|
Caros posted:Oh, and Jrod, I'm curious. Dude, are you capable of having a discussion in good faith? Other than just trolling, what exactly does randomly bringing up Stefan Molyneux contribute to the discussion?
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Caros posted:It had one cause. Slavery. I loving hate you. There is not one credible historian who thinks that the civil war had a single cause. Not one. Admitting to additional causes than slavery does not justify slavery, as if this need be said. Are you incapable of processing nuance about the multifaceted elements that led to the American Civil War?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 10:41
|
|
|
polymathy posted:My political program is anarchy, absolute Statelessness. How do you protect property rights without a state?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
polymathy posted:There is not one credible historian who thinks that the civil war had a single cause. Not one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
polymathy posted:It's not libertarian, only more libertarian than most other countries. So my country which have a population sligthly over five millions is also libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
Robert Evans kicking the poo poo out of jrod would be the greatest goon story since either Groverhaus or Zipline of death
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
polymathy posted:There is not one credible historian who thinks that the civil war had a single cause. Not one. Alhazred fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:44
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:So my country which have a population sligthly over five millions is also libertarian? Libertarianism is when the country has a small population and when smaller the population the more libertarianism it is and when it does a real whole lot of small population it’s anarchism but also with hierarchies and capitalism so not anarchism at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
Also given that the khmer rouge knocked the population of cambodia down to about six million clearly they were actually the ultimate libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:46
|
|
|
E: quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
polymathy posted:There is not one credible historian who thinks that the civil war had a single cause. Not one. Found about 20 first google result https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/99/2/415/860501
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
Fascist states: famously interested in peaceful coexistence and nonviolent cooperation with neighboring peoples, most especially those occupying land that fascists feel they have cultural or historical claims on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:JRod you realise this isn't fertile grounds for sowing lolbertarianism, right?  I'm here to watch people putting I also learn a thing or two from the good posts that good posters make in this thread rebutting them! It's a lurking win/win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 13:05
|
|
|
Polymathy, you seem like a dude who might be intrigued by arguments outside the usual sphere, so I'm gonna throw this out there, because I in some ways recognize a fellow traveler, but I am way, way more anti-authority than you and I enjoy tweaking people's brains. Civilization is a self-organizing open thermodynamic system, that is to say, it increases in complexity commensurate to the amount of energy it can throughput. Complexity has a cost though, in the form of maintenance of infrastructure, whether that infrastructure is physical or social. Centralization occurs because it reduces those maintenance costs through reduction of redundancy. Competition occurs between groups as a process in determining which methods maximize energy throughput most effectively over time, thereby increasing entropy in the universe at large. Most people across the political spectrum want to deny this, as it reduces their pet ideology to one of several players in a doomed game, rather than "the one true way for people to live". The conclusion is simple, and imo irrefutable: If you support decentralization, you are opposed to all economic growth. You cannot be a socialist or a capitalist, you are forced, by the baseline logic of the universe, to be a primitivist. If you cling to other delusions, you will suffer ongoing psychic pain as your brain struggles to make sense of reality. I recommend drugs, as the day-to-day experience makes it overwhelmingly clear that almost all "civilized" people surrender to centralization in the pursuit of order and growth, even when it goes against their stated political desires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Go back through this thread. I'm stated my preferred political program many times. I am a libertarian anarchist. No political ideology could be more diametrically opposed to fascism than mine. No, you are not an anarchist. You're a propertarian. You don't want to abolish the state, you just want to keep the state as it is but have it run by capitalists for capitalists. You don't get to call yourself an anarchist if you don't recognise and oppose the inequalities and cruelties inherent in capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Oh wait I forgot I already had this argument with this guy in this thread and got nowhere, markets as a religion are infallible
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:How do you protect property rights without a state? DROs man! You hire a private security company to fight the robbers or squatters and their private security company! Can't afford private security? Well then you obviously don't have any property worth stealing, which means you are the that potential threat that private security is paid to protect property from! The system works! (Also if you are Stephen Molyneaux another important consideration is whether private security should offer an optional rider to protect your daughter's virginity or whether it should be included at no charge since, as her father, her virginity is your private property)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
polymathy posted:The fact that I don't support the political program of either Antifa or the Proud Boys means that I'm a nationalist loyalist and a sympathizer of fascism?! Hi, sorry, I need this clarified. What is the political platform of Antifa?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
tinytort posted:I'd offer to I don't know what you mean by "wrong". I have strong disagreements with every one of the people I read and listen to on different issues. I don't mind saying this when it's the truth. What you're really saying is that you want me to denounce people as horrible racists or fascists with no redeeming value. I'm not doing that because I don't think it's true. I would wager that I read and learn from a lot more leftist literature than you read libertarian literature. I've read Chomsky and I always learn from him and I don't feel the need "denounce" him for the issues I think he's terrible on. It makes no sense whatsoever. I learn from anyone who has something interesting to say, and I just ignore the stuff I don't agree with. The theatrical histrionics of publicly denouncing people as a form of virtue signaling is entirely a liberal and leftist obsession. Now, if you ask me whether I agree with a particular libertarian on something they've said or believe, I'll be happy to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 14:55
|
|
if Jrod/polymathy admits he was wrong about any of his so-called heroes. But the odds of him doing that without hedging it into oblivion or trying to deny that he ever defended them are so low that they might as well be zero.
|
NGDBSS posted:No. It all comes down to slavery. All the historical debate is about how slavery as the singular principal issue affected other derivative issues. The Confederate states even said so prior to and during the war. I'd really hate to derail this thread into yet another debate about the Civil War, but I only want to point out one thing. The reasons given by the States for seceding are not the same as the motivations for the war. All civil war historians agree that Lincoln, at least during the first couple of years of the war, was motivated by a desire to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. This is widely agreed upon. This fact alone blows up your argument that slavery was the only reason the Civil War was fought. Preserving the Union is a secondary and different motivation from abolishing slavery. It may well have been a worthy goal, but it's not the same as the singular focus on the abolition of slavery by any means necessary. I don't even have to go into the desire not to lose revenue from the tariffs in Southern ports, or any other economic motivation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:Robert Evans kicking the poo poo out of jrod would be the greatest goon story since either Groverhaus or Zipline of death Maybe I'm out of the loop, but who the gently caress is Robert Evans? Presumably not the film producer who died a year ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Evans
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Polymathy, you seem like a dude who might be intrigued by arguments outside the usual sphere, so I'm gonna throw this out there, because I in some ways recognize a fellow traveler, but I am way, way more anti-authority than you and I enjoy tweaking people's brains. I can't imagine that you're truly this dense. So the increased energy usage that an advanced civilization requires increases entropy in the universe, and centralization solves that problem? Can you elaborate on precisely how this entropy negatively effects human beings in the real world? If centralization reduces redundancy, wouldn't a world government reduce those redundancies to the maximum extent possible and thus be a political ideal? After all, we've got nearly two hundred separate countries on this planet all operating in a horrible state of anarchy in their relationship to one another. Think of all that redundancy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
polymathy posted:My political program is anarchy, absolute Statelessness. I've stated on multiple times my rejection of all totalitarian forms of politics including fascism. So to state that I am advocating for fascism despite my protestations, and without any evidence, is pure libel. You have no idea what anarchism is. Anarchism is a lack of all hierarchies, including employers. Nobody should be able to tell me when to wake up or rest or how much money I should make. Those decisions cannot and should not be made by someone else in a position of power over another. That is what a state is, one group with control over another. The nobility has power over the peasants just like the bosses of the world have power over employees. So as long as you allow the hierarchy of boss and worker, capitalism, there is a state and you are not an anarchist. And if you insist on dividing people into immaterial into groups, you’re a fascist. The stripe of which is irrelevant. Now answer the loving question: what is to stop one group from rolling over another with the tanks that still exist today? And keep in mind, the Democrats are currently purging the Republicans pretty hard. Edit: phone posting. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I'd really hate to derail this thread into yet another debate about the Civil War, but I only want to point out one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Ok jrodefeld I have a couple of serious questions for you. 1: if you want to get out from under the US government so bad, why don't you move to New Zealand or whatever other libertarian paradise that fits your values better? 2: secession might work out very well for you since you live in a nice progressive blue state, but what about me? Where I live, laws against being gay are still on the books and only the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution and the supreme court restrains the state government from prosecuting me. So why should I support secession when it's totally cool if not desirable in the eyes of my state government when people like me get dragged behind a truck? And I won't accept "well then your local government should secede, and if they hate gays then your street should secede and if they hate gays then your house should secede", because the secessionists in my state don't believe in your ideas of decentralized hands-off local government. They believe they're fighting a culture war for their way of life and people like me threaten them by existing. They're only secessionists because they fear they're outnumbered nationally and they don't want the US government dominating them, but on the state level they have the numbers so they want the state government dominating cities and neighborhoods. So why is secession by angry Trump voting states good for people like me whose civil rights are threatened by right-wing state governments? It sounds like your solution to anti-gay legislators is just to say "well I don't have any around here so gently caress you if you're gay in the South", seems not great. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Consider a radical decentralization plan. Suppose Portland were it's own independent city-State and Beaverton, which is literally ten miles away were it's own independent city-State. Does that mean I'd have to segregate and not associate with people from Beaverton? No, it just means Portland would be governed according to the will of Portlanders and Beaverton according to the will of the people who live there. We can still travel between those two areas, trade with each other, visit friends and family in either area, etc. And what happens if the people of Beaverton, in accordance with their devolved, full-agency democratic rights as an independent city-state, decide that they don't want their group and culture tainted by those foul rose-growing degenerates in Portland? What if the will of the people isn't given to free travel, free trade, easy visits to friends and family and instead is given to nationalism, xenophobia, cultural chauvinism, strange outdated ideas about autarky, an undying emotional attachment to vanished industries and a horrible sense of superiority over those from outside their cultural unit? I'm in the UK and we're kinda in the middle of a shitstorm of stuff at the moment because the Will of the People was very much the latter, not the former.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
It's pretty funny that we can't use the capitol hill riots to judge 74 mil Trump voters are fascist sympathizers but we can use that to assume 74 mil Trump voters are secessionists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I'd really hate to derail this thread into yet another debate about the Civil War, but I only want to point out one thing. Hey, genius, why did Lincoln want to preserve the Union, exactly? Was it because the south wanted to secede over the issue of slavery?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I'd really hate to derail this thread into yet another debate about the Civil War, but I only want to point out one thing. See, it is this kind of argument that is loving infuriating. Imagine that I shoot you in the chest, like seven or eight times. I can imagine it quite vividly, in fact, I do so daily. Now you're on the ground, bleeding out your last pathetic life, but against all odds, you actually hold out for several hours. I missed every major organ, and eventually you die of blood loss, but only after some crows peck out your eyes. Does it make any sense to suggest that 'well there were many causes for his death, including blood loss'? No. No it doesn't. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. Remove the multiple gunshot wounds and there is no blood loss, you could have even defended yourself against those dastardly crows. If you remove the issue of slavery, there would be no civil war. Every southern state admitted that slavery was the cause for their secession, the president of the confederacy admitted it, their loving constitution was more or less identical to the union constitution, minus a few protections for individual states and the fact that slavery was written into it in perpetuity. What you're doing is confederate apologia, probably brought on by severe brain damage or listening to Ron Paul folks speak too often (but I repeat myself). And this is what is so loving infuriating. Let's go back to your first mention in this most recent shitshow of a post history: quote:The fact that some US southern states seceded partially over the issue of slavery Some US states seceded partially over the issue? You're just being monumentally dishonest. Every state that seceded was a slave state, and they all openly talked about how they were seceding because they wanted to keep slavery and were afraid the north would abolish it. You can quibble about 'well maybe they were afraid of some dumbass tariff no one has heard of or cares about' if you feel like being dishonest, but the reality is clear as loving day to anyone with a functioning brain. So why lie about it? Why persist in this absolute loving horseshit lie that the southern states seceded for any reason other than that they wanted to keep owning people? Because you know it makes your case for modern day secession look bad. You've rejected reality and substituted your own version where yeah the slave owning states were bad, but they had some other legitimate grievances, so really who knows who was in the wrong during the civil war. It is this dishonesty that has broken my patience with you. You know you're wrong here, but rather than conceding the point and formulating an argument for secession that addresses the history of the matter, you've chosen to deal with your cognitive dissonance by dipping your head fully into lost cause confederate propaganda. You've taken the easy way out, as you so often do, and it is loving tiresome. You asked why I brought up Molyneux, and honestly the answer is because I want to rub your face in your dogshit beliefs to see if maybe you'll come to some sort of epiphany about your foundational beliefs being based on the words of a bunch of garbage people. You sung the praises of Walter Block up and down this thread back in the day, and would you look at that, he's gone full MAGA. Do you think that might be because in their heart of hearts, a lot of the libertarian thinkers you have used to formulate your arguments were actually feeding you the same kind of poo poo you're trying to shovel onto us? That maybe Block realizes how stupid minarchism actually was, but since his actual goal was just to suck off capitalism he shifted to what he found to be a more effective strategy in the form of a strongman would be dictator? But enough of all that, topic change: How would your perfect decentralized wonderland have remotely handled Covid-19? Bonus question: Do you think it is wrong for the government to mandate mask wearing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Well naturally they were too embarrassed to admit they were seceding over tariffs so they needed a good-sounding cause to use as an excuse that would get the world on their side, and the choice was obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:Bonus question: Do you think it is wrong for the government to mandate mask wearing? Well in libertarian paradise New Zealand, masks haven't been required in public for months and they're doing fine while the US has mask mandates almost everywhere and is doing horrible so masks must cause coronavirus QED
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Go back through this thread. I'm stated my preferred political program many times. I am a libertarian anarchist. No political ideology could be more diametrically opposed to fascism than mine. Ancom here. Basically the *real* libertarian poo poo before the US right hosed up the definition. You're an ancap who believes that corporations will magically make things better as opposed to simply assuming the role of government, but with the goal of strictly making money instead of. . .idk, actually providing services. You're a tool and a liar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well naturally they were too embarrassed to admit they were seceding over tariffs so they needed a good-sounding cause to use as an excuse that would get the world on their side, and the choice was obvious. *Smashes buzzer* What is the American war for independence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
The idea that secession is somehow non-violent is absolutely nuts. A peaceful secession only works after years of painstakingly specific negotiations. Who gets the infrastructure? The military facilities? The debt? Will there be trade agreements? And, importantly, what about citizens who don't want their country to suddenly change? The Velvet Divorce of Czechoslovakia took a couple of years (and most people were against it - did it occur to you that the people might not want to secede even though the governments do?). There aren't many other instances of peaceful secession because, in general, it does not exist, because no one who really wants to secede in any immediate fashion is going to spend the time to negotiate all of the incredibly important things. And it's right to fight such things with violence, to be honest, because you are going to have the seceding state trying to depart with citizens who don't want to secede, and vast wealth that, until then, was part of a larger whole. At least you didn't compare secession to a divorce or, worse, a battered spouse trying to leave their abuser, because, and this may shock you, countries aren't families. They are, in fact, different concepts. Edit: At the time of secession, South Carolina was majority slave. So presumably, their secession was invalid on its face and force would have been a reasonable response, yes? Or are you saying that a minority is allowed to tell a majority what to do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
polymathy posted:I can't imagine that you're truly this dense. This is your brain engaging in self-protection via ad hominem in order to avoid the expansion I am attempting to force upon it. polymathy posted:So the increased energy usage that an advanced civilization requires increases entropy in the universe, and centralization solves that problem? Can you elaborate on precisely how this entropy negatively effects human beings in the real world? Centralization is the problem, is it not? You've already explored some of the ways that it negatively impacts people in here, and declared yourself in opposition to it. I share your distaste for it. I fantasize often about my entire bioregion escaping the control of the united states. But I come at it from a physics perspective, and it's not a policy that we get to set, the level of centralization in a system is inherently tied to how rapidly the system in question is able to convert exergy to entropy, thereby maximizing power/work. The larger a system becomes, the more intermediate functions are needed to sustain it, functions which are achieved with minimum energy costs (and losses to the overall system) when under the control of a local monopoly. I'll reference Lean Logic here, I cannot recommend it to you enough as a methodology for local thinking, quoting from https://leanlogic.online/glossary/intermediate-economy/ David Fleming posted:Pottery offers another example. Start with a society of subsistence farmers, some of whom feel they could do with a few more mugs for the family breakfast. They could make potters wheels, get hold of some clay, practise making a few pots, and try firing them in the bread oven. In fact, they realise that it would be better to get Aelfrith in the next village to make them, because he has a wheel and kiln already set up, and he knows what he is doing. The anthropologist and mathematician Colin Renfrew agrees: David Fleming posted:A STORY OF POTS This is why you can't be anti-centralization and pro-economic growth, at any level, it makes even less sense than the ancoms. polymathy posted:If centralization reduces redundancy, wouldn't a world government reduce those redundancies to the maximum extent possible and thus be a political ideal? Not a political ideal, a thermodynamic ideal, why do you think so much effort has gone into interconnecting the world and standardizing every aspect of it? Why do you think capitalism and communism struggled against one another so mightily? This has in practical terms already happened, capitalism won, it was more efficient* (maximized throughput better). Those 200 countries (save a few holdouts with their own, competing forms of order) all trade goods on the world market and generally play by the same rules, reckon in the same time, use the same weights and measures, get abused by the same megabanks etc; they trend toward homogeneity, and through that, increased flow of energy, one could term this a globally capitalist world. Scarcity and competition is still a fact of life though, and competing centers of power vie to maximize growth in their territory, lest they be dominated and someday eaten by a stronger portion of the system, that will use the pillaged resources in order to increase its own growth. To abide by the rules of the current order though, they are obliged to do their eating economically, territory-taking and physical looting/enslavement is frowned upon. Does that seem like anarchy to you? So again, and I will continue at this, your image of yourself seems to be wrong, like many people's. If you are for decentralization, you must accept degrowth, and if your ultimate aim is anarchism, you must accept primitivism. You can have your village, and you can walk to your neighboring villages, but that's about it. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
I'm still flabbergasted about seeing people storming the capitol and wanting to kill congress people if they caught them and thinking they "just want to be left alone" or otherwise just want to separate from "the left" That seems beyond the usual willfully dense JRod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
When conservatives say they "just want to be left alone," they mean that they don't want anyone to investigate the mysterious deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:When conservatives say they "just want to be left alone," they mean that they don't want anyone to investigate the mysterious deaths. Oh, so its just the NAP. Now it makes sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Billy Gnosis posted:I'm still flabbergasted about seeing people storming the capitol and wanting to kill congress people if they caught them and thinking they "just want to be left alone" or otherwise just want to separate from "the left" Thing is, he's explicitly not doing this, but I'm quite sure he's not doing this in the most ham-fisted way intentionally in order to get us pissed at him. He's not talking about the current right-wing fascists: he's talking about some hypothetical group of Trump supporters who only want to peacefully and democratically exit the union. Along with Arizona. For some reason. This, of course, does not exist, but if you read (way too) closely, he's not actually claiming it does: it's just a made-up scenario he wants to wargame with us. Why is he doing this rather than coming up with some hypothetical which doesn't pretend that fascists just want to be left alone and protected from the socialist left stealing their freedom Because he wants to get us angry. He wants to invoke the emotional response associated with these recent events so he can claim that we're not actually reading or engaging with his (again: hypothetical) situation. It's a cheap con trick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Karia posted:it's just a made-up scenario he wants to wargame with us. Why is he doing this Libertarians can't argue their principles with historical or current examples because they're arguing for enclosure, genocide, slavery, de jure racism, and other inequalities that violate the values they pretend to hold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:11
|
|