|
Goon Danton posted:The modern internet has broken me, because all I can muster is vague musings on how he tries to square all that with freedom and small government, and even that is a bit muted anymore. That's certainly where my mind went; he presumably wants small government and no taxes but also he wants a full on Inquisition to hunt down and execute Muslims and Socialists
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
I love the border but I hate paying to maintain it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
It’s the type of libertarian whose ideology is only consistent if you boil it down to “things that advantage me and my identity politics up to and including exterminating brown people.” He just thought that free markets would advantage him, and now that the right wing libertarians are realizing that the immigrants are actually better workers then them in a free market, suddenly need to qualify their supposedly core belief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Yeah the things libertarians support makes a lot more sense when you remember that what they say they want is mostly bullshit. What most of them actually want is something along the lines of "We should do the Confederate States of America again but with weed."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah the things libertarians support makes a lot more sense when you remember that what they say they want is mostly bullshit. What most of them actually want is something along the lines of "We should do the Confederate States of America again but with weed." you forgot abolishing age of consent laws
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
Just like the average "Internet Atheist" guy is someone whose only real problem with the dumb church they grew up in was that they had to wake up early on Sunday, the average "libertarian" is a standard Republican who disagrees with one or two minor things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
I think it's worth pointing out that "libertarian leaning" Republicans are a large portion of the Republican voter base, a much smaller number of people identify as libertarian, and only a fraction of those people are actually ideologues who at least pretend to read libertarian theory. And when you look at any of these groups you are looking at people who are overwhelmingly white, mostly Christian, mostly Republican. And even then, diagnosing the electorate as "libertarian leaning" is misleading because it turns out "fiscally conservative socially liberal" doesn't actually describe libertarian ideologues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Well what sort of god-fearing libertarians got time to read Thomas Sowell books when they can just cry about white genocide and how Rothbard or said immigration bad (but child slaves good) according to a blog post instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
not a cult posted:you forgot abolishing age of consent laws That falls under bringing the CSA back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Since this thread is dormant at the moment, I thought that I would point out the lovely discussion happening here in case anyone fancies a row. I'm tapping out of this so-called discussion because JRod has taught me that I hate myself, but not enough to self-harm, thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Golbez posted:(oh yeah, I've seen at least one webpage espouse how the ozone hole wasn't a problem, and CFCs are a net benefit) I mentioned this a few times in this thread over the years, but when this subject is brought up, I can't help but bring it up again. I'm reminded of an episode of The Daily Show when Rand Paul shows up, and while he doesn't go as far as saying that CFCs help make air even more breathable, he did make an equally asinine claim. He basically agreed with Jon's point that regulations helped control CFC emissions. But now that we got the problem under control, we don't need those nasty regulations anymore because hey, who in their right mind would ignore them if they're gone?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 12:35
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:But now that we got the problem under control, we don't need those nasty regulations anymore because hey, who in their right mind would ignore them if they're gone?! I have no idea why this is such a common brain worm with the right wing. Do these people decide 'Wow, it's been a nice 30 days of poo poo-free underwear since I adopted that no-making GBS threads-in-my-pants rule, guess the pants-poo poo problem is over, time to start making GBS threads in my pants again!'
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I have no idea why this is such a common brain worm with the right wing. Do these people decide 'Wow, it's been a nice 30 days of poo poo-free underwear since I adopted that no-making GBS threads-in-my-pants rule, guess the pants-poo poo problem is over, time to start making GBS threads in my pants again!' Because their actual belief is that rich people should be able to do whatever the gently caress they want regardless of consequences for the rest of us, and they're reaching for any possible argument that avoids just saying that out loud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I have no idea why this is such a common brain worm with the right wing. Do these people decide 'Wow, it's been a nice 30 days of poo poo-free underwear since I adopted that no-making GBS threads-in-my-pants rule, guess the pants-poo poo problem is over, time to start making GBS threads in my pants again!' It's simply a lie, they simply don't want to obey regulations
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:I have no idea why this is such a common brain worm with the right wing. Do these people decide 'Wow, it's been a nice 30 days of poo poo-free underwear since I adopted that no-making GBS threads-in-my-pants rule, guess the pants-poo poo problem is over, time to start making GBS threads in my pants again!' It's kind of the purely economical equivalent of dog-whistle racism. It would be unacceptable to say "I don't want to have any social conscience", so they cloak it in a thin veneer of language that is acceptable to very stupid people... of which there are many.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Because their actual belief is that rich people should be able to do whatever the gently caress they want regardless of consequences for the rest of us, and they're reaching for any possible argument that avoids just saying that out loud. Unless you are Megan McArdle, who -always- says the quiet part out loud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's simply a lie, they simply don't want to obey regulations It's this. Pared down to it's most basic, libertarianism is ultimately just "I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but no one else should be allowed to do anything of which I disapprove."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's this. Pared down to it's most basic, libertarianism is ultimately just "I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but no one else should be allowed to do anything of which I disapprove." Perfectly said. It's an utterly self-serving belief system that is popular because it plays to every human's innate selfishness. To be fair, I have met libertarians who generally mean well and endorse laissez-faire economic systems because they genuinely think that they are for the best. It's not easy but, in that case, those are the ones who can eventually be shown their error in some cases. People like Charles Koch are irredeemably selfish; no fix for that but the guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Unless you are Megan McArdle, who -always- says the quiet part out loud. William McGonagall is famous for writing an awful poem about the Tay Bridge Disaster. The difference between his poem and McArdle's column about the Grenfell fire is that McGonagall understood that people dying en masse is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm not kidding when I say I think she's the worst writer in the history of the English Language. The entrepreneurs being inconvenienced and driven into slightly-less-affluent-wealth by better brudge regulations are the -true- tragedy of such an event, good sir. I mean, all those people who died would have passed away of other things anyway, let's not pretend otherwise. In fact, whenever we cross a bridge, we are entering an unspoken contract with its builders that we accept any consequence thatm ight befall us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Since this thread is dormant at the moment, I thought that I would point out the lovely discussion happening here in case anyone fancies a row. I'm tapping out of this so-called discussion because JRod has taught me that I hate myself, but not enough to self-harm, thankfully. Man, that thread is filled with bootlickers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Man, that thread is filled with bootlickers. How do you mean? (genuinely asking) What wore me out were the people asking loads of assanine rhetorical questions or trying to catch people in "Gotcha!" moments so that they can get them to agree that horrible economic policies are, in fact, good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
So I made the mistake of mentioning that when paired with aggressive investment in social housing, the concept of "rent control" is perfectly reasonable. This hugely goes against the current "market urbanist" ideology in modern urban planning which says you need to 100% deregulate zoning, construction, and rental rights in order to ensure ample housing supply. But a weird guy I was arguing with kept going on about "rights" "There's no such thing as a right to housing" I said we as a society determine what rights people have or don't have and if we decide housing is a right, we can make it a right. He got very upset at this and inferred that Rights are like some platonic concept that exist beyond society or government. That there doesn't need to be a study on rent control done by a non-neoliberal think tank because there doesn't need to be evidence because the Lived Experience of The People prove rent control is wrong and the concept of housing Rights doesn't exist and is not a true Right. His wierd use of the word "Rights" was.. weird. Is this a libertarian thing or what is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Is he perhaps arguing some variation of Natural Rights? There have been lots of people throughout history who have argued that Man Has Natural Rights and they're derived from some ideal state of natural harmony or some bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is he perhaps arguing some variation of Natural Rights? Have you considered, perhaps, that humans act?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
I've run into it before amongst their ilk. Apparently, "the right to eat" is an inherent right, but "the right to food" is granted if you didn't earn the food yourself. I asked what the practical difference was if I hired someone big to slap his food out of his hand every time he tried to eat. I don't recall getting a coherent response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
I don't honestly pretend to understand the notion of natural rights because it invariably seems like basically believing in god or something and arguing that morality comes from god. only replace rights with morality and god with natural. As best I can tell it's a thing some people do because they want to give their preferred pithy reduction of the world some mythical backing. Wikipedia for Locke for example: quote:According to Locke there are three natural rights: Which is to say, "aren't I smart, also have some noble savagery to back up my smartness"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
the only rights that exist are those you take for yourself, everything else is philosophical masturbation
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Natural Rights and Natural Law were huge important concepts when the Founding Fathers (pbuh) were writing all the documents that make up our founding national myth, and therefore are the only exposure most people in the USA get to any kind of political philosophy. Which is fun because at pretty much the same time they were writing all that, David Hume was blasting the entire intellectual foundation of it to smithereens, so there was this huge revolution in moral and political thought that all our big names and civics classes just completely miss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
The 'right to life' seems particularly odd in the context of Natural Rights, since in the long run in nature nothing has that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The 'right to life' seems particularly odd in the context of Natural Rights, since in the long run in nature nothing has that. 'Having a right to X' just means no human being should take X away from you (shoulds only apply to human beings). Vegetarians think lots of natural entities have a right to life. But rights language is bad because it always leads to confusion between 'I have a (legal) right to do X' and 'I am right to do X and no one should criticise me'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
I think a lot of times "natural rights" were the result of working backwards. One of them is "the right to own poo poo" which then gets used to prop up "therefore all taxes are bad, minimum wages are bad, affirmative action is bad, and government is bad because you have no right to tell me what to do with my poo poo." They started from that and then worked backward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Also they write a lot of words about why non-whites don't actually deserve those natural rights, like how it's totally okay that the various American civilizations were ransacked by white people and reduced to small tribes living in reservations (which should probably also be taken away and given to some tycoon to exploit).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Also they write a lot of words about why non-whites don't actually deserve those natural rights, like how it's totally okay that the various American civilizations were ransacked by white people and reduced to small tribes living in reservations (which should probably also be taken away and given to some tycoon to exploit). That one is the "whoever can extract the most value from the land deserves it" argument which really badly conflicts with the "nobody can take your poo poo" one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 09:59
|
|
|
That's the dilemma that caused almost all the classical liberals to fragment into either "which is why land is a special case, and may be taxed to redress imbalance  " or "which is why landed property is theft and should be held in common  " or "but but savages  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
Landownership in and of itself is inherently problematic just because of history. Unless you're talking about the first time people migrated onto the land then the current ownership involved at least one conquest at some point in history. "My ancestors murdered whoever got here first" can be hard to accept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
I would say most people, historically, were quite fine with the concept of right of conquest when it wasn’t them on the losing side most recently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Even before I realized my country was super lovely I found it very weird how cool they were with the claim in the OT that our ancestors got the Land of Israel by genociding all the Canaanite locals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
"That is the thing about subsidized housing. It disincentivizes construction. Instead of making money from it they make a loss. The city can't sell land for profit, they have to build houses and subsidizes them. The people who vote in the election are the people who live there, aka the ones who have housing. Also an extreme housing shortage is very good for the city. It means that only people who pay high taxes can live there while drug addicts don't. Social cases as we call them get housing faster than other people. Building rental apartments means that you get a lot of social cases which your voters won't appreciate, they won't pay taxes and they will cost the county a lot." Rent control is bad because it might hurt SUPPLY, but actually low supply is good because it prices out all the parasites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
gently caress john locke tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 17:47
|
|
