|
Cingulate posted:Are you saying you're either a socialist, or a libertarian? why_not_both.gif
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Why is Scott Alexander posting in this thread now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:"on the other hand, all of recorded history" sounds suspiciously like a common go-to shorthand refutation of the ideology Owlfancier and stinkypete are defending ITT right now, so I don't put much credence on the form of the argument. Now, one aspect of Langers' aphorism is that she suggests that often, a there are 600 pages of this thread and many of them feature extremely long, drawn-out discussions with genuine libertarians. every time, they were refuted with some form of "on the other hand, all of recorded history" (often, the extended version that explains point by point how libertarianism is at odds with human behavior) because libertarian ideology is literally underpinned by fantasy. many of us have done deep dives into libertarian thought, either for the sake of argument or because we were once libertarians, and for the most part they are "completely wrong in a trivial manner". i guess in a sense you can't trust that anybody understands anything well enough to criticize it, but if that's the case you might as well shut yourself in a box and contemplate solipsism hayek is the only author in the libertarian canon who isn't consistently wrong, but he wasn't a libertarian and is often viewed as very heterodox by the hardcore von mises types. charles murray is completely wrong in a trivial manner not because he is a libertarian but because he packages a racist agenda within a veneer of solid-at-first-glance scientific studies that actually have a lot of fundamental problems Jazerus fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
A good look at Murray's idiocy: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
I was watching capitalist propaganda last night and it's neat how close this one gets to outright explaining the labor theory of value: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7BjO65--JE
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:"on the other hand, all of recorded history" sounds suspiciously like a common go-to shorthand refutation of the ideology Owlfancier and stinkypete are defending ITT right now, so I don't put much credence on the form of the argument. Now, one aspect of Langers' aphorism is that she suggests that often, a Or, and just tossing this out there, it could be that we've spent hundreds of pages having to tediously dissect the same unbacked libertarian assertions over and over again, and have gotten a bit tired of putting in the effort when it's clear that those we're arguing with are not interested in honest debate, but rather are just proselytizing. I mean seriously, how many times do we have to tear down some praexological nonsense in exhausting detail before we just move on to intellectual scorched earth and mockery, which have the same results, take less time, and are more fun? And seriously, you're going to trot out Charles "The Bell Curve" Murray as a serious thinker who isn't trivially wrong about everything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Wait, is Cingulate back defending Murray and the Bell Curve again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:I, for one, am under no such delusions, given that you are an owl fancier instead of acknowledging parrots as the One True Bird Eat poo poo. And now that I've said it, you'll say it again and again. For all time. Because Parrot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Uroboros realtalk it sounds like you want someone like Mark Blythe, who is avowdly not a socialist (he is a Bernie guy tho) but describes a lot of what is going on in the world in an accurate yet easy to digest way. This lecture is a pretty good place to start. His book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea is real good too. If a Bernie guy is too socialist then I don't know what to tell ya
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Wait, is Cingulate back defending Murray and the Bell Curve again? Hahaha, again? How did I miss that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
If you want your not-trivially-wrong designation to apply to libertarian authors, it can be explained in that the tradition is couched in obfuscated values that tend to equate asset holders with Minecraft player characters. Before it became politically incorrect, people from outside of Europe (and lower-class debtors, generally) were regarded as NPCs or animals. So they're not trivially wrong within the abstract framework that defines economic activity, but all the marginal effects of the human activities that actualize the economic activity, add up to consequences that contradict values not recognized by the doctrine. The much-hallowed competition which would prevent abuse of people because they could pick a better employer/supplier, depends on the perfect competition model, which in turn requires perfect information about the market known to all participants, and no marginal costs to switching with whom you do business. With the advent of the Internet, people developed the illusion that perfect information about the whole market would now be cheap as free, but it is demonstrably not. Information about the market for capital owners is a whole industry, as is the targeted manipulation of what parts of the market regular people see, on any screen. You straight-up have to be Richard Stallman confining yourself to reading HTML documents that you had a program email to you, in emacs, and not watch TV or see billboards to avoid it. But that's fine for the soulless models, because arbitrage is billed as an invaluable service. So in the sense that dispelling illusions and noticing what has been erased is not trivial, the wrongness is not trivial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Uroboros realtalk it sounds like you want someone like Mark Blythe, who is avowdly not a socialist (he is a Bernie guy tho) but describes a lot of what is going on in the world in an accurate yet easy to digest way. This lecture is a pretty good place to start. His book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea is real good too. Thanks, ill give him a look. Edit: Sweet he is on audible. I wasn't saying Bernie has bad ideas, just more that he comes across as disjointed. Its basically a litany of "Look what the rich assholes are up to this time!", which is fine, but when you are talking about re-working the system that people have been used to for decades if not centuries its good to have a detailed plan of action. For example I'm on board for enough of this stuff that I am basically in camp Socialist even if I fail the purity test, there is no place for my ideas on the right, or really even the center(at least in the U.S.). That being said the level by which one wants to make things "collective" is still up for genuine debate. I didn't particularly find OwlFanciers idea of nationalizing the film industry to produce what he would consider "good" media to be convincing, and actually ended up just sounding like a recipe for something terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
This is one of the few legit plans for some sort of practical socialist system written in the last 50 years http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/ I've always found it interesting, mostly because there's just so few books like it where the author actually explains in clear language how a potential system could be set up and run rather than just 700 pages on if you're a true marxist if you spell it either "labour theory of value" or "labor theory of value"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Thanks, ill give him a look. on the other hand, disney owning literally everything is Really Bad and probably not going to turn out masterpieces
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Praxeology is literally "If I make it sound smart enough, it must be right"quote:
Its basically a return to Metaphysics: If I think about it long enough, I can explain it, rather than an empirical study. quote:hey seem to follow the maxim "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." If you couldn't wade through all their econo-speak and arbitrary redefinitions of commonly used terms, however, they literally do the work for you and come straight out and say they just made everything up. Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory:
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:no for real if im your favorite poster you're reading some god awful posts somewhere and its throwing your perception off I read PYF and the r/relationships thread. You decide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The first big angle to go after Lockean property rights is the one suggested by Locke himself: Circling around to this, because I forgot: this would be a good tactic with someone who knew who Locke was, but this was someone convinced they had arrived at these views practically a priori, a sad and common illness. I basically used the argument you prescribe, but he just kept shifting. It's interesting to see how strongly privilege and the need to defend it plays a foundational role in libertarian thought. I'd not really appreciated this fact until I politely conversed with someone who was simultaneously a) completely illiterate in libertarianism, and b) completely drowned in it, for 45 minutes. When they don't actually have any sources to cite, when they can only speak in abstract terms, when you get them to have to keep shifting topics and justifications... the defense of what they were born having, that others do not have, is all that there is. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:This is one of the few legit plans for some sort of practical socialist system written in the last 50 years excuse me I subscribe to the LIBOR theory of value
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Cingulate, really, look up praxeology, it is trivially refutable. And it's a pillar of libertarian thought, it's literally endorsed by their leading "scholars".  I don't understand what Praxeology is, nor do I really care. Ok. So let's look at something interesting instead. Marx was, to his credit, wrong, and contemporary Marxism is, to its shame, not even wrong, but irrefutable. Does that mean they're both completely wrong in a trivial manner? No, they are wrong in very interesting ways, and correct in a bunch of their sub-claims, and maybe even the general tendency. And I think it's probably somewhat similar with Mises' body of work: there's some good, some bad. Captain_Maclaine posted:And seriously, you're going to trot out Charles "The Bell Curve" Murray as a serious thinker who isn't trivially wrong about everything? GunnerJ posted:A good look at Murray's idiocy: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious Current Affairs posted:It is crucial to distinguish between the things Charles Murray actually does argue, and the things he is said to have argued. Murray often gets the better of his opponents because they stretch the case against him beyond its limits, allowing him to correctly point out that they are misrepresenting him. Let us be clear, then: Charles Murray does not conclude that the black-white gap in IQ test scores must entirely be the product of genetic inferiority, nor that black social outcomes are entirely genetic in origin. The Bell Curve is not, strictly speaking, “about” race and IQ. And Murray does not argue in favor of a program of eugenics ... Nor should Murray necessarily be called, as so many label him, a “pseudoscientist.” His writings are above-average in their statistical scrupulousness, and he uses no less logical rigor than many highly qualified social scientists do. The problem is far less in his use of the scientific method than in his normative values and conceptions of the good, which affect the uses to which he puts his science. Current Affairs posted:It’s Murray’s flippant treatment of this history that makes some scholars so angry at his work. He doesn’t even take the widespread existence of racism seriously as a hypothesis. After all, a black-white IQ score difference, combined with evidence that IQ is in some degree heritable, is actually consistent with the idea that black people are genetically superior to white people in intelligence, and that their scores are depressed by early exposure to a society that devalues them from the earliest years of their lives (recall Malcolm X’s teacher responding to his aspiration toward being a lawyer by telling him carpentry was more realistic). To put it differently: Black people could inherit average IQs of 110, while white people inherit average IQs of 100, but the disadvantages of living in a racist society from birth could mean that by a young age, black people end up with average IQs of 95 and white people stay at 100. As Ned Block explains, there is a hidden premise that a role for genetics must necessarily disadvantage blacks, but that’s not necessarily the case. Murray posted:A good place to start is by correcting a common confusion about the role of genes in individuals and in groups. As we discussed in Chapter 4, scholars accept that IQ is substantially heritable, somewhere between 40 and 80 percent, meaning that much of the observed variation in IQ is genetic. And yet this information tells us nothing for sure about the origin of the differences between races in measured intelligence. This point is so basic, and so commonly misunderstood, that it deserves emphasis: That a trait is genetically transmitted in individuals does not mean that group differences in that trait are also genetic in origin. Anyone who doubts this assertion may take two handfuls of genetically identical seed corn and plant one handful in Iowa, the other in the Mojave Desert, and let nature (i.e., the environment) take its course. The seeds will grow in Iowa, not in the Mojave, and the result will have nothing to do with genetic differences. All in all, I agree with the article that Murray's social science is quite good, but the article and I disagree with his values and the political implications he proposes. I actually think the connection between his libertarianism and his IQ realism is incoherent: the logical consequence of his claims about IQ would be a strong welfare state. But his actual reasoning - in particular his concerns about social stratification, which we haven't discussed here - is, I think, interestingly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Yes, that's right, defend a guy who basically tried to justify Eugenics through the Bell Curve. The Bell Curve is wrong, and Charles Murray is a racist and sexist piece of crap. quote:Murray is currently listed as a scholar for the American Enterprise Institute, which is sponsored by the Kochs. Just a friendly reminder: Charles is basically a libertarian who holds the opinion that people are born different and that this is a contributing factor behind inequality.[6][7] Also, to describe how sociologically ignorant he was as a teen-ager, he said that he as a teen-ager didn't recognize any racial implications when he and his friends burned a cross. quote:Far more crankish, though, was The Bell Curve's further conclusion in the third and fourth parts of the book that innate intelligence plays an important role in the different socioeconomic statuses of differing ethnic groups in the United States. Arguing that intelligence is inherited in large part, and that the average intelligence of different ethnic groups can thus be assessed, the book then concludes that different ethnic groups have varying levels of intelligence, and certain groups are poor or unfortunate mainly because they are not as smart as others.[9] (Many early, knee-jerk criticisms in the media latched onto this point without addressing the rest of the book.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund quote:In 2002, William H. Tucker criticized the Pioneer's grant-funding techniques: Murray is a crank, and should always be treated as one. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Almost all of what you're saying is completely trivially wrong, read the Current Affairs piece GunnerJ posted. For what it's worth, Murray is not "basically" a libertarian, but is a libertarian. Unlike me - but we both "hold the opinion that people are born different and that this is a contributing factor behind inequality", as does a comfortable majority of intelligence researchers, psychologists, neuroscientists, human biologists, because it is a conclusion that's almost impossible to avoid considering the readily available scientific evidence. Which, I think, makes for a strong anti-libertarian argument, because if we're born unequal, how is a society which rewards us solely on our merits and accomplishments just ..? It's actually perhaps the second most important reason for why I'm not a libertarian, but some form of a social democrat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
“I don’t know anything about this topic, and I don’t care to know, but I bet there’s something to it.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:“I don’t know anything about this topic, and I don’t care to know, but I bet there’s something to it.” do not engage Dark Enlightenment Stymie
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
You know I was wondering why the name "Cingulate" was familiar. Really takes me back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Almost all of what you're saying is completely trivially wrong, read the Current Affairs piece GunnerJ posted. If your expression of democratic socialism is to concern troll people about how actually it's not trivially false that black people are born stupid, just go to Stormfront already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Wow it's like jrod all over again. "Libertarianism isn't wrong." "Yes it is, here's five minutes of your life to explaing why" "Whatever I don't care about that, let's talk about something else."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Almost all of what you're saying is completely trivially wrong, read the Current Affairs piece GunnerJ posted. Cool, so you openly pitch for a racist shithead who can't get anyone to actually back his claims with evidence, and is repeating a claim about a heavily debunked statistical model to back Eugenics. Stormfront does seem the better fit for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
I'm sure he doesn't want to talk about race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
I don't remember that time when all of Marx's writing was disproven. In fact I thought a lot of his work ended up being the foundation of a lot of capitalist economic writing??
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Harris is absolutely no libertarian: he is supportive of FBI and CIA hacking cellphones and skeptical of Apple's attempts to thwart them, skeptical of Snowden-type leaks, for higher taxes, more gun regulations, and for heavily controlled/restricted immigration. Most sane people are skeptical of Snowden-type leaks, that is ones that are minimal, released on a weird drip basis, and have heavy self-censorship because the person ended up at the mercy of another government. I don't see how that says whether someone is libertarian or not really. It's clear that particular style of leaking was a failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't remember that time when all of Marx's writing was disproven. In fact I thought a lot of his work ended up being the foundation of a lot of capitalist economic writing?? Cingulate posted:Does that mean [Marx and Marxism are] both completely wrong in a trivial manner? No, they are wrong in very interesting ways, and correct in a bunch of their sub-claims, and maybe even the general tendency. fishmech posted:Most sane people are skeptical of Snowden-type leaks, that is ones that are minimal, released on a weird drip basis, and have heavy self-censorship because the person ended up at the mercy of another government. I don't see how that says whether someone is libertarian or not really. Mornacale posted:If your expression of democratic socialism is to concern troll people about how actually it's not trivially false that black people are born stupid, just go to Stormfront already. But no, I won't go to Stormfront already, what with them being Nazis and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
I think that if you're advocating for races being genetically inferior you're probably already in the membership.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Who. is doing that though? Remember:Susanne Langer posted:The chance that the key ideas of any professional scholar's work are pure nonsense is small; much greater the chance that a devastating refutation is based on a superficial reading or even a distorted one, subconsciously twisted by the desire to refute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
You aren't a professional scholar. And that claim is still stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Who. is doing that though? Remember: Do you warm the watermelon up before you gently caress it, or is that too much effort?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It points towards not being a libertarian. reason.com is fairly straight-forwardly pro-Snowden. Rand Paul is one of the most pro-Snowden republicans. mises.org is very pro Snowden. If it didn't work is largely irrelevant, as Libertarians typically aren't consequentialists. Libertarians typically fear government surveillance, and support Snowden for that reason. Sam Harris has much fewer concerns over government surveillance - because he is not a libertarian. (He is, however, a consequentialist, I think.) Again, none of this says that snowden-style leaks and your opinion of them have a particular connection with libertarianism. Snowden's style of leaks is one that was extremely compromised by his poor planning and subsequent being at the mercy of certain actors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't understand what Praxeology is, nor do I really care. You asked for an example of libertarian thinking that was trivially wrong and when you got an answer you suddenly fall back in disingenuous bullshit like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Who. is doing that though? Remember: Why should we take Langer's assertion as anything more than an appeal to authority? Even if we pretend that Murray's work isn't deeply flawed and doesn't exist to baldly justify racial discrimination, why should we presume that he's more likely to be right than not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
You know what I find disturbing about the Snowden leaks? How disarmingly attractive that man's face is. Whyyyyy? ( )
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Again, none of this says that snowden-style leaks and your opinion of them have a particular connection with libertarianism. Snowden's style of leaks is one that was extremely compromised by his poor planning and subsequent being at the mercy of certain actors. I really don't get the argument you're making. Are you looking for an opportunity to say that you think Snowden was wrong a lot? Captain_Maclaine posted:Why should we take Langer's assertion as anything more than an appeal to authority? Even if we pretend that Murray's work isn't deeply flawed and doesn't exist to baldly justify racial discrimination, why should we presume that he's more likely to be right than not? Doctor Spaceman posted:You asked for an example of libertarian thinking that was trivially wrong Cingulate posted:Some libertarians are of course intellectually bankrupt. Even some tenured ones, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:38
|
|