|
Libertarianism is heavily into homesteading and Star Trek has tons of homesteading episodes. The show sometimes even portrays the dislocation of indigenous people in a positive light, or at worst a morally gray light, which aligns well with the libertarian notion that you can take land that you feel is not being properly utilized by the ignorant former inhabitants Trekkies (as in people who obsess over a show that is really just entertaining trashy television) also tend to have an inflated perception of their own intelligence, a trait that commonly leads people to libertarianism. Many of the Trek episodes are centered around the crew intellectually dominating some alien race. They even consistently best what can best be described as gods. What better way is there to describe a libertarian than "thinks he is smart than everyone else"?
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
i wasn't kidding about the pedo thing fyi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-ladowsky/pedophilia-and-star-trek_b_5857.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Libertarianism is heavily into homesteading and Star Trek has tons of homesteading episodes. The show sometimes even portrays the dislocation of indigenous people in a positive light, or at worst a morally gray light, which aligns well with the libertarian notion that you can take land that you feel is not being properly utilized by the ignorant former inhabitants You could say that libertarians are arrogant instead of just thinking themselves smart I suppose. "thinks they are smarter than everyone else" is a pretty universal flaw that isn't necessarily the whole of social, racial, or political stereotypes. I am totally agreeing that libertarians totally go down that path but let's not reduce this to Rush Limbaugh simplicity? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-ladowsky/pedophilia-and-star-trek_b_5857.html holy poo poo that is an article. Maybe it is the absolute lack of any other path except escapist idealism that allows people with morally abhorrent desires to imagine some situation where their urges are at least acceptable in some manner?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
i mean libertarianism is a fairly young ideology so i can see why they would be attracted to it
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Lolberts obsessing over Star Trek just confuses me. You couldn't get further away from libertarian ideals than the Federation. It doesn't even use money because there isn't a need. Economics is irrelevant, inequality just kind of doesn't really exist, and it's a really neat socialist utopia where you can just like...garden all day or work on a space ship or walk around a lot or whatever you want, really who cares you can just replicate everything you need or want. It's a perfect example of ownership being a thoroughly meaningless concept; who would bother fighting over resources when everything you want can come out of a box in the wall? I think it's more just internet nerds being internet nerds and cargo culting intellectuals. See, smart people tend to like sci fi and we are smart people so we must like sci fi! Star Trek is easily recognizable so of course they're going to glom onto to it. If I tell people I like Star Trek and can talk at length about my depth of Stark Trek knowledge they'll all know I'm smart and awesome and I'll get laid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i mean libertarianism is a fairly young ideology so i can see why they would be attracted to it Eh in times past it'd be feudalistic/merchant family princes going I can gently caress what I want. They my property. Wish fulfillment, I liked star trek as a kid mostly because I could imagine they had a cure for depression. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:And they couldn't even imagine using your voice to tell your Google Home to play Far Side Virtual while you wait for its oven timer to finish. But don't tell anyone that all this computer stuff was figured out at universities (and, admittedly, the Navy, thanks Grace Hopper) before it became commercially viable The whole cuckold thing comes from a very deep-seated sense that their partners don't really like them all that much, or have reason to be loyal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Plants already do this, without the need for electricity. Yep, and see how gasohol almost works economically but not quite consistently enough for full replacement of the stuff from the ground. So basically we need to continue to try stuff and slowly get better processes. Ron Jeremy posted:It's either carbon sequestration or the creation of fuel. At this point, as other people have said, plants do carbon sequestion better than anything else, and fuel is energy negative still way the gently caress more expensive than putting a hole in the ground and pumping up petrochemicals. I'm all for academic research, but this isn't going to put a dent in global warming. We need to stop burning poo poo and stop clearing forests. well yes, but that's not going to happen. "Let us assume that we are hosed." The idea of doing it with electricity instead of plants is to use cheap nuclear power (so all we need is ...) or cheap solar somewhere plants don't grow (so all we need is ...). Turns out poo poo's complicated, and most of the complicated bit is actually the economics, and well past the 101 stage. But we're in a libertarian thread, so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Lolberts obsessing over Star Trek just confuses me. You couldn't get further away from libertarian ideals than the Federation. I've heard both libertarians and socialists discuss Star Trek as a working example of their ideology. In both cases, it's a work of fiction. On another note: I am interested in how people come to the conclusion that libertarianism is equivalent to feudalism. It honestly seems to me like a strawman in much the same way I've seen conservatives strawman socialism as being equivalent to fascism. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i mean libertarianism is a fairly young ideology so i can see why they would be attracted to it Actually it's a thousand-year old ideology stuck in a young form which makes it oh god what have I doooooooooone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:On another note: I am interested in how people come to the conclusion that libertarianism is equivalent to feudalism. It honestly seems to me like a strawman in much the same way I've seen conservatives strawman socialism as being equivalent to fascism. I don't think it's fair to say all libertarians want a system that resembles feudalism, but some (like HHH) explicitly do. quote:I don't think that we, in the Western world, can go back to clans and tribes. The modern, democratic state has destroyed clans and tribes and their hierarchical structures, because they stood in the way of the state's drive toward absolute power. With clans and tribes gone, we must try it with the model of a private law-society that I have described. But wherever traditional, hierarchical clan and tribe structures still exist, they should be supported; and attempts to "modernize" "archaic" justice systems along Western lines should be viewed with utmost suspicion. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
divabot posted:well yes, but that's not going to happen. "Let us assume that we are hosed."  divabot posted:The idea of doing it with electricity instead of plants is to use cheap nuclear power (so all we need is ...) or cheap solar somewhere plants don't grow (so all we need is ...). My point is that we're better off using the clean energy for productive purposes: heat, energy, transportation, etc, in order to reduce the amount of poo poo we burn. It's the burning part that's the problem, specifically the burning of large amounts of previously sequestered carbon. It's neat that we can do something with carbon dioxide, but that's way less important, orders even less important, than stopping burning and clearing forests. Stop the bleeding first, then stitch up the patient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:On another note: I am interested in how people come to the conclusion that libertarianism is equivalent to feudalism. It honestly seems to me like a strawman in much the same way I've seen conservatives strawman socialism as being equivalent to fascism. This thread tends to conflate libertarianism broadly with Rothbard/Hoppe style ancapism specifically, because the one libertarian who actually hung around to debate with us was a hardcore ancap. And an ancap society would become feudal more-or-less immediately as a result of its principles. Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Researchers at Stanford made this discovery in 2014*. It still takes more energy than you get out of it to produce the ethanol, in addition to the energy costs of capturing the C02 to begin with. This is most likely not a solution that will feasibly restore C02 levels or be carbon neutral. This is not a major breakthrough that will solve global warming. I mean, of course it takes more energy to make the fuel than you get out of it. That's just thermodynamics. The advantage is that you can take a fairly nonportable energy source (like electricity) and replace it with a very portable energy source (liquid fuel). Alternatively, leave it as ethanol for carbon sequestration. Nitrousoxide posted:Plants already do this, without the need for electricity. Yeah, that was my thought as well. Presumably it could be more space efficient, but as far as energy efficiency goes, it's hard to beat plants at their own game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYIEL27KzA not sure how libertarian he is but
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Crosspost from USPOL:Cardboard Box A posted:Libertarian reminder
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:There was discussion of the definition of cuck a handful of posts above that. I injected myself into the discussion because I don't pick up on social cues that my presence is not wanted. It seems strange to me to equate the two, when one is directly descended from fears of black men doing sex on white women and a rejection of the notion of a woman's independence
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Wait is more than one thread having an argument about cuckoldry and women's consent right now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Yes, that is in fact what US politics has descended into in TYOOL 2016. loving somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
When you get right down to it, doesn't everything really just boil down to cuckoldry and women's consent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Wait is more than one thread having an argument about cuckoldry and women's consent right now? I'm only aware of this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I'm only aware of this one. I could be up to 48 hrs behind in D&D threads, so I may never see the other one again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I've heard both libertarians and socialists discuss Star Trek as a working example of their ideology. In both cases, it's a work of fiction. It isn't legal feudalism but rather de facto feudalism. The reason is that a person with a poo poo load of money can use that money to get more money. Libertarians are totally OK with the amount of game rigging the rich in America do right now. A person who owns land and has wealth can use that to force somebody without land and wealth to acquire more land and wealth for the rich person. One of the points of economic regulation is to prevent exactly that from happening; same goes for access to information and education, really. A poor person that can't afford to use the road to the school or pay for school isn't going to get educated properly and is going to be at a massive disadvantage in the face of rich folks who can hire private tutors and pay for the best schools. It creates a caste system based on dynastic wealth. Socialists can argue that Star Trek uses their ideals because, well, it does. By the time TNG happens wealth has been abandoned and everybody gets access to a replicator. You can just materialize whatever you want so scarcity no longer matters. Libertarian ideals just plain don't work without scarcity. I guess they could say that the extremely socially permissive Federation has gone socially libertarian but full on libertarian? Hell no. Nobody owns anything when scarcity has gone away because that makes ownership irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
Battery storage still kind of sucks, though. Converting CO2 into ethanol could be an effective way of storing/using excess electricity
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Libertarians are totally OK with the amount of game rigging the rich in America do right now. This is definitely not true. I could make broad statements like "Democrats are totally OK with the amount of corruption that politicians do right now," which would also be false. You're also making a lot of hypotheticals, so I'd be interested in what you think "feudalism" is. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:This is definitely not true. It is and it isn't. Libertarians like to talk a lot about "rent-seekers" who use the government to extract wealth from society, and in that sense they are not OK with the rich rigging the system. Notably though, welfare recipients are "rent-seeking" in a lot of formulations of libertarianism too. The solution to rent-seeking, to a libertarian, is to remove the functions of government which can be used for that purpose, i.e. all redistributive and regulatory functions. This would place the wealthy in a de facto position of total control, so in that sense they are perfectly OK with things being rigged to favor dynastic wealth as long as the rigging is done entirely through the actions of private entities. There are many types of libertarians though; someone who is heavily socially libertarian but only moderately economically libertarian probably genuinely isn't okay with either of the above scenarios. They are not really what this thread is about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:This is definitely not true. I could make broad statements like "Democrats are totally OK with the amount of corruption that politicians do right now," which would also be false. Libertarians very often talk about deregulation and a smaller government always being better. A core function of government is preventing the strong harming the weak. You've been seeing this in America pretty hardcore for the past 40 years, ramping up hard every time the GOP gets put in charge. The libertarian argument is "we didn't deregulate enough, deregulate even more." That, without fail, puts more money and thus more power in the hands of the economic elite. It's a fundamental problem with libertarian philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
I've always ready the whole "the current elite and monopolies are only held in place by the state!!!" argument as extremely short sighted. Do they not understand or believe how much worse monopolies and entrenched wealth and power would get without the government doing at least small amounts of regulation and redistribution? Or is it that they're upset the "wrong" people are currently holding the monopolies and without the government the "right" people will "earn" their monopolies and prove them selves the once and future natural elites to rule over us for eternity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've always ready the whole "the current elite and monopolies are only held in place by the state!!!" argument as extremely short sighted. Do they not understand or believe how much worse monopolies and entrenched wealth and power would get without the government doing at least small amounts of regulation and redistribution? Or is it that they're upset the "wrong" people are currently holding the monopolies and without the government the "right" people will "earn" their monopolies and prove them selves the once and future natural elites to rule over us for eternity? It's a mix of those things; they believe that the current monopoly holders are unworthy and that they are the rightful monopoly owners who will John Galt their way into wealth and literally magic technology if the government would get out of the way. Then they'd be even worse than the old monopolies because anybody that is poor at that point obviously deserves it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yeah, that was my thought as well. Presumably it could be more space efficient, but as far as energy efficiency goes, it's hard to beat plants at their own game. The nice thing about plants too, is if your goal is carbon sequestration you can just bury the harvested stuff it in a deep hole, no need to process it into fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
My argument was: An abusive monopoly can only exist with the state. Any free market "monopoly" would have to be one that actually provided utility to its customers. For example: Standard Oil had close to a monopoly, but had to keep its prices dirt cheap because, if it tried to raise them, competitors would start flooding in. So, the consumer benefited from even the spectre of competition. ... Of course, I never actually verified any of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Golbez posted:My argument was: An abusive monopoly can only exist with the state. Any free market "monopoly" would have to be one that actually provided utility to its customers. For example: Standard Oil had close to a monopoly, but had to keep its prices dirt cheap because, if it tried to raise them, competitors would start flooding in. So, the consumer benefited from even the spectre of competition. Standard Oil is actually one of the best examples of why such a monopoly is terrible. If they wanted to move into a new region whoever was there already had two choices: either sell at a "meh" price or stay in business a short period while Standard Oil sold oil in the area below cost to shove you into ruin. Really the 19th century in its entirety is proof of why monopolies and deregulation are terrible. It's one of those "counterpoint: all of recorded history" moments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The nice thing about plants too, is if your goal is carbon sequestration you can just bury the harvested stuff it in a deep hole, no need to process it into fuel. The wonderful thing about petroleum is that you pack an enormous amount of energy into a small package. You could wave a magic wand and turn every internal combustion engine into electric powered with clean energy, but you'd still want oil for aviation and lubrication and plastics. Oil is amazing stuff. It's a shame we burn so much of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Golbez posted:My argument was: An abusive monopoly can only exist with the state. Any free market "monopoly" would have to be one that actually provided utility to its customers. For example: Standard Oil had close to a monopoly, but had to keep its prices dirt cheap because, if it tried to raise them, competitors would start flooding in. So, the consumer benefited from even the spectre of competition. It's kind of hard for competitors to flood into the oil business with something like Standard Oil in place because you'd first have to find a lucrative oil field willing to sell, then build refinieries at enormous cost and at the end of the day, as mentioned, Standard could just undercut you until you went out of business and could then aquire all your assets on the cheap. Who exactly would chomp at the bit to get into a market like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:This is definitely not true. I could make broad statements like "Democrats are totally OK with the amount of corruption that politicians do right now," which would also be false. How about you define both instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:When you get right down to it, doesn't everything really just boil down to cuckoldry and women's consent? Actually it's about ethics in— 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The wonderful thing about petroleum is that you pack an enormous amount of energy into a small package. You could wave a magic wand and turn every internal combustion engine into electric powered with clean energy, but you'd still want oil for aviation and lubrication and plastics. Oil is amazing stuff. It's a shame we burn so much of it. Honestly the parts we burn are kind of useless otherwise. You won't be making plastics out of octane, even if you could separate a specific isomer from the rest of the garbage in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I just learned some Libertarians got some electoral votes at some point. I'd look it up but I am hanging upside down and phone use is hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
WrenP confirmed to be a vampire
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:WrenP confirmed to be a vampire Bird fly so what
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Golbez posted:My argument was: An abusive monopoly can only exist with the state. Any free market "monopoly" would have to be one that actually provided utility to its customers. For example: Standard Oil had close to a monopoly, but had to keep its prices dirt cheap because, if it tried to raise them, competitors would start flooding in. So, the consumer benefited from even the spectre of competition. I could enforce my monopoly by hiring the Pinkertons if the government would just get out of my way Ron Jeremy posted:you'd still want oil for aviation and melting steel beams! WrenP-Complete posted:Bird fly so what wait a minute Ron Jeremy posted:you'd still want oil for aviation hmmm WrenP-Complete posted:but I am ... upside down and phone use is hard. You're Sean D Tucker!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 00:34
|
|