|
Oh, I'm not defending his view, just clarifying it.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Question. I was told there are some non-evil, actually intelligent Libertarians. So unsurprisingly, the non-evil and crazy Libertarians tend to be the one's who don't spend their time constructing intricate philosophical justifications for why indentured servitude is actually liberating. But rather guys like Radley Balko or Ken White, who's libertarianism comes more from skepticism of the government than unending faith in the free market, the NAP etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
There's really no way to NOT arrive at voluntary slavery if you're part of the "human rights are actually just property rights because humans own themselves" branch of libertarianism. Owning yourself implies the ability to sell yourself, NOT being allowed to sell yourself is actually a RESTRICTION of property rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
It's still hilariously awful how people can attempt to deduce personal rights from property rights, as if, y'know, the latter are the absolute innate things and the former are just extrapolations from the latter. Part of me wants to suggest it is the manifestation of having a society and culture completely dominated by capitalism so that it erases the concept of the personal and replaces it with the concept of property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:There's really no way to NOT arrive at voluntary slavery if you're part of the "human rights are actually just property rights because humans own themselves" branch of libertarianism. Owning yourself implies the ability to sell yourself, NOT being allowed to sell yourself is actually a RESTRICTION of property rights. Basically that's on the table the second you reject the inalienability of rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
I can kind of see an argument that could be formed by claiming that a person's ownership of self is itself something that can't be sold because it's intrinsic to each person (in the same way I can't separate myself from my thoughts; I can relay them to you, but I can't give you direct ownership of the contents of my mind the way I have it.) But that's getting back into the whole "increasingly tortured definitions rather than accepting criticism," issue. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
So I started Democracy Failed and stuff. I really wish economics was comprehensible and not boring to me. The dude constantly going on about time-preference and its key in differentiating monarchy from republics was a load of nothing as far as I could discern. The commentary on warfare changing was very interesting, though. I'd like to read a book on that. I find military history really dull but the..."sociology" of war is fascinating. I have no idea if what he says is true or not - about how wars in the days of kings were largely territorial disputes, where the king did not conscript people and the civilian population were spared most of the brutality - but what he says about conflict in the 20th century adds up with what I've read in the past. The 20th century was a century of idealism in the most ugly sense of the term. World War II and the Cold War were battles of ideology and ideology and thus enveloped everyone, combatant or noncombatant. Or it might all just be down to differences in technology. I don't loving know. There was a part where he went on about how slaver-owners were pretty cool to their slaves and in fact much better to them than the Soviets were to their "slaves" and I just kinda skipped that.... I might continue reading but, truth be told, I mainly looked into this because I am pretty "Far Left." Most of my teenage years were spent reading articles on how the West, especially America, suck balls. The whole "we live in the most prosperous era of human history ever and it's all down to democracy!" line never struck me as particularly valid. But maybe there are better, less offensive books that examine these problems. Wiki has some recommended literature on this topic. Recent book called Against Democracy, maybe I'll look into some Chomsky stuff, I dunno. I'm just trying to "educate myself" as they say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
The stuff about time-preference is pretty much exclusive to the Austrian school, which isn't looked on highly by other branches of econ. The summary is "you won't care about the future unless you run your country for the rest of your life and pass it on to your kids after that." The warfare stuff is partially flat-out wrong (conscription happened since the levy system was very much A Thing, sacking towns was the norm rather than an exception), partially correct (the World Wars couldn't have been as brutal without centralized states running partial command economies, but any country that didn't centralize and command would get stomped by the ones that did), and partially erroneous (easy-to-train weapons like guns are crucial to running large armies that can lose a battle without your country imploding; the devastation of bombing and artillery were nearly impossible before bombs and artillery). And "the West and especially America aren't the moral paragons they claim to be" is pretty much Chomsky's MO from my understanding, so if that's the view you're looking for, he's pretty top-notch. e: Possibly Fanon? The Wretched of the Earth is on my to-read list, and it's supposed to be good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Mm I would echo that the changes in warfare are more changes of means rather than intent. Before telecommunications it would be impossible to fight a war across a front in the way we do now, you have to group your forces into coherent armies and deploy them under trusted commanders because you have minimal ability to communicate over distance. Which limits the number of places you can fight in at once. You also have problems with having to walk anywhere you want to do damage to, whereas the advent of air combat meant you could cause massive damage to anyone nearby, same with artillery. The big changes really made it possible to just sling destruction at the enemy across a massive area without actually having to commit to decisive battle. You may be fighting only a fraction of the enemy force, not a major army, you might be fighting them by shelling them from a mile away, and both you and they can probably be replaced as fast as you die. As above with the advent of guns and importantly, the separation of military and economy, (in ancient times your soldiers were also often your farmers and if you didn't get them home for harvest you would be in the poo poo), you can get replacements a lot faster and afford loses more easily. It's a lot easier to get killed in modern warfare without actually achieving anything. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Lew Rockwell makes me laugh 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I was told there are some non-evil, actually intelligent Libertarians. By any chance, was the person who told you that named JRodimus Prime?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I have no idea if what he says is true or not - about how wars in the days of kings were largely territorial disputes, where the king did not conscript people and the civilian population were spared most of the brutality It isn't, as anyone actuallly familiar with any part of pre-20th century history could tell you. http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/85.SackMagdeburg_en.pdf A description of the sack of Magdeburg by its Mayor posted:At last, the invaders opened the Kröckenthor and let in the entire Imperial army and the army of the Catholic League –Hungarians, Croats, Poles, Haiduks,Italians, Spaniards, French, Walloons, North and South Germans, etc. Thus did the city and all of its inhabitants fall into the hands of and were placed at the mercy of their enemies. These had all become very violent and cruel, partly from their common hatred for those who adhered to the Confession of Augsburg, partly from having been abused, angered, and embittered after they had been fired upon with chain-shot and other missiles from the ramparts, as usually happens. Then the city was given over to murder, burning, plundering, torture, and beatings. Every enemy soldier demanded booty. When such men entered a house, if the master was able to give them something, he could save and protect himself and his household –until another came along to take whatever he had. Finally, when everything had been given away, and there was nothing left togive, the real trouble began. The soldiers began to beat and frighten; they threatened to shoot, skewer, hang, etc., so that had anything remained, either buried in the earth or locked up in a thousand castles, the people would have gotten it and brought it forth. During such rage, this wonderful and great city, like a princess over the entire land, stood completely in flames amidst terrible misery, unspeakable distress, and heartbreak. Accompanied by unspeakable, terrible cries and much hullabaloo, many thousands of innocent men, women, and children weremurdered and slaughtered in all sorts of merciless and wretched ways, so that words alone cannot adequately describe these acts nor tears adequately bemoan them. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Other examples: Anytime the Mongols show up Any time the Spanish show up Any time the Japanese show up Any time the Romans show up
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:It isn't, as anyone actuallly familiar with any part of pre-20th century history could tell you. Sounds like the actions of statists, if those villagers had just asked their murderers to follow the NAP or risk arbitration then surely everything would have gone a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Other examples: Please, he was only speaking of Western history. I'm sure he would fully endorse the idea the Japanese and stuff were absolutely barbaric. (Incidentally, Japanese history is probably the only history I'm somewhat decently acquainted with. Edo period specifically with a bit of the stuff leading up to it and then a bit of the stuff after it. Nobunaga did some pretty hosed up poo poo as I recall) I'm also remembering now when I learned about the Reformation and all the poor German peasants who got massacred.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
The crusades and the thirty years war were just a series of simple territorial disputes where no one really got hurt so those don't count Vikings pillagers, you say? Probably just more territorial disputes, I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
There were wars that were limited engagements. There were total wars. Most were somewhere in between. Historical wars follow similar patterns to more recent ones because everyone involved is human.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
OTOH you're probably a statist shill and according to praxeology clearly my argument is correct
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Colonialism was a part of WWI Standard libertarian weakness applies
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mm I would echo that the changes in warfare are more changes of means rather than intent. Think it's really key to dwell on this because it gives you an idea of just how dumb and shifty Hoppe is being: for what he's saying to make sense, nothing must have changed in between Ye Olden Tymes and the modern era besides the dominant form of government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Nozick's main purpose in libertarianism is so they can point at him and say "look! credible academic philosopher!" He isn't actually quoted or his ideas referred to much that I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:OTOH you're probably a statist shill and according to praxeology clearly my argument is correct im not a statist!! im not a statist!! i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Sounds like the actions of statists, if those villagers had just asked their murderers to follow the NAP or risk arbitration then surely everything would have gone a lot better. City dwellers, more people probably died in that sack than died in the Dresden firebombing. The best part is that it was an Austrian army. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Please, he was only speaking of Western history. I'm sure he would fully endorse the idea the Japanese and stuff were absolutely barbaric. (Incidentally, Japanese history is probably the only history I'm somewhat decently acquainted with. Edo period specifically with a bit of the stuff leading up to it and then a bit of the stuff after it. Nobunaga did some pretty hosed up poo poo as I recall) Pretty much everyone in the warring states period did hosed up poo poo and betrayed each other constantly. I can't recall anything Nobunaga did that was especially bad compared to his contemporaries (well except for setting a mountain or two full of people on fire). My main point here is that stating that the peasantry largely didn't suffer in pre-19th century warfare isn't just wrong, it was often pretty much the opposite of reality. Like, what does he think the Book of Lamentations is about? paragon1 fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:My main point here is that stating that the peasantry largely didn't suffer in pre-19th century warfare isn't just wrong, it was often pretty much the opposite of reality. If you search for "Sack of Rome" you get a disambiguation page because it's happened half a dozen times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
I'm sure the Greeks just had the unarmed Trojans just be about their business as they burned Troy to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Pretty much everyone in the warring states period did hosed up poo poo and betrayed each other constantly. I can't recall anything Nobunaga did that was especially bad compared to his contemporaries (well except for setting a mountain or two full of people on fire). Wrong, those were crisis actors placed there by the treacherous Asakura clan. FAKE NEWS
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:
It is in fact very good, so is Black Skin, White Masks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It is in fact very good, so is Black Skin, White Masks. How did I miss this? Yes, absolutely he should read The Wretched of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:If you search for "Sack of Rome" you get a disambiguation page because it's happened half a dozen times. My favorite "sacking of Rome" story is when Brennus and his fellow celts invaded the city. The romans had to pay them a thousand pounds to leave. During the weighing the romans complained that the weights was too heavy, Brennus then threw his sword on the scales and exclaimed "Vae Victis!" (woe to the conquered!). This dispute took so long that the exiled dictator Marcus Furius Camillus managed to raise an army and chase the celts out. Camillus then said to Brennus "Non auro, sed ferro, recuperanda est patria" ("not by gold, but by iron, is the nation to be recovered"). And then everyone caught dysentery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:And then everyone caught dysentery. This could probably be the end of every invasion story from ancient times, as well as a fair few games of Oregon Trail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:This could probably be the end of every invasion story from ancient times, as well as a fair few games of Oregon Trail. It's the end of War of the Worlds! ... Well, I guess not everybody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:This could probably be the end of every invasion story from ancient times, as well as a fair few games of Oregon Trail. Being honest, I remember dying from typhoid fever way more often than dysentery in OT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
I ran into a guy the other day who claims he's a "left libertarian" who claims that most people who call themselves libertarians are fake ones. I didn't really have time to press him but that seems fascinating. Am I crazy or should this dude be calling himself an anarchist? Maybe he's trying to avoid the stigma that label has in America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
No he's basically right originally that was what libertarian referred to before the right wing coopted it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I ran into a guy the other day who claims he's a "left libertarian" who claims that most people who call themselves libertarians are fake ones. I didn't really have time to press him but that seems fascinating. Am I crazy or should this dude be calling himself an anarchist? Maybe he's trying to avoid the stigma that label has in America. If he's be honest and knows what he's talking about, then yes he's probably closer to what we'd consider some flavor of anarchist these days. Of course, given what we've run into in this thread I'm not so inclined to give him that benefit of the doubt without further indication from you that he deserves it, since so many bog-standard Paulshevik types have of late suddenly remembered they were left-libertarians all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:If he's be honest and knows what he's talking about, then yes he's probably closer to what we'd consider some flavor of anarchist these days. Of course, given what we've run into in this thread I'm not so inclined to give him that benefit of the doubt without further indication from you that he deserves it, since so many bog-standard Paulshevik types have of late suddenly remembered they were left-libertarians all along. the usual phrase used by those is "left-liberal", which seems to mean "libertarian really, but probably left of Peter Thiel" or is just a g*m*rg*t*r BSing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Libertarian Socialist Rants explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8 Fake edit: Wow pasting in a youtube link automatically formats it to beebeecode!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Seven Force posted:Libertarian Socialist Rants explains it: So Berlin/The Flux State in Shadowrun: Dragonfall is a libertarian socialist system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Null sweat, chummer. G'luck in yer struggles!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:07
|
|