|
The fundamental theorem of Libertarianism is that through various schemes like fiat currency, taxation, and water fluoridation the government keeps down the deserving superior humans (straight white alpha men with a self-taught expertise in 19th century eugenics), while elevating the worthless dregs of humanity (women, non-whites, Jews, beta males etc) above them using welfare, affirmative action, and political correctness. Therefore nothing about alt-right videos failing to make money on the free market disproves Libertarianism, because without the government, white male chauvinists just like them would have all the money and thus everyone and everything in society would care to them and only them, all the time. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Aug 6, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also populism is a tool and is as good or bad as the end it serves, the reason the alt right are objectionable is not because they use populism. And lol at "young professionals are too smart to believe in populism I'd argue that the neoliberal individualistic ideology is in many ways very much a populist ideology, aimed at young professionals, since it reinforces ideas like "in my field, we don't need unions because we are talented" and "there should be segregation according to talent", which is very much a fun idea for people who are invested in the idea that they're special and irreplaceable under the current economic conditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:00
|
|
" What do you think the modern incarnation of social liberalism is, with all its attendant touchy feely yet largely meaningless community participation symbols like the aforementioned rainbow coffee is, if not a form of populism? What is it if not an ideological position and method of practice well tailored to appealing to the sensibilities of that class and making it feel valuable and righteous by its practice?
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'd argue that the neoliberal individualistic ideology is in many ways very much a populist ideology, aimed at young professionals, since it reinforces ideas like "in my field, we don't need unions because we are talented" and "there should be segregation according to talent", which is very much a fun idea for people who are invested in the idea that they're special and irreplaceable under the current economic conditions. And I would argue that as a result of the push for lgbt acceptance, which is good, the commercialization of that idea fits very well with populism because the message is "these people are just like us, real people, the people who matter, and our politics should be good for them too." It also reinforces the prejudices of the young and educated which are, predominantly, that lgbt stuff in the abstract is good. This of course is a prejudice even though it's a good thing, because the desire is that you assume an lgbt person is cool and good either because they're lgbt or because they're like you, and you're cool and good, obviously. And populism is about reinforcing one's prejudices rather than challenging them, and some prejudices are good, and should be reinforced. It takes some mental contortion I think to argue that things aren't populist because you happen to agree with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also populism is a tool and is as good or bad as the end it serves, the reason the alt right are objectionable is not because they use populism. And lol at "young professionals are too smart to believe in populism Populism is just idpol for white losers. it's to be opposed because it directly shits on every minority who's had the ability to climb of poverty, and is in part a direct move to drag them back into the same slimepit as the worst of white America. There's a reason why the first big blooming in the US corresponded with a scofflaw government that committed unconstitutional ethnic cleansing and led to the proportionally largest economic collapse in US history. Maybe it's somehow different in the UK, but seeing how the lovely northern rural areas (i.e. populist central) were the ones who flushed the last vestige of your world power down the drain with Brexit, I'm sort of doubting it. The educated class having its own sensibility is no more populism than the black community doing it. Sorry your class war failed comrade. VitalSigns posted:Therefore nothing about alt-right videos failing to make money on the free market disproves Libertarianism, because without the government, white male chauvinists just like them would have all the money and thus everyone and everything in society would care to them and only them, all the time. Again, my wake up call from libertarianism was when I had my They Live moment. There were piles of disgraceful human garbage in the movement, just waiting for the chance to hit the betray button and gently caress over minorities. And the rest of the movement wasn't much better, since they weren't willing to take out the trash by loving those guys over at every chance possible. It also didn't help it was when I decided to read Hoppe for the first time, and was revulsed by the fact that the whole movement was set up as a way to pitch the actually productive people out of society in favor of the creeper proto-rapists of the libertarian movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, my wake up call from libertarianism was when I had my They Live moment. They Live is about there being no ethical consumption under capitalism, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I would argue that as a result of the push for lgbt acceptance, which is good, the commercialization of that idea fits very well with populism because the message is "these people are just like us, real people, the people who matter, and our politics should be good for them too." It also reinforces the prejudices of the young and educated which are, predominantly, that lgbt stuff in the abstract is good. This of course is a prejudice even though it's a good thing, because the desire is that you assume an lgbt person is cool and good either because they're lgbt or because they're like you, and you're cool and good, obviously. And populism is about reinforcing one's prejudices rather than challenging them, and some prejudices are good, and should be reinforced. Very few things aren't populist, since all populist really means is that you can convince a chunk of the populace that it's a good idea in general and good for them. Politicians who are truly no-populist or anti-populist are extraordinarily rare, other than maybe things like some members of the House of Lords in the UK, who bear 0 responsibility to any sort of constituency besides themselves. Or like, the puppet legislators of republican-formatted dictatorships. rkajdi posted:Populism is just idpol for white losers. it's to be opposed because it directly shits on every minority You don't know what populism is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
And necessarily, almost anything that actually does help a lot of people would sort of have to be populist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't know what populism is. Well, what then is it when the current working class white losers around here push that they call populism? If you want me to just say screw the white underclass economic movement, I'm entirely fine with changing over to that. But populism has been the term used when the rabble trash gain control of government, like the Jackson administration. And shocker, it lines up with loving over minorities at an even worse rate and ruining the economy for everyone, because common sense hill wisdom doesn't work all that well off the farm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Populism is employed across the political spectrum. Appealing to minority issues to get minorities to vote for you is populism, appealing to a general sense among the population that societal integration is an inherent good, is populism. It is appealing to any idea you believe to be present in a significant section of the population in order to get that section to support you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Well, what then is it when the current working class white losers around here push that they call populism? That's just one populism out of many. Populism is simply supporting something a reasonable size chunk of other people will support. LBJ's Great Society package was also a populism. Most leftist policies are also populism. Most of any policies are populism. Directly anti-populist or non-populist politics is very rare in any form of working democracy. Totalitarian dictatorships, for instance, are quite often anti-populist, but they also have essentially 0 responsibility to the public. I'd say the last time there was a reasonable amount of anti-populist politicians in the US federal government, for instance, would be before direct election of US Senators was allowed, thus when Senators were directly responsible only to highly gerrymandered state legislatures. Many of those would support populist policies anyway though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Populism is just idpol for white losers. it's to be opposed because it directly shits on every minority who's had the ability to climb of poverty, and is in part a direct move to drag them back into the same slimepit as the worst of white America. There's a reason why the first big blooming in the US corresponded with a scofflaw government that committed unconstitutional ethnic cleansing and led to the proportionally largest economic collapse in US history. Maybe it's somehow different in the UK, but seeing how the lovely northern rural areas (i.e. populist central) were the ones who flushed the last vestige of your world power down the drain with Brexit, I'm sort of doubting it. The educated class having its own sensibility is no more populism than the black community doing it. Sorry your class war failed comrade. Sounds like you have correct and completely healthy views of working class people, lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I mean there's certainly a lot wrong with the way that economic problems for white people express themselves in the US but I would suggest that has more to do with the political leadership past and present, than white people being inherently evil, as easy as it is to believe the latter sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I've always thought of populism as policy arguments that sound good to idiots, but are actually horrible/useless in practice, like: * War on drugs * "Tough on crime" * Close the borders * Hijab/Sharia "bans" * Indiscriminate deregulation * Naive protectionism * Cutting welfare Maybe in US you have a different definition but that's how populism is regarded as in EU, we have actual populist parties that sometimes get around 7-25% of the vote depending on how charismatic their leader is before the party succumbs to infighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Vesi posted:I've always thought of populism as policy arguments that sound good to idiots, but are actually horrible/useless in practice, like: I think perhaps you might be being swayed by the fondness of political parties to call their opponents populist while being populist themselves. See also Republicans and the word liberal which definitely does not describe any part of the Republican economic position whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Vesi posted:I've always thought of populism as policy arguments that sound good to idiots, but are actually horrible/useless in practice, like: Calling some party a "populist party" is basically saying you can't figure out a coherent ideology they have (and likely, the party's leadership can't figure that out either). Again, since most policies can be described as being populist to some group of the population, you'll just have those catch-all parties labeled as "populist" for lack of a better name. A mainstream left or right party usually doesn't need to be described this way, by having a somewhat coherent ideology they subscribe to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Calling some party a "populist party" is basically saying you can't figure out a coherent ideology they have (and likely, the party's leadership can't figure that out either). Again, since most policies can be described as being populist to some group of the population, you'll just have those catch-all parties labeled as "populist" for lack of a better name. You said it better than I did and I agree 100%, that's how the term is used in the media here. The lack of coherent a platform is also the reason why they inevitably break down (so far at least) if they ever get into power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
You might need another They Live moment if you continue to agree with Libertarians that rising inequality is good and natural because it separates the self-made ubermenschen from the lazy stupid subhumans, but just disagree on who should belong to those two groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Vesi posted:You said it better than I did and I agree 100%, that's how the term is used in the media here. The lack of coherent a platform is also the reason why they inevitably break down (so far at least) if they ever get into power. "Populist", at least recently in the US, is also a lazy smear that centrist technocrats like to use in order to paint Nazis and leftists with the same brush. It turns out that a lot of people in the political and media classes actually agree that there's an unaccountable elite ruling our country, but they believe themselves to be part of that elite and want to keep it in charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:So the marxoteen defense. By saying this stuff can't be right to do, you are missing the good it does. Mainly no platforming populists and forcing them back to the economic tier their lack of talent warrants. "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" refers to the notion that you can't solve the problems of capitalism with more capitalism. A moral choice is not "I will buy from Costco because their employment practices are less predatory than Sam's Club". All products produced and consumed under capitalism are exploitative to some degree, and while you can make buying choices that are morally superior to other buying choices, that's all pointless because ultimately capitalism is a system of exploiting others. You suggest that advertisers transitioning from alt-right channels to somewhere less toxic is ethical. However, this is only true in a relative sense, as these advertisers are still operating within the exploitative system of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:"Populist", at least recently in the US, is also a lazy smear that centrist technocrats like to use in order to paint Nazis and leftists with the same brush. It turns out that a lot of people in the political and media classes actually agree that there's an unaccountable elite ruling our country, but they believe themselves to be part of that elite and want to keep it in charge. Ok but enough melting down. Populist is a legit descriptor, once again, of nearly every political movement bigger than 5 guys meeting in a basement. That you get all offended about being called a populist says way more about you than it does about anyone else. Also sorry you think it's a bad thing to have actual experts in charge of administering government as opposed to unqualified political appointees? That's a weird position to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I mean that's a fairly fundamentally democratic position to have I might argue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Also sorry you think it's a bad thing to have actual experts in charge of administering government as opposed to unqualified political appointees? That's a weird position to have. It's cute that you actually believe the elites have any idea what they're doing. "Actual experts" you crack me up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ok but enough melting down. Populist is a legit descriptor, once again, of nearly every political movement bigger than 5 guys meeting in a basement. That you get all offended about being called a populist says way more about you than it does about anyone else. It's actually not weird at all to think it's pretty stupid and malicious when a fairly general political term (as you correctly point out) gets weaponized in order to pretend that social democrats are the same as Nazis. But hey I guess I'm just ~melting down~ because I made a point that you can't understand. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's cute that you actually believe the elites have any idea what they're doing. "Actual experts" you crack me up. If you don't believe actual experts exist, I guess you don't believe in the entire structure of science. Are you a global warming denier then? Mornacale posted:It's actually not weird at all to think it's pretty stupid and malicious when a fairly general political term (as you correctly point out) gets weaponized in order to pretend that social democrats are the same as Nazis. You two are freaking out about a mythical strawman of what "technocrat" means just like Mornacle was freaking out about a mythical strawman of what "populism" means. Technocracy is the belief that society should be organized as a collective society, preferably on the continental level as much as possible if not globally (the reason being that this ensures enough balance of resources to operate on its own), with everyone getting a fair share of the total economy, in the 1930s for instance this was widely expressed as "$30,000 a year for everyone versus bread lines and Rockefellers" - $30,000 a year then is like $500,000 a year now. The organization of the state at this point would be broadly similar to something like the Soviet Union, only with the decision makers being experts in relevant fields - for instance the people in charge of food distribution should be experts in logistics, transportation details etc. Barring the ability to achieve that, within a typical bourgeois liberal democracy they sought to limit picks for various administrative overseeing to experts in the relevant fields, preferably those who had already shown good performance in the relevant bureaucracies. Political parties shouldn't be able to say, put someone who doesn't even know what the Department of Energy does in charge of it. This also means that the existing "experts" would often be replaced, as the people in charge should be able to stand up to evidence-based testing and confirmation of orders and such. It was also in part a reaction to the ongoing legacy of patronage staffing of the governmental bureaucracy versus properly tested civil servants. Meanwhile you think it means.. well it doesn't appear to mean anything to you other than "meanies I don't like!!! wahh!!!" And once again, yes, social democrats and Nazis are both populist. So for that matter are technocrats, so are nearly all political groups. You getting freaked out over being called populist just reveals what was already obvious: you don't understand political terms. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
That experts exist has little bearing on whether they are running the world currently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you don't believe actual experts exist, I guess you don't believe in the entire structure of science. Are you a global warming denier then? Not in power as the elites, which is who the person you responded to was talking about. I know you're incapable of remembering the context that a conversation is happening in so I'll forgive you for making this grievous error in understanding. fishmech posted:You two are freaking out about a mythical strawman of what "technocrat" means just like Mornacle was freaking out about a mythical strawman of what "populism" means. Literally nobody gives a poo poo about the "real" meaning of trchnocracy other than you and the 10 people who edit the wikipedia page you just spend an hour poring over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I want to hear more about Australia trying to ban boycotts? So if I make a facebook post about how me and my friends found rat hair in food at Johnny's Original Anzac Biscuitry then the government will come and lock me up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Not in power as the elites, which is who the person you responded to was talking about. I know you're incapable of remembering the context that a conversation is happening in so I'll forgive you for making this grievous error in understanding. You should probably give a poo poo about words if you plan to use them. Stop using technocrats to mean "vague centrist menace to idiots" when it's really an overall left idea and practice seeking to break down traditional capital by throwing out hereditary ownership in favor of project custodians who understand how the system works, and will probably themselves have been the plain workers before. And of course there are few technocrats in power now, as trump exclusively appoints the least expert least prepared people possible. I realize some people with an iq of 25 think it's a description of mainstream democrats. It generally isn't beyond their belief that say the head of EPA shouldn't believe pollution is good. fishmech fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Stop arguing with fishmech you fuckin morons
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I want to hear more about Australia trying to ban boycotts? So if I make a facebook post about how me and my friends found rat hair in food at Johnny's Original Anzac Biscuitry then the government will come and lock me up? Probably it only applies to organized movements but it sounds pretty dumb no matter how it's sliced
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Lol you're arguing with a guy who will literally die if he ever admits he is in any way wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Fishmech admits when he's wrong. He's just very very careful to make absolutely sure he isn't technically wrong so he never has to. Theres a difference. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I want to hear more about Australia trying to ban boycotts? So if I make a facebook post about how me and my friends found rat hair in food at Johnny's Original Anzac Biscuitry then the government will come and lock me up? I haven't tracked it closely but the US also recently saw a bill floated to make participation in a boycott against Israel punishable by jail time. No idea how any of this poo poo is meant to be enforced, though I do imagine libertarians getting a secret thrill over the idea of companies being able to legally mandate you buy from them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I haven't tracked it closely but the US also recently saw a bill floated to make participation in a boycott against Israel punishable by jail time. No idea how any of this poo poo is meant to be enforced, though I do imagine libertarians getting a secret thrill over the idea of companies being able to legally mandate you buy from them. The US one (not that I've read it) is probably targeting the academic boycott since "grumble fart Public Employees!!!" Which is even dumber than being mad at public employee subgroups wanting to unionize in today's environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
And now, in "why libertarianism will not work" example 10037898^2: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Rich-SF-residents-get-a-shock-Someone-bought-11738236.php San Francisco Chronicle posted:
It's literally that goddamn mock-fic that comes up every so often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And now, in "why libertarianism will not work" example 10037898^2: quote:There’s a bit of irony in the couple’s purchase. Until a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the enforcement of racial covenants, homes in Presidio Terrace could be purchased only by whites. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Oh, also I asked that initial question because I've seen people like Hannity claim that boycotts against him are a form of "economic terrorism" (seriously). Which is why I thought it was a little odd to say that boycotts and "voting with your dollars" is something everyone can do but in practice, these same people admit they shouldn't do (at least when it effects them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Hypocrisy is a common affliction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
It's been really sad watching the libertarians who backed Trump on the premise of "He's going to end the warmongering state and the crony capitalism in DC!" struggle with the reality that they have been history's easiest dupes. And by sad, I mean hilarious. Case in point: Justin Raimondo.A long-time antiwar activist and libertarian to the core (and not of the Ayn Rand variety, either!), he was pathetically enthused about Trump for...reasons. I don't think even Ron Paul got Raimondo giddier than The Donald. I guess it's the entrepreneur vibe. It _does things_ to libertarians. He's been going full "russian peasant in 1916" now, too: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/08/08/privatize-afghan-war/ "Our Tsar is so just and fair, he must simply have not heard of our plight! 'Tis the fault of his evil councilors, whispering lies into his ears, and pushing virtuous minister Bannon to the sidelines, we would he living in libertarian peace and free-market plenty now!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:34 |
|
|
TLM3101 posted:And now, in "why libertarianism will not work" example 10037898^2: Thankfully we aren't a Libertopia., so those street owners have chosen poorly. All they've really got ownership of is the common spaces that came with the property, as the road itself being the only way into a decades old neighborhood means that the residents will effectively be granted easements to traverse it despite the ownership change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 19:56
|
|
