|
Libertarians love fascist imagery, a guy in a centurion outfit can only help your case.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:David Graeber is
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
David Graeber's rambling style kinda grew on me. I like how in his latest book about bureaucracy at some point he goes off in a tangent to talk about the duality of vampires/werewolves. Also I learned recently that making GBS threads on the barter myth has been a thing among non-liberal economists for a long time. Like here's Allyn Young in 1924: quote:This view of things, that men invented money in order to rid themselves of the difficulties and inconveniences of barter, belongs, along with much other conjectural history, on the scrap-heap of discredited ideas. Men did not invent money by reasoning about the inconveniences of barter any more than they invented government by reasoning about the inconveniences of some mythical primitive state of anarchy. The use of money, like other human institutions, grew or evolved. Its origins are obscure. It is, nevertheless, fairly certain that at no period in his history has man ever conducted any considerable volume of trade by means of barter. There was a very small gap, perhaps no gap at all, between the beginnings of trade and the origin of money. http://www.perrymehrling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Allyn-Young-1x74bxg.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians love fascist imagery, a guy in a centurion outfit can only help your case. Well, it depends on if it's the cool flying one and not the lovely water guy. Army guys gets a pass for the Tron knockoff bike. I wonder if Lucy the orang-utan ever got a special suit to wear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actually, a lot of people respond better to Roman imagery, such videos might be better VitalSigns posted:Libertarians love fascist imagery, a guy in a centurion outfit can only help your case. I may be underselling the Halloween costume aspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I may be underselling the Halloween costume aspect. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
That's clearly a TOS klingon outfit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Oh man, one of those raver animal hoodies (not the furry suits) but printed as the yellow/black snake with a big tire tread running diagonally across the abdomen would be so good
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Reddit's low hanging fruit, I know.  "Oh god I can't stop violating all these laws!? Won't someone deliver me from these cursed laws"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
"Regulations are scar tissue" Yeah, I'm using that from now on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Mike Cernovich is more relevant to the dark enlightenment thread than this one, but his disastrous AMA today still yielded the best insult of a libertarian I've ever seen:
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
In a similar vein: "Dude, just because the fourteenth amendment means you can't own other people doesn't mean you have to keep constantly owning yourself"
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Talking to Libertarians about public health will result in an amazing display of mental gymnastics. They cannot grasp the idea that the health outcomes of others has a direct effect on their health as well because their entire belief structure centers around the idea that every man is an island. The notion that a random person could get them sick is just out of the question because only people who lack the personal responsibility to diet and exercise get sick. Vaccination is a great example. They don't understand how vaccines actually work so the conversation always boils down to "If you can afford a vaccine then get one but why should I care if someone else is vaccinated?" I think they're selfish assholes for the most part but I also think they share a lot of the same territory with conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theories offer comfort because the idea that a mass shooting or a bombing can just happen is frightening, there has to be someone in charge, they can't accept the fact that the world is chaotic so they construct elaborate fantasies to make it feel more structured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
An astounding number of libertarians that I've met were definitely full-blown conspiracy theorists, both require a broken brain I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
It goes with the territory - if you're a libertarian, you think you've seen the matrix for what it is, and are smarter than everyone else. So, you start picking up on any minority viewpoint, so long as it's against the government. If one thing was right, maybe they all are!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
There is a blog post that asserts that one of the common threads that goes through libertarianism, rationalism, and neoreaction is that they offer a way to transform politics from chaotic and arbitrary to ordered and absolute. This appeals to people who want the world to be structured in that there is a reason for why something happens even if it is a bad one. I wonder if this is part of why a lot of libertarian economics either ignore externalities or their proposed solutions require some UI in which you see who is dumping poo poo into the river and how much damage they did in dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
I imagine showing them like Cities: Skylines and going, "look there are other metrics aside from cash flow that determine the success of a community at large scales" but the answer would be "that's nobody's responsibility, just let philanthropists fix problems their own way, which they would have if the other half of their profits we're allowed to be reinvested instead of stolen with a gun to their head." In this case, having a gun to your head is important to emphasize because it applies undue stress over and above the cost of taxes, which could lead to cardiac complications in the future. Watch it before it's gone, because it's the last time anyone fitting this stereotype will ever give credence to the harm of something so indirect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I imagine showing them like Cities: Skylines and going, "look there are other metrics aside from cash flow that determine the success of a community at large scales" but the answer would be "that's nobody's responsibility, just let philanthropists fix problems their own way, which they would have if the other half of their profits we're allowed to be reinvested instead of stolen with a gun to their head." It's funny you say this because the head of the company that made skylines had a little interview where it showed her playing and she sort of autisticly rambled about how to her the point of the game was to maximize your city's income and she can't at all understand people who can get enjoyment out of making a city pretty or a city they imagine they'd like to live in. But she's told some players somehow care about other things so it's important to give these features to the customers, but to her the obvious only point is making your income graph go up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's funny you say this because the head of the company that made skylines had a little interview where it showed her playing and she sort of autisticly rambled about how to her the point of the game was to maximize your city's income and she can't at all understand people who can get enjoyment out of making a city pretty or a city they imagine they'd like to live in. But she's told some players somehow care about other things so it's important to give these features to the customers, but to her the obvious only point is making your income graph go up. this is really funny because skylines is incredibly unsatisfying if you play it like a game and focus on income; simcity 4 is still the best game for that style of play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:this is really funny because skylines is incredibly unsatisfying if you play it like a game and focus on income; simcity 4 is still the best game for that style of play. Was 4 the most recent one that ad all that drm that made it unplayable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Was 4 the most recent one that ad all that drm that made it unplayable? Nah that one with the ludicrous server DRM and tiny city plots would have been 5, but was just named "SimCity".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:When I was 15 I thought the word for my politics was "libertarian" because I was in favor of gay marriage (let people do what they want), free college (let people study what they want), and a UBI (let people do what they want without having to earn a living) There was a time on this very forum where the FairTax was being ernestly debated and characterized as a radical libertarian idea because of its UBI component and intended dismantling of welfare systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:UBI and obamacare were radical right wing proposals not that long ago. UBI advertised as a suitable replacement for the social safety net was at one point a right wing concept, and sometimes comes back as one, but UBI on its own was never really one. Conservatives want UBI for the reason you described: it gives everyone the same amount of help regardless of need, and it's easier to cut back just 1 program instead of many. FairTax was denounced as bullshit because it did away with progressive taxation and was aimed at creating a huge deficit that could be used to justify dismantling the social safety net, not because of its UBI component. But tell a progressive that you want to set up UBI alongside a strong social safety net and I doubt you'll hear complaints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:FairTax was denounced as bullshit because it did away with progressive taxation and was aimed at creating a huge deficit that could be used to justify dismantling the social safety net, not because of its UBI component. Going back further, the negative income tax was explicitly UBI, and that was a radical idea coming from Milton Freedman. It's certainly correct to question the motivations of whoever's proposing this reform as many do in fact want a destruction of the social safety net, however at that point it's just an argument over the amount of the UBI payment. But people weren't against the specific numbers, they were against the overall concept. That's changing. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Dec 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
UBI plus public medical, education, emergency services and utilities is the nornal leftist variant but its something traditional libertarians would hate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This seems a bit unfair, as you can make a flat tax as progressive as you want if you combine it with a large enough UBI component. Even if it's an otherwise regressive consumption tax. A flat tax with a really huge UBI wouldn't make that form of taxation progressive, just less regressive. And Flat Tax is proposed with solid numbers all the time. Remember the NEIN NEIN NEIN plan? Friedman explicitly wanted to end all social programs and proposed UBI as a means of doing that. That's the regressive part of his proposal that progressives (rightfully) rejected, not the UBI component. A UBI should be a replacement for minimum subsistence employment, but the social safety net needs to be able to provide beyond that according to need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This seems a bit unfair, as you can make a flat tax as progressive as you want if you combine it with a large enough UBI component. I used to think that, but whatever flat tax rate and minimum you chose, it can only be made more progressive by adding more brackets on top of it. Conversely, all else held equal, removing higher brackets makes taxation less progressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
There are a lot of libertarians in the military which is hilarious. I've got a few aquaintences from the Navy who are always posting on FB about taxation being theft when their wages and healthcare are paid for by taxes. They get shook when you mention it. They usually reenlist too because deep down inside they know there aren't many civilian jobs out there with decent pay, benifits, and guaranteed job security. Like, you REALLY have to gently caress up to get kicked out. RobotDogPolice fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
A good cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Leonard likes this post
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Does anyone have any books that specifically go after popular libertarian talking points, specifically Objectivism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
I'm also on the lookout for debunking libertarianism books. Articles are useful for talkings points and instances but most books I hear about critique the broader economic and philosophical foundations without really going after the specifics. I sometimes wonder if libertarianism's and especially Objectivism's apparent lack of modern support outside of think tanks and specific schools makes it not worthwhile to write a book directly addressing them. Is there a specific point or category you are looking to critique or is it more about having something consistent at hand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
I just remembered, but Ha Joon Chang and his books might be worth a look. I have them on my potential reading list so I can't tell you about quality. He tackles misconceptions and assumptions about free market capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Ugh. That friend of mine is getting worse by the day. I initially was ignoring his admiration for Milo as a misguided belief in "FREE SPEECH" that he tricked him into thinking he supports, but now I'm not sure if Milo was simply a gateway to chudthink, or if he was the type of person that was already pre-disposed to that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
I guess...the friends you made along the way were the real chuds all along? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Does anyone have any books that specifically go after popular libertarian talking points, specifically Objectivism? Sadly it's kind of a situation like flat earthers: nobody with the skill to write a good book on it wants to make it seem like libertarian/objectivist ideas are on an equal footing to be debated. Your best bet would be internet stuff by amateurs like us. Do you have any specific talking points in mind? I'm sure people here would have good arguments, since we've seen them all before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:I just remembered, but Ha Joon Chang and his books might be worth a look. I have them on my potential reading list so I can't tell you about quality. He tackles misconceptions and assumptions about free market capitalism. Goon Danton posted:Sadly it's kind of a situation like flat earthers: nobody with the skill to write a good book on it wants to make it seem like libertarian/objectivist ideas are on an equal footing to be debated. Your best bet would be internet stuff by amateurs like us. I don't think I can go more than a day on Facebook without seeing someone regurgitating the usual Free Market worship talking points. I have read a couple books by Ha Joon Chang, and those were pretty spot on for what I was looking for. Basically, I've been reading a lot (and by read I mean listening to audiobooks) lately, and the future of our economic system features pretty heavily in my thought process. In the past I had never really considered myself a Socialist, but at this point it is hard to see myself as anything else when I think about what steps are necessary to avoid some really large problems. To me the largest hurdle to real change seems to be some of the more pernicious ideas peddled by libertarians and their ilk surrounding the Free Market and Capitalism. It seems variations of these ideas are shared by a majority of the population, and the idea of the U.S. being a Capitalist nation runs pretty heavily in our national identity. I am curious if there any books that go into how we can combat this notion and persuade people to be more open to the expansion of the welfare state, or whatever methods are assumed to be the best to prevent the increase of wealth disparity and unemployment problems that we are going to continue to see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
If it helps, the problem is mildly self solving, in that people on the blunt end of capitalism tend to be very receptive to the suggestion that it's stupid. It might say more about your peer group if it's full of retired old farts and techbros who are probably the two biggest marks for pro capitalist messaging because they do quite well out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If it helps, the problem is mildly self solving, in that people on the blunt end of capitalism tend to be very receptive to the suggestion that it's stupid. You'd be surprised how many people who find themselves on the bad side of capitalism will instead simply blame someone else for their problems. The target of this blame is almost NEVER the economic system that binds them from my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:46
|
|