|
TwoQuestions posted:One thing I've been chewing on in my head is why do Libertarians believe private property is a thing? Why do they think they're entitled to things they've claimed as their own? If someone wants to rob you of something you bought, why should anyone feel bad for you for failing to protect what you think is yours? Libertarian philosophy has a non-aggression principle as one of it's core moral directives. In a Libertarian Society™, everyone's property is protected because all of the participants will respect each other's property rights. The very existence of state authority is what corrupts people and prevents them from following this moral imperative on their own.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
That's not really true. They recognize that people will initiate force for any number of reasons absent a state. Where the idiot utopianism comes in is their solutions to this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Libertarian "philosophy" and economics are entirely and wholly based around the concept of "dibs" and that alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:Libertarian philosophy has a non-aggression principle as one of it's core moral directives. In a Libertarian Society™, everyone's property is protected because all of the participants will respect each other's property rights. The very existence of state authority is what corrupts people and prevents them from following this moral imperative on their own. That sounds very similar to what Muslims say, and one other religion whose name I can't remember. "Everyone knows and follows our laws instinctively, except bad people. They screw it up for everybody with their lies and evilness." If you want to know how "natural" property rights are, put a piece of pizza next to a dog and say it's yours and to not eat it, then turn your back and leave the room. Unless you have the best-trained dog in the world, you'll soon find out how natural it is to respect other people's possessions. Even if the pizza remains uneaten, it's only through the dog following your imposed rules, not any instinct of it's own (unless your dog doesn't like pizza). People seem to think the NAP just happens for free, but it doesn't. Even a saint could easily break it without an ounce of ill will in their heart. It takes effort to enforce that rule, hell it takes significant effort to define "aggression" precisely, which if you talk to 5 libertarians, you'll get 10 different answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:People seem to think the NAP just happens for free, but it doesn't. Even a saint could easily break it without an ounce of ill will in their heart. It takes effort to enforce that rule, hell it takes significant effort to define "aggression" precisely, which if you talk to 5 libertarians, you'll get 10 different answers. It seems like most of the conflicts in a libertarian system are due to conflicting ideas of what constitutes aggression, with people picking and choosing their definitions depending on what benefits them the most at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:It seems like most of the conflicts in a libertarian system are due to conflicting ideas of what constitutes aggression, with people picking and choosing their definitions depending on what benefits them the most at the time. You put it much better than I did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:Libertarian philosophy has a non-aggression principle as one of it's core moral directives. In a Libertarian Society™, everyone's property is protected because all of the participants will respect each other's property rights. The very existence of state authority is what corrupts people and prevents them from following this moral imperative on their own. This is a problem with all stateless systems. Anarcho Syndicalist thought has the same issue. Anarchism is bad mmmkay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:It seems like most of the conflicts in a libertarian system are due to conflicting ideas of what constitutes aggression, with people picking and choosing their definitions depending on what benefits them the most at the time. A lot of it also come from how it conflicts with itself in regards to ownership, especially self-ownership; they say "you always own yourself" but then sometimes argue that it's acceptable for a person to sell themselves into slavery if that's what they want. Ignoring that economic inequality will mean that people will sell themselves into slavery just to survive if they suffer enough random misfortune. Which is really another problem they never seem to have an answer before beyond "but charity!!!" The thought is that people have complete, 100% total control of themselves and their lives while ignoring that reality will sometimes blindside you with awful tragedies that you can't control. I tend to use the example of somebody that steps off the curb and gets hit by a runaway bus and is crippled for life. What do you do for them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Libertarian "philosophy" and economics are entirely and wholly based around the concept of "dibs" and that alone. More like "I get to define what dibs is".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is a problem with all stateless systems. Anarcho Syndicalist thought has the same issue. No it doesn't. I'm not a syndicalist but they have NAP taboo's like AnCap land does. It's follows the Hegelian/communist line of thinking that a 'state' is an ideal, alienated body that regulates class, in favor of the ruling class within the, material, civil sphere of society. They would have no taboo's with policing, organization, taxonomic hierarchies. It's about collective ownership of the things that affect society (as opposed to private ownership of these things) based on need. Capitalism simply can not exist without a state, and Ancaps just think 'gubernment bad'. Though syndicalism/anarchism may have some things wrong, in no way do anarchists have the same ideological failures as ancaps do. Deimus fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Deimus posted:No it doesn't. I'm not a syndicalist but they have no dumb NAP taboo's like AnCap land does. It's follows the Hegelian/communist line of thinking that a 'state' is an alienated body that regulates class, in favor of the ruling class. Within the, material civil sphere of society. They would have no taboo's with policing, organization, taxamonic hierarchy. It's a society of collective ownership of the things that effect society (as opposed to private ownership of these things) based on need. A rose by any other name. An organized society under a common system of government is a state. Whether that is your local commune, your king, or a democracy, it's still a state. "Stateless" philosophies always rely on a renamed state or have hilariously naive notions of how people will act, given no body of authority over them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A lot of it also come from how it conflicts with itself in regards to ownership, especially self-ownership; they say "you always own yourself" but then sometimes argue that it's acceptable for a person to sell themselves into slavery if that's what they want. Ignoring that economic inequality will mean that people will sell themselves into slavery just to survive if they suffer enough random misfortune. Also, "you always own yourself" is a pretty good summary of libertarians in general if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Buses are inherently collectivist anyway. *For certain definitions of "you," "own," etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem with the third parties that focus on local elections is the presidential runs are really the only way to get national visibility atm. How is that supposed to be a problem? National visibility does you no good if there's no party for that visibility to help. You need a decent stock of candidates all across the country who can run viable campaigns before you're helped blowing your meager funds as a minor party on national advertising/campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Oh man, Cedar Rapids has a Libertarian running for sheriff: http://www.rickstewart.com/ On his webpage, he details his curious thoughts on such law enforcement-related issues as health care, immigration (this is not a sheriff-level concern), gay marriage, and student loans. Also this is a good starting point for wondering why the hell a position like sheriff is elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Also this is a good starting point for wondering why the hell a position like sheriff is elected. The sheriff usually runs the entire executive branch of a county, they're not just some rando cop. That's why they're elected. Some counties make this clearer by splitting the role so that a position titled something like "county executive" or "county president" takes on most of those duties and makes it so the sheriff really is just a police chief, but you're not usually getting those until the county has a couple hundred thousand people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I am confused about who does what. Edit: this comment was intended for slack, but it's just as good here. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The sheriff usually runs the entire executive branch of a county, they're not just some rando cop. That's why they're elected. Wikipedia posted:Linn County is a county located in the U.S. state of Iowa. As of the 2010 census, the population was 211,226, making it the second-most populous county in Iowa. So we're probably past that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
How on earth does a libertarian run to control the agents of the state's monpoly of force?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How on earth does a libertarian run to control the agents of the state's monpoly of force? A hypocritical libertarian?! Why, I never!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah yeah I know but like, how does one construct the sentence "The police are bad, that's why I want to be chief of police."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Golbez posted:So we're probably past that point. Doesn't look like any county in Iowa currently splits the roles that way, so it might require the state to pass a law allowing for the split? (Some states specify ins tate law the allowable forms of county and local government, others don't) It's also something that doesn't often happen when all area in a county is part of an incorporated municipality (as is common in the Northeast) or in counties where a very large portion of the residents are part of one or a few towns (as Linn County is with Cedar Rapids).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah yeah I know but like, how does one construct the sentence "The police are bad, that's why I want to be chief of police." By ending it with "so I can make the police so bad that they are abolished forever".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Yeah, the same reason any anti-government politician gets into office, to gently caress poo poo up from within. Starve the beast, re-introduce common sense to government, eliminate red tape and regulations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Don't forget graft. The state is as bad as Nazi Germany, and who wouldn't find it moral to steal from Nazis and redirect resources to more worthy people? It's totally not crony capitalism when the libertarians do it. Tom Woods' podcast is great for gems like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
To be fair graft is the actual reason they all get into office, starving the beast is just their cover for smashing and grabbing everything they can. Sell off a bunch of public assets to your friends, you're getting sweet kickbacks and crippling the government at the same time. It's win win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah yeah I know but like, how does one construct the sentence "The police are bad, that's why I want to be chief of police." To rein them in. It's actually something I could see a non-libertarian make a solid case for, depending on how awful the local police have been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Yeah but there's a difference between someone who thinks the police are badly run, and someone who thinks the concept of police is anathema.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
A libertarian analyzes The Autobiography of Malcolm X:quote:Malcolm never distinguishes between victimless crime (drugs, bootlegging, prostitution, gambling) and regular crime (burglary, robbery). For him, it's all "hustling" - one person preying on another. Indeed, Malcolm appears to regard all for-profit business as "hustling." While he's clearly aware that mutually beneficial trade exists, the fact that trade is mutually beneficial isn't morally significant for Malcolm. Purely charitable motives are the only ones he sees as admirable. Okay, attempts to analyze.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, the same reason any anti-government politician gets into office, to gently caress poo poo up from within. Starve the beast, re-introduce common sense to government, eliminate red tape and regulations. Basically Ron Swanson.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Is...CampaignId=4285 lmbo
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Sure you didn't mean to post this in the PYF Dark Enlightenment thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Relevant to the thread, noted libertarian Julian Assange is (to no one's surprise) a pedophile
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?  Well, fuckin'' yeah he's clearly living in the goddamn time tunnel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time? Nice to know plaid still exists in the future. You know who else was "ahead of their time"? Popular Mechanics!  They predicted a remote-controlled kitchen in 1939. And it only took 75 years to come true! (Like all good technology predictions, PopMech thought the future would be exactly like the current day, except more complicated and, somehow, dumber.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Woah, people finally noticing Robin Hanson, the guy who's racism I credit with helping me stop being an Internet Rationalist (or at least with teaching me that very smart people can be very stupid). Years and years before Roko's Basilisk, this guy was saying that differences in reproductive rates meant that the future would belong to the Hmong. Also, I can't remember which thread it was, but someone on the forums claimed to be professionally connected to him and said that almost all the research work he gives his TAs is about the economics of cuckoldry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:How is that supposed to be a problem? National visibility does you no good if there's no party for that visibility to help. You need a decent stock of candidates all across the country who can run viable campaigns before you're helped blowing your meager funds as a minor party on national advertising/campaigning. There are third parties that do that and absolutely no one knows about them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Woah, people finally noticing Robin Hanson, the guy who's racism I credit with helping me stop being an Internet Rationalist (or at least with teaching me that very smart people can be very stupid). Years and years before Roko's Basilisk, this guy was saying that differences in reproductive rates meant that the future would belong to the Hmong. Legal Opinion Topics 2. Contract: What remedy or damages for cuckold?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
As I posted in the PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker thread:divabot posted:These loving people and their obsession with a BIG BLACK MAN who will CUCKOLD them!! Also "futarchy" is nowhere near as cool as you might think from the name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
divabot posted:As I posted in the PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker thread:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 12:19
|
|