|
Lid posted:They should just cite Hayek instead, you can pretend to be smart but also anyone with a clue will know you are an rear end in a top hat and youre not twisting anything. Or is he too modern for them? Hayek recognized that capitalism has injustices and market failures, and in order for the idea of a level playing field of negotiation for wages and labor to even be remotely defensible the government would need to provide universal basic income, so he's obviously a whiny loser and complete trash. If you cite him you have to be very careful that the people you're talking to don't know what he believed.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Yeah the irony of a free market is that it takes a lot of effort and regulation to keep it actually free. With no regulation you get things like Standard Oil existing, paying employees in company scrip they can only spend in company stores, and big companies that deliberately undercut any competition that does exist until it vanishes. Libertarians used to know this but they've been taken over by the "how do you know a law is bad? It exists!" crowd. It wasn't even all that difficult to find libertarians who did actually favor social safety nets because, hey, sometimes bad poo poo happens and you can't control it. The libertarians I used to know were actually in favor of stuff like food stamps and thought it was a pretty good program. ...none of them are members of the Libertarian Party anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hayek recognized that capitalism has injustices and market failures, and in order for the idea of a level playing field of negotiation for wages and labor to even be remotely defensible the government would need to provide universal basic income, so he's obviously a whiny loser and complete trash. If you cite him you have to be very careful that the people you're talking to don't know what he believed. Fiiiiiine... Robert Nozick and van Bawerk then
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
libertarians got the right idea that democracy is great, but completely missed the ball in terms of understanding that capitalism is a system that actively stifles free choice and democracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
Lid posted:Fiiiiiine... Robert Nozick and van Bawerk then
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the new hotness for libertarians badly pretending that their ideas won't just end up in totalitarianism. I was unfamiliar with him so checked, i see hes influenced by Habermas. gently caress i hated reading Habermas at uni so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:...none of them are members of the Libertarian Party anymore. I think some people call themselves classical liberals or libertarians because they hold a position that the two American parties don't support and latch onto the same principle. They see a Punnet square that explains you can think we waste too much money or involve ourselves in too much without having to hate people that are different or attack peoples rights. Then they see what some people justify with the title Libertarian and go, oh no I'm not that, im *some variant* to try and distinguish themselves. Then they realise that its exactly the same issue that leads to their initial problems with the other two parties and pretend they're Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the new hotness for libertarians badly pretending that their ideas won't just end up in totalitarianism. Hoppe literally advocated that neo-feudalism was the good outcome for anarchocapitalism. He also led directly to the neoreactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Yeah but that's not totalitarianism because only states can do that and something something right of exit. The libertarian -> NRx pipeline is a hell of a ride, as are the factors that started it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
I feel like libertarianism and anarchism are the same side of two different coins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I feel like libertarianism and anarchism are the same side of two different coins. Yeah but this is just the compass. There's the "help everyone" coin and the "FYGM" coin, then the "with government" side and the "no by getting rid of government" side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Not quite. Libertarians, as the word means now, are all about gathering up everything they can because it is their right as the first person to put his hands or feet on something, always at great cost to the community. Actual capital A Anarchists realise they benefit from a community, because everyone benefits from a community, and that this community our collective responsibility. "Libertarian" was originally coined to discuss anarchism without getting killed. It means "no hierarchy," not "no rules."
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Individualist anarchists have been around since the beginnings of modern anarchism, but they didn't really get much done compared to collective anarchists. There is a certain amount of egoism in all forms of anarchism, in that the person is sovereign over their own body, and nobody should be able to force a religion or social custom or form of labor or sexual act onto a person, things that liberalism usually softly agrees with too, but most forms of anarchism that achieved things through building trade unions, distributing literature, growing parallel power structures, and challenging unjust state policies admit a certain amount of collectivism, even if that's a fluid and temporary collectivization. A person is a person through other people and all that. Also even the most individualist anarchist before the turn of the 20th century was not a fan of capitalism. Even goddamn Max Stirner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:
it's loving amazing seeing ancaps reference kropotkin then work out they read Conquest of Bread ch3 part2 (about forming organisations without government) and doggedly misunderstood literally all context and every other word of the book
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Tubgoat posted:Not quite. Libertarians, as the word means now, are all about gathering up everything they can because it is their right as the first person to put his hands or feet on something, always at great cost to the community.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I know that libertarians have these tortured arguments as to why enclosure is okay, and indigenous people weren't properly "mixing their labour with nature" so as to establish private property, but I'm not sure I even want to know. didn't they get a lot of those straight from Locke, who is the "classical liberal" they really mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
divabot posted:it's loving amazing seeing ancaps reference kropotkin then work out they read Conquest of Bread ch3 part2 (about forming organisations without government) and doggedly misunderstood literally all context and every other word of the book wait holy poo poo you've seen ancaps do that? any time ive seen them bring up kropotkin they were calling him commie scum
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Kanine posted:wait holy poo poo you've seen ancaps do that? any time ive seen them bring up kropotkin they were calling him commie scum oh they do that too, but rothbard explicitly referenced kropotkin and he gets mentioned on the mises.org blog section from time to time in approximately the "what a curious fellow!" tones they talk about bitcoiners, but bookchin too
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
drat, i wonder if any of them ever quote chomsky
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
divabot posted:it's loving amazing seeing ancaps reference kropotkin then work out they read Conquest of Bread ch3 part2 (about forming organisations without government) and doggedly misunderstood literally all context and every other word of the book They also love name dropping Proudhon for his hatred of
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
My property is more or less the property of all, I am the storage locker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
im an ancom, but i love stirner literally just because of the memes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
I'll quote churchill to argue why landlords are bad, not because I give a poo poo what churchill thought, but because you can annoy your opponent by making their idols sound like they support your cause. Also churchill does put it quite well I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I know that libertarians have these tortured arguments as to why enclosure is okay, and indigenous people weren't properly "mixing their labour with nature" so as to establish private property, but I'm not sure I even want to know. Locke's argument was basically that there are no "commons" left in Europe (and by "commons" he means land that belongs to no-one, which anyone can take, he distinguishes that from land legally held in common by a group of people as common property by law which it's still wrong to take), because the various kingdoms and duchies and other states had all signed treaties with each other and thereby given up their natural-born claim to be able to take common property in other countries so if you want land in Europe you have to buy it with money now. But Native Americans haven't signed those treaties, and they don't even use gold for money, so Europeans don't have to consider any part of America someone's private property unless the natives are actually mixing their labor with a specific parcel of land. Hunting and gathering doesn't count, if you hunt and gather then you only own the poo poo you hunted and gathered not the land itself. Mixing labor with the land means making it productive and if native farmers aren't as productive as a European farmer, are they really laboring, no they aren't because if they were the land would cost as much as it costs in Europe. Oh also you don't have to do the work personally, if your servant or slave does it that counts as your labor uhhhh somehow. Speaking of slavery, did you know that it's not really slavery if your master has any obligations to you at all like not being allowed to murder you on a whim? If you have no freedom and are forced to toil for someone for life, but your master can't kill you, then this isn't really slavery, it's drudgery which is fine. And that's why it's good to own African slaves and for me, John Locke, to profit handsomely from the
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
divabot posted:Hoppe literally advocated that neo-feudalism was the good outcome for anarchocapitalism. He also led directly to the neoreactionaries. "Why yes we will need to purge all deviant and degenerate elements from our covenant community, by force ideally, and mandate that everyone adhere to a strict code of (arbitrarily defined) moral behavior which is overseen by pervasive surveillance and policing. This is because we love liberty. I am a smart man." -HHH
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Lid posted:Fiiiiiine... Robert Nozick and van Bawerk then Yeah but the whole point of name-dropping famous economists and philosophers is to add weight to your dumbass ideas by pretending smart dead guys agree with you, appealing to jokes and Austrofascist jokes doesn't lend the same gravitas
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the new hotness for libertarians badly pretending that their ideas won't just end up in totalitarianism. I miss when we used to refer to him as "Triple-H" when people like jrod cited him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
gots me a question has there ever been a case, either limited on a local level, or national level, where tax cuts wound up paying for themselves. i've heard SOME lefty economists claim that this happened under kennedy's tax cuts, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:gots me a question I've asked this question before, and the best small-government capitalist types could tell me was "well there was X and Y situation where no, things didn't get better, but they clearly would have been so much worse if we hadn't lowered the taxes!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:gots me a question iirc there was a scenario in Sweden where a tax increase led to decreased revenue because the rich fuckers wound up spending <X dollars on tax evasion practices to dodge X in taxes, but that was a tax move in the other direction than you're asking
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:gots me a question Might be a highly specific edge case somewhere, but broadly speaking no they never pay for themselves, and that never loving stops tax cut proponents from claiming the next one will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
There was a Roman emperor...Diocletian maybe? Who cut taxes, but tax revenue went way up. Because he cracked down on rich people evading taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me that people are so stupid that they continue to support any tax decrease, even for people who are far wealthier than they will ever be and even making money by stealing their labour value. It takes a strange sort of masochist to fall into that trap. Here's another question: Is it actually possible to stop tax evasion, by which I mean all the bullshit things that rich fuckwads and corporations do to avoid tax, or is it simply a matter of will? What I'm asking is if it's possible for dedicated pricks to obfuscate their stealing from the proletariat so well that it's impossible to find the money, or if with enough staff, dedication and expertise any government can always eventually follow the trail of bread crumbs? I realise that this question covers a lot of ground, but I also know that politicians love to make excuses as to why rich people shouldn't have to show any social responsibility and that said same rich pricks will do anything to avoid paying tax. I don't know if it's a matter of can't or won't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Rich people are lazy and capital has inertia. You start taxing productivity in one country and what are they gonna do, stop operating there? Sure they might for things that are easily moved but every enterprise has people and materials set up in a place and those are not moved without cost, and for many things the customer base won't move even if you do. Capital can be made captive in a lot of instances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
The United States is a society built on grift, and this mindset where you have to keep offering more and more tax cuts to keep the rich from moving their assets is a result of that. If it were actually true, we would already have reverted to feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
supply-side economics is one of those things that sounds progressively dumber the more you try to dig in like, one of the main assumptions is that if an employer has some extra money, they will invest it into the company via raises/bonuses/etc. to their employees or even hire new ones. what about if your business sucks and you're not getting that many customers? why would such a businessperson who got a tax cut want to hire more employees when they don't need them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:supply-side economics is one of those things that sounds progressively dumber the more you try to dig in It also assumes the main ambition of employers is to grow their business as big as possible and as such they plan long term, as opposed to observable reality in which most employers just want to get rich as gently caress, and as such only plan for the end of next quarter if that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It also assumes the main ambition of employers is to grow their business as big as possible and as such they plan long term, as opposed to observable reality in which most employers just want to get rich as gently caress, and as such only plan for the end of next quarter if that. And also, employers will pursue that ambition rationally- an employer would never mistreat his employees if it didn't contribute to growing their business as big as possible, whereas in the real world a lot of employee abuse has no real reason beyond the boss being on a power trip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I miss when we used to refer to him as "Triple-H" when people like jrod cited him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Here's another question: Is it actually possible to stop tax evasion, by which I mean all the bullshit things that rich fuckwads and corporations do to avoid tax, or is it simply a matter of will? What I'm asking is if it's possible for dedicated pricks to obfuscate their stealing from the proletariat so well that it's impossible to find the money, or if with enough staff, dedication and expertise any government can always eventually follow the trail of bread crumbs? I realise that this question covers a lot of ground, but I also know that politicians love to make excuses as to why rich people shouldn't have to show any social responsibility and that said same rich pricks will do anything to avoid paying tax. I don't know if it's a matter of can't or won't. The IRS gets some ridiculous return on investment when they are staffed enough to do enforcement on the rich evaders, like some completely ludicrous ratio like 60 dollars for every one spent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 08:49
|
|
