|
Would a Libertarian acknowledge kidnapping someone's kid and demanding they agree to become a slave in exchange for their kid's return illegitimate pressure? Seems like no? Or maybe "no" only if kidnapping people's kids is already legal?
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Would a Libertarian acknowledge kidnapping someone's kid and demanding they agree to become a slave in exchange for their kid's return illegitimate pressure? That's force. Physical coercion is one of the very, very limited number of concepts that libertarians recognize as "an illegitimate pressure". This is why they hate and fear the state (because it implicitly uses coercion to uphold the laws), but don't fear corporations (economic coercion in a free society isn't really coercive).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Yes, because kids are the property of their parents and kidnapping is therefore a form of theft. Now if the parent sells that child into slavery and then wants to get the child out and the deal offered is to sell themselves into slavery in return, well, should have thought that first sale through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:That's force. Physical coercion is one of the very, very limited number of concepts that libertarians recognize as "an illegitimate pressure". This is why they hate and fear the state (because it implicitly uses coercion to uphold the laws), but don't fear corporations (economic coercion in a free society isn't really coercive). That's what I would have said an hour ago, but surely Jefferson owning the rest of Hemmings' family is force and yet it's apparently not a coercive tactic to say "be my slave or you'll never see them again" so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's what I would have said an hour ago, but surely Jefferson owning the rest of Hemmings' family is force and yet it's apparently not a coercive tactic to say "be my slave or you'll never see them again" so? Ok, that guy is also not even a particularly "good" libertarian. Most libertarians (even hard-core Objectivists) usually agree that: 1. Legally-binding and moral decisions require freedom of decision-making 2. Slavery is coercion 3. Any decisions you make under threat of force are meaningless Some will even go further and argue that: 4. You can't even sell yourself into slavery because you don't have a right to give up your own basic individual rights In other words, he is a tool who doesn't even use some very shallow and axiomatic libertarian syllogisms in his thinking. Then again, I don't believe libertarians will ever actually fight for their ideals if someone else (who is not white) is having their individual rights trampled. So its more of a thin veneer over FYGM: The Philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:That's force. Physical coercion is one of the very, very limited number of concepts that libertarians recognize as "an illegitimate pressure". This is why they hate and fear the state (because it implicitly uses coercion to uphold the laws), but don't fear corporations (economic coercion in a free society isn't really coercive). The thing I've given up trying to argue to people is corporations are supposed to be vassals of the state, that have their own purpose and ends they're trying to accomplish but ultimately are supposed to contribute to society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
I often wonder if a libertarians attitude about the state are out of fear or envy (perhaps both?) because it often seems like they just want to leverage the same kind of power for themselves. They like to treat the government as this boogeyman that will black bag them for not paying their income tax. I bet they are just projecting their own power fantasies about what they would do to people that anger them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
The inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Libertarians recognize only a very narrow definition of coercion coupled with a child's modeling of social interaction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I often wonder if a libertarians attitude about the state are out of fear or envy (perhaps both?) because it often seems like they just want to leverage the same kind of power for themselves. Its similar to that I think. At heart, many libertarians are small-time feudalists ("small-business tyrant" is a great phrase from Street Fight Radio that also works here). They would run a company like a company town if they could, so long as they could also hand-wave away objections with "its a free society". The state (democratic or otherwise) represents a check on their will to power and a competition for the corporate fiefdoms they'd like to run. Its part of the reason why in the Fountainhead, Roark dynamites the housing for the poor that he built... after the state makes some superficial modifications to his design (they add porticoes). The state prevents him from fulfilling all aspects of his ego. Its even pointed out in the book that they contracted him... so, its not even his personal project... but any boundaries placed on him are an act of deepest repression (that he himself cannot engage in). That said, I don't believe that artistic visions should be very limited in any society (especially a socialist one), but Roark's contest with the state is more than about preserving an artistic independence. Libertarians treat the state as not just an abstract evil, but also their personal enemy. Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:But what if the child consents to the modeling? Ok... I spent a few minutes laughing. First time I heard about ephebophelia was when dealing with libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:That's force. Physical coercion is one of the very, very limited number of concepts that libertarians recognize as "an illegitimate pressure". This is why they hate and fear the state (because it implicitly uses coercion to uphold the laws), but don't fear corporations (economic coercion in a free society isn't really coercive). except that trespassing on land is physical coercion, but shooting someone for trespassing on your land is not because
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
divabot posted:except that trespassing on land is physical coercion, but shooting someone for trespassing on your land is not Coercion in self-defense against coercion is moral and justified (i.e. use of force in self defense). Of course, libertarians don't believe in the concept of a "proportionate response", but that one was kind of obvious. Libertarianism has an internal logic - it's built on terrible assumptions and leads to terrible outcomes, but it does exist and it appeals to lots of people who need a simple system of morality and rules that seem to both benefit them and appear to be socially justifiable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Libertarians seem to be big on the concept of natural (or at least inherent) rights, but abhor the state. Why do they think asserting inherent rights is meaningful in the absence of any enforcement mechanism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Libertarians vary on this question. Objectivists see the state as a necessary guarantor of natural rights (Rand rejected private police forces, for example), but that's the extent of it. Other libertarians, specifically AnCaps like Murry Rothbard, see the state as superfluous to the process and prefer contracts enforced by corporations and private police forces. What happens when two private police forces collide? Well, I'm sure they'll resolve it via "rational self-interest". For a libertarian, "rational self-interest" resolves almost any second-order social problems (like the difference in outcomes between well-funded and not well-funded private police forces, jurisdictions, etc).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Ok, that guy is also not even a particularly "good" libertarian. Most libertarians (even hard-core Objectivists) usually agree that: No they don't, Ayn Rand invented Objectivism and she believed force was both necessary and moral to exterminate the Native Americans because they were an inferior race who weren't even strip mining the land they lived on E: who is a particularly "good" Libertarian, because every last one of their intellectual leaders supported apartheid (and the ones that are still alive still do)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Hans Hermann Hoppe is the Best Libertarian because he admits that he wants a return to feudalism and segregation and sees libertarianism as the way to get there. Which it is.Pembroke Fuse posted:What happens when two private police forces collide? Well, I'm sure they'll resolve it via "rational self-interest". For a libertarian, "rational self-interest" resolves almost any second-order social problems (like the difference in outcomes between well-funded and not well-funded private police forces, jurisdictions, etc).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No they don't, Ayn Rand invented Objectivism and she believed force was both necessary and moral to exterminate the Native Americans because they were an inferior race who weren't even strip mining the land they lived on So would an objectivist then be fine and just roll over when a superior non-capitalist society rolls in and takes all the land because the current inferior capitalist culture wasn't fully automating its luxury communism enough?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
It depends. Are the invaders white? If they're white, any land that they seize becomes their rightful private property, at which point they aren't communists anymore. You just proved my point with your own logic, libtar--
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
The core principle of objectivism is simply that if Ayn likes you you can do whatever you want and its fine, and if Ayn doesn't like you everything you do is wrong and evil. This is the core concept in most of her books. Modern objectivists simply pretend that if they met her she'd totally like them and thus they fall into her "yeah you can do whatever you want against Those Guys" group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So would an objectivist then be fine and just roll over when a superior non-capitalist society rolls in and takes all the land because the current inferior capitalist culture wasn't fully automating its luxury communism enough? No. They would consider that unowned property and write tiresome screeds about how other people (not them personally) should go die in the trenches to restore the landed gentry to their rightful place
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Libertarianism's not complex. 1. There should be no jackboots. 2. I should be wearing the jackboots.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No they don't, Ayn Rand invented Objectivism and she believed force was both necessary and moral to exterminate the Native Americans because they were an inferior race who weren't even strip mining the land they lived on Most of them are racist to some extent or another, which is why I mentioned the bit about defending someone else's rights (who was non-white). I'm referring to "good" in a descriptive sense... like internally consistent with their own apologia. None of my statements about libertarianism are meant to imply a normative good, because they're all terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The core principle of objectivism is simply that if Ayn likes you you can do whatever you want and its fine, and if Ayn doesn't like you everything you do is wrong and evil. This is the core concept in most of her books. And personal life. There's a strict hierarchy of humanity with her at the top, which means she gets to gently caress around on everyone, but no one may gently caress around on her. I can't decide what's more hilarious, that, or her cult of individual thinkers who held witch trials for people with different taste in music or drugs from Ayn. Such that even crazy-as-gently caress Murray Rothbard was like "uh being a nonsmoker is not a betrayal of human rationality enjoy getting cancer to prove your intelligence"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Ah, so this is why they love heterodox economic theories that reject empiricism. Yes. Empirical claims about market outcomes are irrelevant because deduction + induction + some other Mises horseshit = the market works!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Like to be clear, in books like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, she literally wrote characters to do the exact same things for the exact same reasons, but made it clear that this guy over here is The Good One so he's good to do it and that guy over there is The Bad One so he's bad to do it. There is no way to determine what's good except to have her come down from on high to tell you which one she likes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Like to be clear, in books like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, she literally wrote characters to do the exact same things for the exact same reasons, but made it clear that this guy over here is The Good One so he's good to do it and that guy over there is The Bad One so he's bad to do it. There is no way to determine what's good except to have her come down from on high to tell you which one she likes. Atlas Shrugged is the clearest example. The heroine orders a train to disregard a stop signal so she won't be late for a meeting and this is bold decision-making in the face of mewling second-handers who are too emotional to take responsibility for anything. Later a villain orders a train to disregard a stop signal so he won't be late for a meeting and this is the irrational whim-worship of a mewling second-hander who is too emotional to take responsibility for anything. One might think "ah the heroine must have some other information so she knows that the stop signal is a mistake" but it's made clear that she doesn't, she was asleep until the train stopped and the crew didn't know the reason for the signal and the phones along the line were out so they couldn't ask, she orders them to proceed without having any idea what is ahead to contrast her take-charge demeanor with the crew members who didn't want to blow through a stoplight without a drat good reason. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
We might have reached Peak Mises: https://mises.org/wire/billionaires-arent-quite-rich-we-think-they-arequote:If Mr. Bezos were to face a life-or-death situation in which he needed to pay $37 billion in cash, he would be lucky to come up with a small percentage of that as attempting to dump that many shares on the market at once would collapse the market price. the rich are *so* much poorer than everyone else
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Maybe there is no way for you to tell, but great people know. It's one of their super powers. My favorite part of the randian ubermench is that if they are successful, it is because of their greatness. If they fail, it is because the under class got a leg up on them. Why greatness is left untethered to success or any kind of achievement is best left to the reader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The core principle of objectivism is simply that if Ayn likes you you can do whatever you want and its fine, and if Ayn doesn't like you everything you do is wrong and evil. This is the core concept in most of her books. There is a fairly illustrative example of this in the Objectivist annals, apart from the Nathaniel Branden saga: - Leonard Piekoff (her top intellectual disciple) once asked if he could buy some Soviet-made classical music records because the USSR basically made sure that their classical music didn't deviate from the 19th century imperial standard and was therefore not marred by the imperfections of western post-modernism. - Yes, you read that right, the USSR's approach to classical music was wedded very strictly to 19th century Imperial Russian norms and did not allow for any serious deviation, apart from some experimentalism in the 20s and a few specific composers like Shostakovich (and Objectivists saw this conservatism as a good thing). - Piekoff was torn about this because on the one hand, he really wanted some Prokofiev, but on the other hand he didn't want to give the USSR any money. - Given that he was her intellectual heir, Rand gave him a special dispensation, noting that no one had fought communism as hard as he had and that he should have those records if they brought him joy and helped him fight communism harder. (This is a true story recounted by Piekoff himself) Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Golbez posted:We might have reached Peak Mises: https://mises.org/wire/billionaires-arent-quite-rich-we-think-they-are Doesn't that work the other way too, if 99% of Americans all tried to sell their homes at once to get equity out of it, prices would collapse just the same
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:My favorite part of the randian ubermench is that if they are successful, it is because of their greatness. If they fail, it is because the under class got a leg up on them. Why greatness is left untethered to success or any kind of achievement is best left to the reader. It's unavoidable if you want any narrative tension in a book about flawless supermen who are incapable of failing at anything they do. Fountainhead is the best example, in the beginning all the "good" architects are poor failures because public opinion is stupid and the hoi polloi all love popular trash the "bad" architects poo poo out. But then how does the "good" architect become a success in the end well his stuff becomes popular and no one likes the stuff the "bad" architects do anymore. In Atlas Shrugged she comes up with the idea of blaming the government for it, which almost works except it doesn't because the supermen are all really really popular and beloved by the public, yet somehow the same public always votes for evil socialists who demonize the supermen and give free money to their cronies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Atlas Shrugged is the only one I could get through, just because it's so outrageously terrible on every conceivable level. Any summary of that book sounds like you're making it up as you go. "uhh, and then there is a pirate who sinks ships so that Europe will starve, he is one of the good guys."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Atlas Shrugged is the only one I could get through, just because it's so outrageously terrible on every conceivable level. Wait... the part where a bunch of people die in a horrible tunnel fire because some of them wanted affordable health care wasn't the one that stood out here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Wait... the part where a bunch of people die in a horrible tunnel fire because some of them wanted affordable health care wasn't the one that stood out here? Unsure if referring to book or current events in san francisco or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Atlas Shrugged is the only one I could get through, just because it's so outrageously terrible on every conceivable level. "What about the heroine's childhood friend and irreplaceable personal assistant? He seemed nice." "Oh she abandons him to die in the desert because in utopia capitalists happily do all their own menial labor and her oldest friend can't design a steam engine and therefore has zero value as a human being"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Wait... the part where a bunch of people die in a horrible tunnel fire because some of them wanted affordable health care wasn't the one that stood out here? One of the women (and her children) deserved it because she thought the government should feed and clothe and educate poor children, and her kids inherited her untermensch genes
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:My favorite part of the randian ubermench is that if they are successful, it is because of their greatness. If they fail, it is because the under class got a leg up on them. Why greatness is left untethered to success or any kind of achievement is best left to the reader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Hans Hermann Hoppe is the Best Libertarian because he admits that he wants a return to feudalism and segregation and sees libertarianism as the way to get there. Which it is. That’s a strange heel turn but WWE has gone weirder before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:42 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:Libertarianism's not complex. Objectivism's not complex. 1. Rationally, there should be no jackboots. 2. Objectively, I should be wearing the jackboots.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:39
|
|