazy, just that their position is slightly more coherent. Sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
I have extreme difficulty telling who actually believes what, why, and how disingenuous they're being with libertarians so while I would like to separate them out into categories I have no idea how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
One of the very cornerstones of Anarchism is the absolute opposition to hierarchical socioeconomic structures. Capitalism is based on hierarchical socioeconomic structures. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
It is another thing that flows from the nonsense dichotomy I mentioned before: the government and the market are opposing and exclusive forces which only mix to the benefit of the former and the detriment of the latter. Hence, no government (anarchy) is max market (capitalism). In short, ideologically induced ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
This is frustrating. What are the left Libertarians vs the right Libertarians again? I probably need a snack but I am stubborn and trying to puzzle it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:This is frustrating. What are the left Libertarians vs the right Libertarians again? I probably need a snack but I am stubborn and trying to puzzle it out. Left Libertarians prefer to be referred to as left Libertarians. Right Libertarians prefer to be referred to as right Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:This is frustrating. What are the left Libertarians vs the right Libertarians again? I probably need a snack but I am stubborn and trying to puzzle it out. Nothing, it just depends on whether they think they're talking to left-leaning people or right-leaning people so that they can say, "See, we're both on the same side, I'm just better at it than you!" Jrod tried to do it and it ended the same as way everything else he does; poorly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Left libertarians in the US are much more inline with the anarchist tradition. Right libertarians are the market-loving weirdos we've come together to mock. In the US, in the absence of any clarification, a "libertarian" is a right libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Left libertarians in the US are much more inline with the anarchist tradition. Right libertarians are the market-loving weirdos we've come together to mock. In the US, in the absence of any clarification, a "libertarian" is a right libertarian. Thanks, so the left libertarians are the "an cap" ones? Or are those another group? Edit: and the right libertarians are into HHH and Mises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Thanks, so the left libertarians are the "an cap" ones? Or are those another group? An-caps sometimes claim to be left-libertarians, as Jrod himself did on occasion, but given a minute or two they invariably reveal themselves to be incoherent, market-worshiping quasi-fascists so I'd not call them that. Left libertarians, in so far as any really exist in the US these days, tend to focus on social issues they (rather naively) think would be improved by a reduction or removal of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:An-caps sometimes claim to be left-libertarians, as Jrod himself did on occasion, but given a minute or two they invariably reveal themselves to be incoherent, market-worshiping quasi-fascists so I'd not call them that. Great. Any predictions on if there will be distinct groups in the OkC sample? Sounds like you think they are the same group socially. Is that accurate, Captain_Macaine, WWW, Vox? If any of us think there will be differences between "left" and "right," on what questions? (Excluding the one that asks if you are left or right wing) I can pastebin a set of questions, but it's like 4 or 5k so sort of annoying to sorta through. I wish I knew an easy and legal way to set up a betting pool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:44
|
|