|
Mr Interweb posted:But didn't J-Rod also say it's totally fine for Black people to be both racially profiled and incarcerated at higher rates than Whites as well? It was people from the Middle East being profiled for being terrorists, not black people being profiled as criminals.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'm kind of of the opinion that a libertarian society is one where it would be really easy to just talk people into joining a People's Militia and start expropriating the property of rich people. I'd love to see a "perfect" libertarian world where quickly due to the misery and chaos the system produces people willingly join huge, perfectly legal within the libertarian system, co-ops which end up being opt-in socialist societies, which end up becoming the norm. Would a libertarian be ok with full on socialism so long as everything was owned by "MarxCo LLC" and democratic socialism was just a ton of people renting land owned by MarxCo and employees of MarxCo which was run as a company where every single "staff member" had a single vote and an equal share in the "profits" ?? Would they be fine if 90% of the globe was bought up by this corporation with only a few minor hold-outs here and there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It was people from the Middle East being profiled for being terrorists, not black people being profiled as criminals. He did the black person one too, in the Michael Brown thread iirc. Captain_Maclaine posted:He was totally down with racial profiling and perplexed that we all thought that demonstrated racial prejudice on his part. He can't be racist, racism is collectivist thinking. Baronjutter posted:I'd love to see a "perfect" libertarian world where quickly due to the misery and chaos the system produces people willingly join huge, perfectly legal within the libertarian system, co-ops which end up being opt-in socialist societies, which end up becoming the norm. Would a libertarian be ok with full on socialism so long as everything was owned by "MarxCo LLC" and democratic socialism was just a ton of people renting land owned by MarxCo and employees of MarxCo which was run as a company where every single "staff member" had a single vote and an equal share in the "profits" ?? Would they be fine if 90% of the globe was bought up by this corporation with only a few minor hold-outs here and there? I know you're joking, but this is basically a possible ending of Proudhon's mutualist theory, and they're down with him
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
I have a feeling they would be even more down with one guy buying all the land and then crowning himself king and enslaving all his new subjects/former tenants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
The closest I've seen to a libertarian society working out was that sweet, sweet time in Fallout 2 when I chanced upon the mafia and the yakuza duking it out near New Reno and basically killed themselves mutually leaving me to loot their corpses for many fine, expensive sniper rifles and katanas and basically making me filthy rich for the rest of the game. Excuse me, I...have something in my eye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Speaking of libertarian societies, I'll never forget when I was listening to Peter Schiff argue with some liberal and they asked him an example of the perfect libertarian society if it exists or has ever existed. I was expecting him to mention some standby nation like Somalia or some other third world country, but actually he mentions the U.S. Not the current U.S., obviously, but the U.S. In...the 1870s. I felt like he had to think pretty carefully about his answer because he couldn't pick any time before 1865 on account of that whole slavery thing, and he couldn't pick anything past 1913 because of 1) the income tax amendment and 2) the creation of the Fed. So this was the best he could come up with. Nevermind that we had like 3 depressions during that period, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Idealizing Gilded Age America is not an uncommon meme among libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd love to see a "perfect" libertarian world where quickly due to the misery and chaos the system produces people willingly join huge, perfectly legal within the libertarian system, co-ops which end up being opt-in socialist societies, which end up becoming the norm. Would a libertarian be ok with full on socialism so long as everything was owned by "MarxCo LLC" and democratic socialism was just a ton of people renting land owned by MarxCo and employees of MarxCo which was run as a company where every single "staff member" had a single vote and an equal share in the "profits" ?? Would they be fine if 90% of the globe was bought up by this corporation with only a few minor hold-outs here and there? EVE Online is a fun example! They're lacking the full direct democracy part, but that sounds similar in purpose to how the Goonswarm operates in EVE Online -- over the years I've seen several SA banner ads proudly advertising Space Socialism for goons within the harshly libertarian portions of the game universe. This harsh libertarian universe means they can help fund their Space Socialism with ruthless turboscamming and with the commission of economic terrorism at scale. And there's no ...They are not especially loved by the rest of the playerbase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
I had some random dude try to pitch me EvE online as being great because there's no rules and only the strong survive and it being a perfect society. He wasn't best amused when I pointed out that it sounded profoundly unenjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I know you're joking, but this is basically a possible ending of Proudhon's mutualist theory, and they're down with him love when they do this, never seen an anarcho not immediately pick up on it and make a jack off motion anarchos hate ancaps and right libertarians with the fury of a thousand exploding suns especially ancaps for appropriating the term OwlFancier posted:I had some random dude try to pitch me EvE online as being great because there's no rules and only the strong survive and it being a perfect society. eve rules if you hook up with goons who basically practice space communism and go about pissing off every other player in the game
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Goons in Star Trek Online do similar Space Communism hijinx. The goon Federation and Klingon guilds were (are?) Starfleet Dental and Nerds of Prey, and they managed to simultaneously alienate the game's minority of hardcore libertopian sperg types while making the rest of the playerbase really happy by doing things like hosting public chat channels or opening up their guild starbase to the public (up to that point guilds would charge a lot of in-game money to use their starbase, which I guess gave a lot of in-game benefits)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Idealizing Gilded Age America is not an uncommon meme among libertarians. Yeah, they always imagine they'd be Andrew Carnegie (or Henry Frick), rather than some anonymous worker who got his arm crushed in a stamp mill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Would a libertarian be ok with full on socialism so long as everything was owned by "MarxCo LLC" and democratic socialism was just a ton of people renting land owned by MarxCo and employees of MarxCo which was run as a company where every single "staff member" had a single vote and an equal share in the "profits" ?? Would they be fine if 90% of the globe was bought up by this corporation with only a few minor hold-outs here and there? No, obviously. Look at how much they bitched about liberal censorship when Google used its God-given property rights to fire a guy who wrote a "women can't be engineers because  " memo.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, obviously. Megan McArdle getting antsy about private employers having the freedom to fire innocent, brave neonazis for their beliefs was actually stunning. There is no bar low enough that libertarians cannot slither under it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Megan McArdle getting antsy about private employers having the freedom to fire innocent, brave neonazis for their beliefs was actually stunning. There is no bar low enough that libertarians cannot slither under it. She did that? I mean, I'm not surprised, but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
I just found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUlbwVKsWSY and it covers what the thread has talked about regarding Libertarians and Fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
How do libertarians support non-compete contracts? They seem like the most anti-free market thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How do libertarians support non-compete contracts? They seem like the most anti-free market thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Third World update. I don't know very much about the situation in Brazil, but this sounds like it fits fairly well within the Narrativist Framework. This sounds like an Economic Cluster group gained control of the government, but the resultant Compaction cycles are driving Narrative convergence and Inner Narrative evolution until you wind up with the inevitable final form of Narrativism, some form of totalitarian fascists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I don't know very much about the situation in Brazil, but this sounds like it fits fairly well within the Narrativist Framework. This sounds like an Economic Cluster group gained control of the government, but the resultant Compaction cycles are driving Narrative convergence and Inner Narrative evolution until you wind up with the inevitable final form of Narrativism, some form of totalitarian fascists. Isn't prefacing your statement with "I don't know very much about X" and then still attempting to fit it into your terminology all the same is a little absurd? Particularly in light of the fact that nothing in the brazilian situation fits any rational definition of totalitarian fascism? Brazil is hosed up sure, but not everything that is hosed up is fascism. Caros fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How do libertarians support non-compete contracts? They seem like the most anti-free market thing ever. it's a contract therefore it's good
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:it's a contract therefore it's good "The only unjust contract is the Social Contract" mutters the man, smiling as he traps a new hire with a hidden slavery clause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:Isn't prefacing your statement with "I don't know very much about X" and then still attempting to fit it into your terminology all the same is a little absurd? No, not really. My terminology is meant to describe the type of situation that is playing out in Brazil, and while I am not familiar with the detailed specifics I stated that openly before trying to give a very general analysis. quote:
I wasn't using "some form of totalitarian fascism" to indicate anything more than the general direction of where things are headed in Brazil atm. (more specifically "some form of totalitarian fascism" is the final form of Narrativism, which Brazil is headed towards but nowhere near at present) I wasn't trying to declare that Brazil at present meets any academic definition of fascism. And that is broadly where the trend of things in Brazil seems to be. One quick example can be found in this NYT article. New York Times posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:No, not really. My terminology is meant to describe the type of situation that is playing out in Brazil, and while I am not familiar with the detailed specifics I stated that openly before trying to give a very general analysis. The situation you admit to knowing almost nothing about. My point is that you seem to have a real thing with wanting it both ways, that somehow your 'terminology' is capable of being bothered broadly useful and alarmingly specific, which makes me think more of tarot reading than any form of political science. Facism actually has a definition beyond 'things I don't like'. Being a poo poo head religious conservative does not, in and of itself, suggest a country is on the downspiral to fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:"The only unjust contract is the Social Contract" mutters the man, smiling as he traps a new hire with a hidden slavery clause. What I always find "funny" (for lack of a better adjective) about the libertard rejection of the social contract is that, well, you can opt out of it. You can leave a country for another country if you don't want to pay taxes or follow their laws or not shoot brown people for sport. If anything, the social contract is slanted somewhat in favour of the citizen. If you are born into a place, even if your family is dreadfully poor and pays little to no tax because of it, you still get basic education for free, probably including some meals, medical care (except for the US), use of roads, police and fire service and so on. You get to benefit from the social infrastructure 18 or so years before you contribute to it, and if you want to leave upon reaching the age of emancipation you can while never putting a personal penny into the public coffers. Odd how that never comes up when the "TAXES ARE THEFT!" crowd starts kvetching.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:The situation you admit to knowing almost nothing about. My point is that you seem to have a real thing with wanting it both ways, that somehow your 'terminology' is capable of being bothered broadly useful and alarmingly specific, which makes me think more of tarot reading than any form of political science. Do you have a specific objection to what I posted beyond "Brazil does not presently meet the dictionary definition of fascism and is not necessarily on the path towards it"? Because we are in full agreement on that point. You seem more upset that I am participating in the conversation than anything else.. To make my previous clarification clearer, I did not argue that Brazil is currently fascist or necessarily going to become fascist. My statement was actually that "some form of totalitarian fascism" is the final form of Narrativism, ad that Brazil may be headed down that path. The progression of Narrativism can be stopped under the right circumstances, as has recently happened in the US with the Alt-Right post Charlottesville. Even if my Framework 100% applies directly to Brazil that does not mean Brazil will ever reach the endpoint of Narrativism, or that whatever its society looks like at that point will meet an academic definition of fascism. I was using the term "some form of totalitarian fascism" to indicate the generic tendencies of what a society under those conditions looks like. Your entire counter-argument is premised on taking my thesis more literally than I do. I am offering a general analysis of trends based on a light reading of the situation. I am more than happy in hearing specifics of where my analysis is mistaken and would be interested to read any post that addresses that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How do libertarians support non-compete contracts? They seem like the most anti-free market thing ever. Well it'd be against the contract to leave the corporate fortress you signed up to live in for 50 years minimum, so how could you even go to the competing corporate fortress? Checkmate, liberals!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Do you have a specific objection to what I posted beyond "Brazil does not presently meet the dictionary definition of fascism and is not necessarily on the path towards it"? Because we are in full agreement on that point. You seem more upset that I am participating in the conversation than anything else.. I am generally annoyed when you try and peddle your nonsense anywhere outside of the dedicated thread for you to peddle it, yes. If you want to talk about the subject, go hard, but if you are going to come in and drop a bunch of buzzwords to a not especially convincing or well thought out political theory, I reserve the right to call you out on it.  quote:To make my previous clarification clearer, I did not argue that Brazil is currently fascist or necessarily going to become fascist. My statement was actually that "some form of totalitarian fascism" is the final form of Narrativism, ad that Brazil may be headed down that path. The progression of Narrativism can be stopped under the right circumstances, as has recently happened in the US with the Alt-Right post Charlottesville. quote:This sounds like an Economic Cluster group gained control of the government, but the resultant Compaction cycles are driving Narrative convergence and Inner Narrative evolution until you wind up with the inevitable final form of Narrativism, some form of totalitarian fascists. To be clear, to any outside observer you did argue that. I mean, I appreciate the clarification, and it might not have been your intention, but your original argument was a statement. If I say "That looks like you have bedbugs" and then proceed to discuss all of the horrific thing that are going to result from bedbugs, it isn't the fault of the reader for assuming that you mean what you said. That out of the way, if your argument is that Brazil 'may be' on the path to totalitarian fascism as a result of your buzzwords, then sure, I guess. My ham sandwich 'may' be on the path towards totalitarian fascism, but I don't think it is likely. I used Tarot as my example, because if you're using weasel arguments that "X may be on the direction to y" then you will never be proven wrong because your predictions are simultaneously specific and general. I cannot point to a country on earth that doesn't have at least one of your 'cluster groups' as you describe them, or the political pressure that result therefrom, meaning your theory can be applied everywhere. At the same time, the number of actual fascist countries or fascist movements on earth are actually rather small, meaning that despite your claim, narrativists don't seem to actually end up at fascism all that often in practice. You might also want to stop using the word inevitable to describe something that you admit can be stopped. That said, while I have you and we're in the libertarian thread: quote:Economic Cluster: Members of this Cluster are obsessed with the way that resources are distributed within society and always choose as their Enemy some sort of "takers"- or group that takes more from society than it returns and will thus consume society out of existence. Objectivists, An-Caps, and Libertarians are the goto examples for Economic Cluster Narrativists. This Cluster normally has some sort of abstract concept as their God-Force with the two most common examples being the "Free Market" or the "Non-Aggression Principle" and always declares themselves a member of the elect (e.g. "Captain of Industry) because of their claimed "true" understanding of and obedience to this abstract principle. Economic Cluster Narrativists are notably less likely to become high-compaction than other Clusters as a result of their tendency (within the modern zeitgeist) to attract highly individualistic and ambitious individuals. As a result Compaction cycles tend to fracture Economic Cluster Narrativists easily (e.g. virtually every An-Cap group, ever) or tend to have a very hard time attracting anything more than a small core of dedicated followers (e.g. Stephan Molyneux). Economic Cluster Narrativists are always pre-occupied with ensuring that their chosen Enemy has no access to any of societies resources (including food) and often views poor people as a sort of pestilence that threatens to wipe out society unless the poor themselves are either put down viciously or at least kept out of sight. Economic Cluster Narrativists associate possession of resources (which in our modern culture has been reduced simply to money) with proof of good character and obedience to the God-Force and desire a social environment that is dominated by those who control the most resources. This isn't a terrible description of libertarianism et al, but I have to ask, in what hosed up bizarro world do you see this ending in totalitarian fascism? I mean, it might seem like I'm parsing, but I can't think of a path where libertarianism ends in fascism, because one of the defining traits of fascism is stronger government controls over the economy. The two are incompatible on a fundamental level for even the most mainstream wing of libertarianism, and it only gets worse the further you go into ancapistan. Feudalism? Sure, I'd buy that. We've talked plenty about how libertarianism ends up with 'private communes' and other poo poo that are essentially feudal fiefdoms. But that isn't fascism. Mega Corporations ruling with an iron fist? hosed up, yes, but not fascist.Anarcho-Mongolians with tribes of drugged up children enforcing their DRO regime? Hilarious, not fascism. The entire premise of your argument is flawed from the beginning, in part because you're just using 'totalitarian fascism' as a catch all for 'bad thing that I don't like'. You appear to do the same thing with your religion argument, where you use ISIS as an example despite the fact that ISIS is better described as a theocratic dictatorship since the only connection it has with fascism is a strongman leader. quote:Your entire counter-argument is premised on taking my thesis more literally than I do. I am offering a general analysis of trends based on a light reading of the situation. I am more than happy in hearing specifics of where my analysis is mistaken and would be interested to read any post that addresses that. I do tend to take what people post at it's face, yes. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:I am generally annoyed when you try and peddle your nonsense anywhere outside of the dedicated thread for you to peddle it, yes. I would respond with clarifications to the various ways you are misreading my work, but you are making clear with your opening sentence here that you have no interest in good-faith interlocution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I would respond with clarifications to the various ways you are misreading my work, but you are making clear with your opening sentence here that you have no interest in good-faith interlocution. Whilst
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
I would probably eat a totalitarian fascist ham sandwich. I'd also agree that fascism and libertarianism aren't really compatible. They're both crap but are still different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Consent to rejoinder revoked!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:"The only unjust contract is the Social Contract" mutters the man, smiling as he traps a new hire with a hidden slavery clause. I'll be honest, Social Contract theory always kinda skeezed me out because there's no other context I can think of where "implied consent" would ever fly. "You would agree to this if I gave you a chance to and you weren't so irrational" is an argument that could have troubling consequences down the line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'll be honest, Social Contract theory always kinda skeezed me out because there's no other context I can think of where "implied consent" would ever fly. "You would agree to this if I gave you a chance to and you weren't so irrational" is an argument that could have troubling consequences down the line. It's far from perfect but I think it makes sense as a descriptive rather than a prescriptive thing. It describes relatively well, the sense of collective and self enforcing obligation to society that a lot of people have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Well this thread got needlessly antagonistic fast...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'll be honest, Social Contract theory always kinda skeezed me out because there's no other context I can think of where "implied consent" would ever fly. "You would agree to this if I gave you a chance to and you weren't so irrational" is an argument that could have troubling consequences down the line. That's actually one reason why I asked about potential libertarian philosophical views on conception-as-aggression (and the NAP's seemingly unavoidable anti-natalist conclusion) a while back in this thread. On SC's implied consent: I'd agree with an earlier poster that there's enough of a way for people to "opt out" of taxes and society after reaching adulthood by aping various religiously exempt groups like Kibbutzniks or Mennonites (or just flat out renouncing citizenship) though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:I am generally annoyed when you try and peddle your nonsense anywhere outside of the dedicated thread for you to peddle it, yes. If you want to talk about the subject, go hard, but if you are going to come in and drop a bunch of buzzwords to a not especially convincing or well thought out political theory, I reserve the right to call you out on it. Kinda sad to see you become such an rear end in a top hat now that you can't get your Jrod fix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I mean there isn't really a perfectly elegant way to handle the fact that there are benefits to staying in the place you were raised and that you can't give meaningful consent as a child. People just kind of have to pick a society for you and hope you like it when you grow up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean there isn't really a perfectly elegant way to handle the fact that there are benefits to staying in the place you were raised Well yeah, but you should still be able to post in whatever thread you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I would respond with clarifications to the various ways you are misreading my work, but you are making clear with your opening sentence here that you have no interest in good-faith interlocution.  Jizz Festival posted:Kinda sad to see you become such an rear end in a top hat now that you can't get your Jrod fix. I've always been an rear end in a top hat, just funnier when dealing with Jrodefeld. That said, PJ actually annoys me in the same way that Jrod does. She throws out a mountain of words when a smaller number will work, and now that she has her whole framework laid out, everything and everything needs to be seen through the lens of that framework. It is the old hammer and a nail thing, except in this case the hammer is psuedo-scientific gobbledygook put forward by someone whose only claim to fame on the subject is mental disorder and an unhealthy upbringing. As I said, I don't have a problem with PJ, I have a problem with her posting her ridiculous delusions of grandeur as though they were fact. Edit: And to cut it off at the head, no I am not insulting people with mental disorders. The thread is literally titled 'A schizophreniac explains crazy people.' Caros fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:08
|
|