Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›850 »

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

polymathy posted:

As a Leftist, Progressive, or whatever label you apply to yourself, would you be willing to form an anti-war coalition with Pat Buchanan and the paleo-conservatives if it meant that we had a good chance at ending the wars, bringing all the troops home and shutting down the US Empire?

All countries with coalition based voting systems have had libertarian parties. All the libertarian parties have declared themselves to be anti-war. All the libertarian parties have voted for war whenever their votes had any chance of making a difference. Because they value their alliance with the conservatives and fascists and the profits of the arms industry over the anti-war idea.

But if there was a way to magically enforce the promises made by the libertarian parties, I would enter in a coalition with them.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Why the gently caress would I ally with people that love war just because they pretend they don't?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:43

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I should ally with Pat Buchanan, the guy who said we should have supported the Japanese colonial empire in China and continued shipping oil to the Japanese war machine to fuel their mass murder campaign, in order to stop empire and mass murder?

https://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-why-did-japan-attack-us-401

quote:

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan�s claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood.

I should ally with Pat Buchanan, who fought for hundreds of millions of dollars for US intervention into Nicaragua, in order to end US interventions?

quote:

Buchanan, a sometime columnist and TV performer famous for his noisy and muscular style of hard-right conservatism, is leading the administration fight for congressional approval of its $100 million request for military aid to the contra rebels waging guerrilla war against the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

I should ally with Pat Buchanan, who wanted us back in the Vietnam War, in order to end foreign wars?

quote:

Last week, for instance, the uncaged Buchanan got into the same room with a typewriter and wrote a piece for the Washington Post in which, among other things, he accused the Democratic Party of ''having voted to abandon Southeast Asia (Vietnam) to Hanoi and Moscow.''

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-03-09-8601170965-story.html

True story jrod, did you bother to look up anything about Pat Buchanan, or is this like when you told us Gary Johnson was antiwar because a columnist on mises.org told you he was, and we had to let you down easy by showing you the interviews of Gary Johnson endorsing drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Mar 10, 2020

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:50

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

VitalSigns posted:

True story jrod, did you bother to look up anything about Pat Buchanan, or is this like when you told us Gary Johnson was antiwar because a columnist on mises.org told you he was, and we had to let you down easy by showing you the interviews of Gary Johnson endorsing drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq

Capitalism requires infinite growth......from someone else's pocket, if necessary.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:52

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

theshim posted:

Aaaaahhhhh, we're back here again.

See this has been a thing of yours that I've repeatedly pointed out to you and that you've never responded to over the years. You have this dogmatic, absolute belief that people will be better off under libertarian strictures (or lack thereof). You assert that society will be wealthier, and that this will benefit the people at the bottom. And you seem to have no problem with the fact that all of recorded history and understanding of human psychology and economic behavior tells us that this is absolutely not the case.

Wealth aggregates to a few, who consolidate. Society can be as wealthy as you can imagine in your wildest dreams, and that means nothing to those at the bottom. Libertarian thought encourages by its very essence a stratification of wealth, a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power. If you actually run with your platform to any of its logical conclusions, there's no opportunity for the poor or disadvantaged to escape where they come from. You like to talk about how you want equality of opportunity, but your system deliberately crushes the ability of newcomers to compete.

This is just one of the many, many issues we have with your blind adherence to your cult, but I think it's a foundational one. Many of your stated positions make sense if and only if you start from this point - that things will just Be Better Off if we implement full ancapism. It's hard to argue with you in any meaningful way most of the time, because we're talking policy and you're talking dogma.

You're making a lot of assertions with no evidence. You say "libertarian thought encourages by its very essence a stratification of wealth, a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power." No it doesn't.

All libertarian thought insists upon is that whatever institutions, policies or actions we want in our society should be provided voluntarily outside of the State. Libertarianism insists that all interactions between groups of people be voluntary.

That's it.

Imagine a scenario where the thought of Noam Chomsky becomes widespread and popular. Suppose people decide that the best way to organize business is through co-ops and democratic decision-making in the workplace.

Let's say half of society, or more, decides to live in this way. Now, they don't forcefully prevent workers or entrepreneurs from forming traditional business relationships but they strongly advise against choosing that arrangement.

This outcome would be perfectly libertarian.

Imagine a different scenario where people who live in, or around, the Bay Area in California decide to implement a large-scale social safety net where all people choose to pay a certain amount of money each month that goes to funding a health care service that provides health care to all people who live within 30 square miles, even or especially the poor.

Sort of like a Health Sharing account or a large-scale mutual aid society.

This would be a social safety net similar to the one you imagine that government should provide, except it would be privately funded and provided.

I could imagine many similar arrangements being implemented in a libertarian society.

This also would be perfectly libertarian.

It always strikes me as odd that you start from a position where you're worried about "a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power" and so you advocate for a large, centralized State.

So I point out to you that this large centralized State, despite it's pretense of democratic legitimacy, enables and empowers the very moneyed elite you're worried about, you say "well, it'd be even worse without the State".

It strikes me that the solution to consolidated power whether by private corporations or the government, is radical decentralization with dozens if not hundreds of very different societies with different norms, institutions and customs reflecting the values of the people who live there.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:56

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Also wow the 80s, imagine a time when Democrats were actually against overthrowing a democratically elected Latin American government in order to impose a capitalist military dictatorship. Wild.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 16:57

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

Imagine a different scenario where people who live in, or around, the Bay Area in California decide to implement a large-scale social safety net where all people choose to pay a certain amount of money each month that goes to funding a health care service that provides health care to all people who live within 30 square miles, even or especially the poor.

Sort of like a Health Sharing account or a large-scale mutual aid society.

This would be a social safety net similar to the one you imagine that government should provide, except it would be privately funded and provided.

I could imagine many similar arrangements being implemented in a libertarian society.

This also would be perfectly libertarian.

So uh jrodefeld, did you know we used to have volunteer fire departments, that were funded and staffed and equipped in just this way?

Have you noticed that we don't do it that way anymore? Have you ever wondered why? Was it statist brainwashing in the school system using mind control techniques to make children into willing enforces of Big Firetruck?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:00

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

polymathy posted:

You're making a lot of assertions with no evidence. You say "libertarian thought encourages by its very essence a stratification of wealth, a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power." No it doesn't.

All libertarian thought insists upon is that whatever institutions, policies or actions we want in our society should be provided voluntarily outside of the State. Libertarianism insists that all interactions between groups of people be voluntary.

That's it.

Imagine a scenario where the thought of Noam Chomsky becomes widespread and popular. Suppose people decide that the best way to organize business is through co-ops and democratic decision-making in the workplace.

Let's say half of society, or more, decides to live in this way. Now, they don't forcefully prevent workers or entrepreneurs from forming traditional business relationships but they strongly advise against choosing that arrangement.

This outcome would be perfectly libertarian.

Imagine a different scenario where people who live in, or around, the Bay Area in California decide to implement a large-scale social safety net where all people choose to pay a certain amount of money each month that goes to funding a health care service that provides health care to all people who live within 30 square miles, even or especially the poor.

Sort of like a Health Sharing account or a large-scale mutual aid society.

This would be a social safety net similar to the one you imagine that government should provide, except it would be privately funded and provided.

I could imagine many similar arrangements being implemented in a libertarian society.

This also would be perfectly libertarian.

It always strikes me as odd that you start from a position where you're worried about "a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power" and so you advocate for a large, centralized State.

So I point out to you that this large centralized State, despite it's pretense of democratic legitimacy, enables and empowers the very moneyed elite you're worried about, you say "well, it'd be even worse without the State".

It strikes me that the solution to consolidated power whether by private corporations or the government, is radical decentralization with dozens if not hundreds of very different societies with different norms, institutions and customs reflecting the values of the people who live there.

If given the choice, why would anyone knowingly work in a business where they have no input into their own wages, hours, and conditions? If they could choose a democratic workplace (socialism), why would they ever choose anything else?

Hint: Few people have that choice.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:01

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Enough about Bat Puchanan and Madam Smith, jrod I know you read all the most intellectually elite libertarian websites, give me the lowdown on 5G. What is this new terrestrial radiation doing to my pineal gland?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:05

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Polymathy, weird how your two examples of "perfectly libertarian" societies didn't touch on land ownership, which is the primary issue, I think, we have with libertarianism: That you claim to not want a state, but want landowners to be tiny kings.

What if, in your first scenario, the majority of people decided that land can't be, let's go simple here, homesteaded? Would it be perfectly libertarian? Or would you justify using force to occupy land? And would you justify it by saying it's not aggression to take something that's not yours?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:15

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

polymathy posted:

It strikes me that the solution to consolidated power whether by private corporations or the government, is radical decentralization with dozens if not hundreds of very different societies with different norms, institutions and customs reflecting the values of the people who live there.

And what's the practical way these disparate communities would stop power from consolidating again?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:20

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

theshim posted:

also by the way if anyone wants to check out the post where jrod originally posted the Cato report that had the UAE at #5 for most free states, it's over here https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3745862&pagenumber=12&perpage=40#post451470608

bonus: that page also has the post with "gently caress you and get the gently caress off my thread"

I went back and looked at the report I originally posted.

Here it is:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

The data they used was actually from 2013, and it had UAE at #5 and Qatar at #13.

Now I looked at the most recent report from 2019:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/human-freedom-index-2019-rev.pdf

In this report they have UAE at #128 and Qatar at #127.

To fall that far down in a few years tells me one of two things. Either the methodology of the 2013 data was extremely flawed or there were various reforms in those countries in the early 2010s that made some people very bullish on their prospects for development that rapidly got reversed in a few short years.

Here are the top 30 most economically free countries according to the Frasier Institute's 2019 study:

1. New Zealand
2. Switzerland
3. Hong Kong
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. Denmark
7. Luxembourg
8. Finland
9. Germany
10. Ireland
11. Sweden
12. Netherlands
13. Austria
14. United Kingdom
15. Estonia
16. United States
17. Norway
18. Iceland
19. Taiwan
20. Malta
21. Czech Rep.
22. Lithuania
23. Latvia
24. Belgium
25. Japan
26. Portugal
27. South Korea
28. Chile
29. Spain
30. Romania

The overall point in me ever bringing this up is to show that the general trend is that the countries whose economies are relatively closer to the libertarian ideal are generally more prosperous, peaceful and better places to live. This indicates that a country that went even further in the direction of economic liberty would not end in disaster but would produce a fairly prosperous and healthy society.

Especially the two countries at the very top of this list, New Zealand and Switzerland, come fairly close to a libertarian ideal in terms of their economic policies. Both have relatively low public debt and are very decentralized societies.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:24

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

And yet both have large government funded social safety nets and universal healthcare. So obviously those aren't a threat to your ideology.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

Especially the two countries at the very top of this list, New Zealand and Switzerland, come fairly close to a libertarian ideal in terms of their economic policies. Both have relatively low public debt and are very decentralized societies.

Oh great so we should adopt their healthcare systems and upper tax brackets then, yes?

To make us more free

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:27

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

polymathy posted:

Here are the top 30 most economically free countries according to the Frasier Institute's 2019 study:

2. Switzerland
6. Denmark
7. Luxembourg
8. Finland
9. Germany
10. Ireland
11. Sweden
12. Netherlands

The overall point in me ever bringing this up is to show that the general trend is that the countries whose economies are relatively closer to the libertarian ideal are generally more prosperous, peaceful and better places to live. This indicates that a country that went even further in the direction of economic liberty would not end in disaster but would produce a fairly prosperous and healthy society.

Especially the two countries at the very top of this list, New Zealand and Switzerland, come fairly close to a libertarian ideal in terms of their economic policies. Both have relatively low public debt and are very decentralized societies.

Holy poo poo, dude, there are multiple democratic-socialist countries in that list. Do you read anything that you post?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:28

BalloonFish: Jun 30, 2013; Fun Shoe

VitalSigns posted:

Oh great so we should adopt their healthcare systems and upper tax brackets then, yes?

To make us more free

And what about Germany, the ninth most 'economically free' (and thus libertarian?) nation in the world. With a literal 'solidarity surcharge' on high tax rates, some of the strongest worker rights and trade unions in the Western world, legally required workforce representation on the boards of companies over a certain size, part-ownership of major industrial firms by regional government is enshrined in law and where privatising the railway system would literally be unconstitutional.

I mean if, polymathy wanted to make the point that functional social democracy with a strong centralised state to enforce something approaching a level playing field and a social safety net is actually a better way to encourage business and enterprise by making it viable to more people, they could hardly have done it better than this list.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:36

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Germany requires 50% of corporate boards to be nominated by the workers and they rank so much higher on the freedom scale than the USA, if we want to be the freest country we need to out-workplace-democracy the Germans

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:39

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

If new zealand is a libertarian paradise, who am I to argue. Double the minimum wage and subsidize health care and housing; We're implementing libertarian policies to maximize freedom.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:44

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

The freedom lists are always so hilarious, because they so obviously just take all the countries with the highest quality of life, declare that "freedom" is responsible for these high living standards, reverse-engineer a subjective freedom scoring system to back this up, then recommend we adopt the complete opposite of the economic policies those high scoring countries have.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:44

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Who What Now posted:

They've gone to bat defending it waaaaaaay more often, though. So I'd say they've been a little shy about it.

So how do you feel about Bernie praising Cuba's literacy programs? I'm curious how you special plead your way out of this one.

Citations for libertarians defending slavery please.

That's a decent attempt at a gotcha question.

First, I have no idea why the Frasier Institute ranked UAE and Qatar in the top 2020 in 2013 but at 127 and 128 in 2019. I don't know enough about the history of either country nor am I familiar with the methodology they employed in enough detail.

However, it's not special pleading because the aim of scientific studies and surveys is usually to narrowly assess a very specific question through the accumulation of relevant data. Following a scientific process is different than informally praising an aspect of a society that is rather oppressive.

Furthermore a literacy program is not an unambiguous good in and of itself. The more relevant question is what are the citizens allowed to read? If all a population has available is government propaganda, maybe they're better off being illiterate.

The point in criticizing Bernie for this statement is that it is in the State's interest that the population be literate in order to better control them through the dissemination of propaganda. Therefore praising the government for their "benevolent" social programs in this instance is an example of missing the point entirely.

With somebody like Bernie, who has described himself as a Socialist, people naturally want to know exactly how far Left is he really. His supporters insist that he just wants to copy European Social Democracies like Sweden and Denmark. But he has in the past praised Communist regimes so where is his heart really?

Cuba has been an unmitigated disaster. Yes, the United States embargo hurt them substantially, but their own internal oppression and lack of economic freedom hurt them as well.

Bernie's position should be that Cuba's government has been an unmitigated disaster and we don't want to emulate them. Full stop.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:45

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

VitalSigns posted:

So uh jrodefeld, did you know we used to have volunteer fire departments, that were funded and staffed and equipped in just this way?

Have you noticed that we don't do it that way anymore? Have you ever wondered why? Was it statist brainwashing in the school system using mind control techniques to make children into willing enforces of Big Firetruck?

In the UK we went one better, there were multiple, competing fire services who charged insurance. A small seaside town near where I live, of about 7500 people at the time, had fifteen different competing fire insurance services operating in it :v:

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:46

ianmacdo: Oct 30, 2012

polymathy posted:

You're making a lot of assertions with no evidence. You say "libertarian thought encourages by its very essence a stratification of wealth, a moneyed elite with all the property and thus all the power." No it doesn't.

All libertarian thought insists upon is that whatever institutions, policies or actions we want in our society should be provided voluntarily outside of the State. Libertarianism insists that all interactions between groups of people be voluntary.

That's it.

Imagine a scenario.. ".

It strikes me that the solution to consolidated power whether by private corporations or the government, is radical decentralization with dozens if not hundreds of very different societies with different norms, institutions and customs reflecting the values of the people who live there.

But you completely dodge land ownership.

Imagine a scenario where one family really hates gay people, but they also own a ton of land like a really big area. Now they rent it out to people but they set the rules and the rules and being gay is against them.
How is that not libertarian?
It's also the Saudi monarchy? Perfect libertarian state? If one family owns all the land they can set whatever rules they want and there is no conflict with libertarian ideology is there?
And what if the surrounding land owners are even worse?

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:48

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

However, it's not special pleading because the aim of scientific studies and surveys is usually to narrowly assess a very specific question through the accumulation of relevant data. Following a scientific process is different than informally praising an aspect of a society that is rather oppressive.

lol that you think the Cato institute's "freedom index" is scientific.

it's some college kids sitting around giving subjective scores in arbitrary categories, which ended up ranking slavery super-free because lack of worker protections is more free from Charles Koch's point of view.

polymathy posted:

Furthermore a literacy program is not an unambiguous good in and of itself. The more relevant question is what are the citizens allowed to read? If all a population has available is government propaganda, maybe they're better off being illiterate.

lmao at conservatives admitting their goal is keeping people illiterate so they don't encounter ideas outside of what the church and the company tells them

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:50

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

polymathy posted:

Citations for libertarians defending slavery please.

That's a decent attempt at a gotcha question.

First, I have no idea why the Frasier Institute ranked UAE and Qatar in the top 2020 in 2013 but at 127 and 128 in 2019. I don't know enough about the history of either country nor am I familiar with the methodology they employed in enough detail.

I was talking about you saying it's ok to praise Adam Smith because not everything he did was bad. But then you went and said literacy is an awful thing, so I guess my question still got answered.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:52

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

ianmacdo posted:

But you completely dodge land ownership.

Imagine a scenario where one family really hates gay people, but they also own a ton of land like a really big area. Now they rent it out to people but they set the rules and the rules and being gay is against them.
How is that not libertarian?
It's also the Saudi monarchy? Perfect libertarian state? If one family owns all the land they can set whatever rules they want and there is no conflict with libertarian ideology is there?
And what if the surrounding land owners are even worse?

The ideal Libertarian state is the Belgian Congo, which was not a state at all but simply the private property of King Leopold, and of course we all know it's the landowner's inalienable right to set whatever rules for his tenants as he sees fit.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:53

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

I don't see how you advocate people working together but then draw the line at some kind of accountable governmental authority managing that cooperation.

It's sort of the same question of "what the difference is between governmental authority and corporate or landlord authority?" Is the one that's got some kind of democratization around it to make it actually accountable to the people being ruled the bad one? Like if you single out the gubberment as the singular bad authority and cut that one back, you leave people to be forced into inhumane circumstances. Landlords jacking people's rent up and evicting without notice, employers firing and blacklisting employees who dare to step out of line.

Panfilo posted:

Start your own business and be your own boss?

That used to be a more popular strategy for advancement. In fact, the whole boss/employee relationship in many cases can be seen as being derived from the old master/apprentice relationship, where at some point the apprentice used to go free and become an independent master, but the shrinking of the market and increasing anticompetitive practices makes it much harder for people to break free to start out on their own, especially if they want to use their skills and knowledge from their job in their new business.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:57

ianmacdo: Oct 30, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

The ideal Libertarian state is the Belgian Congo, which was not a state at all but simply the private property of King Leopold, and of course we all know it's the landowner's inalienable right to set whatever rules for his tenants as he sees fit.

Isn't that the end state for libertarianism? Like there are no or super low taxes so what is stopping the complete consolidation of land? Why would any rich person sell any land? Unless a richer person bought all the land around you and then set high tolls just to cross. Then you would have to sell. Thus further concentrating the land ownership.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:58

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Golbez posted:

A new group of people come to a continent, genocide 99% of the people already there, and take over. They form a state that owns 5% of the land; the other 95% is privately held, almost entirely by this new group of people, under the laws created by this new group of people, which were designed to prevent the original inhabitants from being able to own land.

Now let's say libertarians take over that country about 500 years later. According to you, that 5% is absolutely, completely illegitimate, and must be distributed to someone (maybe descendants of the genocided people?); and that 95%, despite being founded on exactly the same principle of conquest, murder, and confiscation, is acceptable and should stay with the people who currently occupy it.

Because one of these properties is "legitimate" and the other is not.

And when I realized the contradiction, was when I realized libertarianism was bullshit.

No that's not what I'm saying.

In the first place, 40% of the United States is so-called "Public Land", owned by the US Government. Not 5%.

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111

My point is that we know, by definition, that government "owned" land can never be legitimate since it had to be stolen. However, private land can be legitimately acquired through homesteading or peaceful trade.

The easiest way to provide reparations to American Indians is to give them a portion of the 40% public land to do with as they please.

If privately-owned land is found to be stolen and more properly belongs to another person, then that property must be given back as well.

My point is that it would be very difficult, or impossible to prove that a privately-owned piece of property were stolen from American Indians 150 years ago or determine that a particular Indian today has a legitimate claim to the property.

After all, by no rational standard could it be said that American Indians owned the entire continent of North America.

At some point in history, after you've rectified as much past injustice as you can, you have to say that current property titles are more or less legitimate. If you don't do this at some point, you'll just continue to perpetuate injustice through the arbitrary theft and redistribution of property in perpetuity.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 17:58

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Breaking News: boy who doesn't read his own links doesn't think literacy is important.

Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 10, 2020

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:01

Eimi: Nov 23, 2013; I will never ~~log off~~shut up.

"Homesteading or peaceful trade" of stolen goods still means the goods were stolen. And how homesteading worked was originally the government laid claim to all land and then parceled it out to those it viewed as 'deserving'. How you can say the land still in government hands today is illegitimate but not that from homesteaders or land traders who stole it just as much is loving insane. :psyduck:

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:06

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

VitalSigns posted:

Libertarianism is about justifying existing hierarchies and concentrations of power and wealth.

All the violence and theft and murder and genocide that enriched the current upper class, that's in the past, nothing to be done. But now that they have their massive stolen wealth while billions are homeless and starving, oh well now it would be wrong to redistribution any of that.

VitalSigns you've been here since the beginning of this motherfucking thread literally years ago. And this is STILL you're conception of libertarian thought? After I've explicitly corrected this misconception time and time again? After I've explicitly stated that this is NOT true?

Most currently existing hierarchies and concentrations of power and wealth are illegitimate according to libertarian theory.

I've repeatedly said that we should do as much as possible to rectify past injustices but justice itself requires evidence. If you just start violating rights under the pretext of atoning for past crimes without accompanying evidence all you're doing is committing new injustices.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:07

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Perhaps the need to constantly fiddle with ownership to prevent lovely outcomes is an inherent failing of the entire notion of private property :thunk:

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:08

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

polymathy posted:

VitalSigns you've been here since the beginning of this motherfucking thread literally years ago. And this is STILL you're conception of libertarian thought? After I've explicitly corrected this misconception time and time again? After I've explicitly stated that this is NOT true?

You keep saying this, and then you keep contradicting it.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

After all, by no rational standard could it be said that American Indians owned the entire continent of North America.

Why not.

And why do they only conveniently own the national parks or whatever government land, when we know for a fact that legislation like say the Indian Removal Act kicked them off their land to give it to private white property owners

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:16

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

polymathy posted:

VitalSigns you've been here since the beginning of this motherfucking thread literally years ago. And this is STILL you're conception of libertarian thought? After I've explicitly corrected this misconception time and time again? After I've explicitly stated that this is NOT true?

Most currently existing hierarchies and concentrations of power and wealth are illegitimate according to libertarian theory.

I've repeatedly said that we should do as much as possible to rectify past injustices but justice itself requires evidence. If you just start violating rights under the pretext of atoning for past crimes without accompanying evidence all you're doing is committing new injustices.

Yeah I keep saying it because you never have a good answer for it.

If a small upper class of people ruled over an empire that stole a bunch of resources, then 500 years later you say "ok well their descendants get to keep all the land and resources they stole, but from now on property can't be taken by force" then you're not being principled at all, you're just making a very convenient justification for the existing aristocracy and blaming the people whose land and resources they stole for being poor.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:19

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Cpt_Obvious posted:

My biggest complaint about libertarians is their failure to acknowledge class struggle. Arguably the most important Marxist criticism of capitalism has nothing to do with public vs private, but boss vs. worker.

That is, if I want a raise, my desire for money is directly opposed to the business owner because he necessarily wants to pay me less. Everything I desire as a worker has to come out of my boss's pocket. Wages, safety precautions, vacation, breaks, healthcare, etc. Therefore, my boss will do everything he can to counter my desires. This puts employer in an adversarial relationship with employee.

I have heard no capitalist rebuttal of this obvious fact.

I don't think we fail to acknowledge it, we just have a different conception of how it manifests.

If there's one book I think you all should read, it's "Social Class and State Power: Exploring an Alternative Radical Tradition"

https://www.amazon.com/Social-Class-State-Power-Alternative/dp/3319648934

It's edited by Gary Chartier and Roderick Long, two anarchist libertarians.

It's essentially a collection of writing from classical liberal and libertarian thinkers on the subject of class and exploitation.

The description on Amazon reads:

This book explores the idea of social class in the liberal tradition. It collects classical and contemporary texts illustrating and examining the liberal origins of class analysis―often associated with Marxism but actually rooted in the work of liberal theorists. Liberal class analysis emphasizes the constitutive connection between state power and class position. Social Class and State Power documents the rich tradition of liberal class theory, its rediscovery in the twentieth century, and the possibilities it opens up for research in the new millenium.

Wages are a negotiating process. Employers may want to pay you less, but they also want good workers. If they pay you too little or offer too few benefits, another employer will offer you a higher price or better benefits and bid you away and that employer will suffer. Your talents have a value on the market and businessmen can't arbitrary push down your salary below that price.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:27

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Nobody is going to read books written and edited by quacks. Stop recommending them and use your own words to make arguments instead of just regurgitating other people's thoughts.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:30

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

Cpt_Obvious posted:

"Paleo-conservatism" is just fascism in disguise. This should surprise nobody because liberals will align themselves with fascists more readily than with leftists.

Because fascists love the hierarchical structure of capitalism.

No. Jesus Christ, no.

Now answer the question about class struggle.

I knew that would be your answer, but why not?

I believe the struggle against Imperialism and the Warfare State is the most urgent and vital political struggle we face. Therefore, I think we need to form a broad ideologically diverse coalition to have chance of winning this fight.

This means welcoming Leftists, Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, Greens, Anarchists, and whoever else we can find.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have the same commitment. Interesting.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:32

polymathy: Oct 19, 2019

VictualSquid posted:

All countries with coalition based voting systems have had libertarian parties. All the libertarian parties have declared themselves to be anti-war. All the libertarian parties have voted for war whenever their votes had any chance of making a difference. Because they value their alliance with the conservatives and fascists and the profits of the arms industry over the anti-war idea.

But if there was a way to magically enforce the promises made by the libertarian parties, I would enter in a coalition with them.

If libertarians vote for aggressive war, then they are not libertarians. I'm all for having a big tent, but at bare minimum you have to be anti-war to call yourself a libertarian.

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

polymathy posted:

My point is that it would be very difficult, or impossible to prove that a privately-owned piece of property were stolen from American Indians 150 years ago or determine that a particular Indian today has a legitimate claim to the property.

I would say that the Indian Removal Act is pretty strong evidence that privately owned property was stolen from native americans.

polymathy posted:

I knew that would be your answer, but why not?

I believe the struggle against Imperialism and the Warfare State is the most urgent and vital political struggle we face. Therefore, I think we need to form a broad ideologically diverse coalition to have chance of winning this fight.

This means welcoming Leftists, Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives, Paleo-Conservatives, Greens, Anarchists, and whoever else we can find.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have the same commitment. Interesting.

I believe that the struggle to cross the river is the most important struggle we have. This means that the frogs should carry the scorpions on their back in order to achieve that goal.

Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Mar 10, 2020

# ? Mar 10, 2020 18:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›850 »