|
OwlFancier posted:Even if we accept the idea that there are super smart IQ guys who should be given preferential power over people who are not that, who's gonna decide who they are? Clearly the common plebs can not understand who is and isn't a big brain boy. So all the big brain boys will have to decide among themselves who is suitable to make decisions. Easy, you just make a completely unbiased IQ test. It is a complete coincidence that the IQ test requires you to know the definition of, say, regatta in order to score high enough to be deemed worthy of anything but menial labour.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 14:51 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 02:14 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Even if we accept the idea that there are super smart IQ guys who should be given preferential power over people who are not that, who's gonna decide who they are? Clearly the common plebs can not understand who is and isn't a big brain boy. So all the big brain boys will have to decide among themselves who is suitable to make decisions. The problem, OP, is that it's not a meritocracy. We know this because if it was, Jrod would obviously be on top
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 15:16 |
|
hooman posted:Have you ever worked in a business? Business is *nothing* like a school group project. In a business everyone has skills and are assigned to the tasks that suit those skills. The average worker may not want a management role, in a co-op they would likely assign that role to a management specialist. This. I've harped on this before, but Jrod has clearly never worked in any sort of company.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 15:39 |
|
polymathy posted:Let me explain my conception of a free society and I want to get your reaction to it. Since you asked for my reaction and not a point-by-point rebuttal (thank Christ for that, at least), here you go: I think your society is a useless piece of utopian cloud-castle-building. Why? Because wealth already exists in the world, and is secured in the hands of a few individuals, their families, etc. (Few either relatively or in absolute number terms, take your pick because the answer is the same) Now, unless we're prepared to forcibly re-distribute the world's resources, which I'm assuming you'd categorize under "Leftism" and therefore violating the NAP, that doesn't seem to be an option on the table here. Since libertarianism, and indeed the NAP, assumes people are rational, self-interested beings (at all times, too, but let's not get bogged down with that doozie), we must assume that wealthy individuals will work towards their own benefit. Yes? The worker in a car factory mainly wants to work because they want sufficient financial compensation to live. Henry Ford wants to have cars made because it gives him more money to hoard, and in Henry's case money is actually a different kind of resource than the 20 bucks the car maker has in his wallet. Henry wants to hoard money because at his level, money equals power. Henry's utility for his wealth is that he gets to rub shoulders with other rich, sometimes even famous people, such as Hermann Göring. And by hob-nobbing with Hermann Görings, Henry gets perks and benefits, either perceived (he gets to hate the Jews some more) or substantive, such as further business deals (you see how this goes, right) and things like that. Smaug the literal actual dragon wants to hoard gold for its own sake, because that's what dragons "do". Henry Ford wants to hoard wealth because it represents power, and influence. This is far more obvious when we look at the example of the US educational system, where not only wealth is a necessary component to quality schooling, the quality schooling (such as it is) is intimately tied with gaining societal influence. It's theoretically possible for persons such as Erdös to exist in that society, but he's not exactly going to become president any time soon. Henry Ford could have at least made the attempt. (Arguably Donald Trump became POTUS largely because he either is or is perceived as a wealthy person). The point of all of this, for the purposes of your sky castle utopia, is that inevitably the wealthy will try to game the system to their own benefit. Your proposed employer-employee-relationship is inherently slanted, because Henry Ford can just choose to not hire you because your wife has a funny nose, but the guy and his wife need money to survive. And clearly the dynamic is multi-layered, the dude whose skill is turning a knob that makes a machine spit out a car part has less "marketable" skills than the dude who designed the machine. At least in theory, but let's concede this point for the purposes of NAP-topia. If Henry Ford needs a dude who can design a machine, he will inevitably turn towards the people who went to fancy schools, which are a signifier of wealth, and so the circle keeps spinning, you see? And if some up-starts tried to start communally functioning co-ops, or whatever, which would act counter to Henry Ford's personal interests, wouldn't the perfectly rational, self-serving spherical and frictionless Henry Ford do everything in his power to squash these alternative business models? Power that he has due to his hoard of gold. NAP-topia has a similar problem to Soviet-style communism in that it'd first need to eradicate existing wealth and power structures. The soviet model would presumably violate the NAP itself, so I think this is an inherent contradiction in your proposal. We could discuss a scenario where some kind of "seed ship" is used to start a new human colony on a barren planet, but that's probably better saved for the awesome SPACE thread instead, no? Obviously the joke here is that true-believer libertarians think they'll be Henry Ford, or at the very least the guy designing car making machines, and screw everybody else, but the concept of the NAP is to insist that everything's on the up'n'up, power-wise. It's a fiction.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 15:53 |
|
polymathy posted:The clear point Laurence Vance is making is that we should be questioning what the gently caress our ships are doing in the Black Sea instead of insinuating Russian aggression because a Russian jet happened to be in the same area. Because it's allowed. We were [presumably] in Turkish waters, in accordance with international law. We were not threatening anyone, unless you're implying that carrying a gun is a threat, in which case, when are you in favor of gun control? Edit: I'm not sure if any part of the Black Sea counts as international water, so I'm confining it to Turkish. Either way, the US ship had the right to enter. Golbez fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Feb 3, 2021 |
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:04 |
|
Caros posted:Because they are the same thing. You're just trying to obfuscate that fact. I'll concede that you argued your case fairly well and even made some decent points along the way. However, I'll remind you that the only reason we're talking about this instead of what I intended to talk about is that I had the audacity to argue in favor of the principle of secession (not for the Confederacy's reason for secession) and, most significantly, said that the Civil War was fought partially over the issue of slavery. Because of this unspeakable utterance, a few people jumped on my case with "nuh uh it wasn't 'partially' over slavery. It was entirely 100% over slavery, you neo-confederate Nazi!" Well, they didn't say it in so many words but that was the spirit of it anyway. All I had to do to win my case was demonstrate that there were actors in the civil war who were motivated by factors other than slavery. This is inarguable, and you've really conceded as much. Even if you really think Lincoln was strongly motivated to free all the slaves even at the beginning of his presidency and the beginning of the Civil War, you can't escape the fact that he was ALSO motivated (as were many Northerners) with preserving the Union. The background ideological framework was that the Republican party was in many ways the heirs to the Hamiltonian vision of a more powerful centralized government. They were ideologically opposed to secession even if slavery wasn't the issue at hand. Why do you think abolitionists like Lysander Spooner supported the South's right to secede while being uncompromising in their commitment to abolishing slavery (unlike Lincoln)? Putting aside the particulars that led to the South firing the shot at Fort Sumter, had Lincoln chosen to back down and not escalate, what was the Confederacy gonna do? You think they were going to march their army on the White House and start killing people all over the place? Or were they going to retreat back to their States and resume their slave-holding, racist lives? Secession means you want to leave something, not declare war on it. Alright, forget DiLorenzo. Allow me to introduce the late Lincoln scholar Lerone Bennett Jr. He's no libertarian and certainly no apologist for the Confederacy or any "lost-cause" nonsense. He happens to be a black man and former editor of Ebony magazine, which should be sufficient to protect him from accusations of being in favor of slavery or white supremacy. A book of his I highly recommend is "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream": https://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851 His scholarship very much backs up my assessments of Lincoln and my understanding of Civil War history. Here's a talk he gave in the year 2000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1XWq0_P_hI You can respond to this if you like, but I'd rather we set aside the Civil War discussion because there are much more relevant and important things worth discussing.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:07 |
|
1. Holding slaves is a violation of the NAP. 2. Seizing property (forts, weapons, land) is a violation of the NAP. 3. It is in everyone's rational self-interest to oppose actors who routinely violate the NAP. 4. Libertarian Abraham Lincoln was obligated to fight the Civil War.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:24 |
|
Libertarians think businesses work basically like the heroes in Atlas Shrugged. You run away from your parents at 13 because they're poor and lazy and you're a self-made man, and because they want you to go to school but you've precociously discovered that formal schooling turns everyone into brainwashed liberal socialists. You get a job sweeping slag in a foundry, lying about your age of course to avoid the tyrannical child labor laws that only exist to make you helpless and dependent. You refuse to join the union, because collective bargaining is just a scheme for men of inferior intelligence and ability to hold you back and bring you down to their level so they can get more wages than they deserve. At every opportunity you step up and take charge and tell the stupid semi-apelike men around you what to do, and naturally management always recognizes and rewards your contributions. You save all your money because you don't waste it on friends or family or leisure, then you buy the factory at the age of 22 and invent your miracle metal and all your workers love you so much they quit the union the next day and you spend the rest of your life fighting against the government and the NAACP that's trying to keep you down. It has nothing to do with how real businesses work but it's a fun story for precocious high schoolers who are smarter than everyone around them.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:27 |
|
Golbez posted:Because it's allowed. We were [presumably] in Turkish waters, in accordance with international law. We were not threatening anyone, unless you're implying that carrying a gun is a threat, in which case, when are you in favor of gun control? lol we're not there because "it's allowed" "it's allowed" to go a lot of places, we're loving around in the Middle East for other reasons
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:28 |
|
polymathy posted:
Literally the most basic check jrod: loving wikipedia jrod, WIKIPEDIA posted:In a 2009 review of three newly published books on Lincoln, historian Brian Dirck referred to Bennett's 2000 work and linked him with Thomas DiLorenzo, another critic of Lincoln. He wrote that "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett and DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agenda and faulty research."
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:29 |
|
I'm literally only following this thread to watch you guys continually dunk on this JRod/polymathy fellow at this point, great stuff.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 16:53 |
|
Goons put this upon themselves, for just as there is selection bias about the type of people that would post on some dying message board, there is going to be even more selection pressure against a Libertarian willing to argue with them without getting banned for other reasons. So the only ones that stick around are going to be of the Jrod variety. I guess that also explains why Jrods arguements aren't even like other libertarians I see on Facebook.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 17:02 |
Alhazred posted:I don't think you ever managed to explain how New Zealand was libertarian.
|
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 17:16 |
|
Jesus gently caress, Jrod, just admit that you hate him for stealing property in the form of the Emancipation Proclamation and stop trying to defend it with lovely scholarship. You have a stupid noticeable hate boner for him, and it's super embarrassing. Find a watermelon and hide that thing.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 17:31 |
|
Ok serious question for you jrod/polymathy: in your Libertopia can your landlord mandate you to get the vakkkcine? What about your employer, can he mandate it?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 17:52 |
|
polymathy posted:All I had to do to win my case was demonstrate that there were actors in the civil war who were motivated by factors other than slavery. This is inarguable, and you've really conceded as much.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 17:52 |
|
Halloween Jack posted:So does each individual soldier in both armies count as an "actor" or what are your goalposts here As long as at least one single wehrmacht soldier thought antisemitism and Aryan racial theory were braindead (and it is well attested that there were), and he was only fighting to protect his home and family from Polish aggression, then
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 18:00 |
|
Leaving aside the assertions about the value of IQ or the bizarre insistence on using an inventor who didn't actually even have his IQ measured for your hypotheticals, the whole concept falls apart because if you can't explain your weird ideas to your workers, you can't explain it to consumers to get them to buy your product, and you can't explain it to investors to even get started in the first place. You don't even need to explain that much to them, because workers getting a say in their workplace doesn't mean that they need to totally understand whatever underlying concept, they just will make their own needs known. I have trouble imagining what you would be making that workers would just categorically reject unless it was something endangering their safety. The Amazon workers who are currently trying to unionize aren't trying to destroy the business model of being on online store or delivery, they're trying to get some kind of job security so that the management won't just fire them at random. And what's weird about using Nikola Tesla as your main hypothetical example is that he is one of the posterboys for genius being suppressed by capitalist business interests. You're coming up with all these hypotheticals about the workers somehow rising up against him, when the reality is that he couldn't really make a business model in the first place. He invented radio, but he wasn't the guy who figured out how to use it to broadcast sound, and he couldn't market his patents well. Most famously, there was his project to provide free energy to the world that was shut down because his bosses didn't think they could monetize it, but it seems like a pretty reasonable decision to shut it down because it cost a lot of money and doesn't seem to have any real feasible basis in any known science.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 18:23 |
|
It's also funny that there's this assumption that smart innovators are always recognized and rewarded for coming up with cool new inventions when the entirety of history has millions of examples of idiot assholes who are good at networking and schmoozing being guilty of stealing these good ideas from "lowly employees" and claiming them as their own to move up the ladder. Also when you sign a contract to work for almost any company one of the provisions is that anything you invent while working for them belongs to them and not you. Even if it's something you do in your spare time.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 19:09 |
|
Media probably reinforces the stereotype, since the 'inventor' archetype tends to be this sage, eccentric (nearly always male) individual who often serves as some kind of underdog in the story and often ends with him being wealthy and powerful due to his vision and persistence.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 19:20 |
|
Slavery is the reason the Union was broken, it is the primary cause, you intolerable fuckwit.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 19:41 |
|
polymathy posted:...Nikola Tesla's "IQ scores range from 160 to 310 by different measures". You do know why the "average IQ of the general population is between 90 and 110," right? Do you know why that measure puts the average person there?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 20:19 |
|
Libertarianism is nothing if not the gloss of the Just World Fallacy taken to ridiculous extremes used to cover up a thick fetid lair of sociopathy and self-interest.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 20:45 |
|
Somfin posted:You do know why the "average IQ of the general population is between 90 and 110," right? Do you know why that measure puts the average person there? I completely missed this. Just an absolute fuckwit through and through.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 20:49 |
|
Somfin posted:You do know why the "average IQ of the general population is between 90 and 110," right? Do you know why that measure puts the average person there? No he doesn't . I also like how searching for 310 IQ just brings up people dunking on the idea that Tesla had it.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 20:51 |
|
For those who don't know and don't want to watch the Shaun video (please do, it's really important and funny and worth your time), it's because IQ tests are normalised at a score of 100, and weighted to deliberately produce a bell curve from the results. This means the test's results are adjusted so that the average score, dead centre mean, was 100. The average person will always score between 90 and 110, because the test is designed to produce that outcome.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 21:15 |
|
Do people not know that 100IQ is definitionally average in tyool 2020?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 21:21 |
|
Billy Gnosis posted:No he doesn't . I've been waiting to get home to comment on this, and I'm sad you beat me to it. Like seriously, how loving dumb do you have to be to claim this guy 'could have' had an iq of 300. 300 iq is literally a loving meme. I search '300 iq' and I find among us youtube videos. It is a loving deviation test, one that barely functions once a person gets above ~160 (as much as it ever functions). But really, the best part of that range is that it is purestrain, gives me the sniffles and some bloodshot eyes style jrod credulity. If you type 'Tesla iq' into google, his link is the very first one. He literally went 'I need to know his iq because iq is how smart someone is, googled it and reposted without even a goddamn second of critical thought. At no point did it cross his brain that' hey, an iq of 310 would be loving ludicrous and makes no sense. No, his brain is so smooth, so frictionless in its gold medal swimming capabilities that he just copied, pasted and moved on. It is the UAE thing all over again, or that dumb gently caress Lincoln bashing I'll get to when I get home. He has some Thing he believes, he does the most cursory level search and lets the first person who agrees with him act as gospel. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 3, 2021 |
# ? Feb 3, 2021 21:53 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Do people not know that 100IQ is definitionally average in tyool 2020?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:05 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Do people not know that 100IQ is definitionally average in tyool 2020? And, again, it's not just definitionally average, it's intentionally definitionally average. Modern humans taking older IQ tests usually score higher than 100, because the average person is smarter than they used to be (due to better education, nutrition, and the general movement of knowledge from "cutting edge" into "foundation of new cutting edge"), so the tests are continually refactored to produce the "correct" average IQ score of 100, with a normal distribution around that score. This is the key thing- the test is built to produce the outcome the testers believe should be produced, rather than, as IQ adherents believe, the test genuinely assessing the actual g intelligence of a person. Again, watch the Shaun video for more on why believing in g means believing in a complete pile of obviously fabricated garbage. You might notice this whole number is built on a super loving obvious fallacy (specifically, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), and you'd be entirely right.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:13 |
|
Somfin posted:Modern humans taking older IQ tests usually score higher than 100, because the average person is smarter than they used to be What I'm getting from this is that the first IQ tests probably had questions along the lines of the sort on SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy skits. Edison would've been Sean Connery.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:42 |
|
Tesla's hidden patent was a penis mightier.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:49 |
|
Hello Sailor posted:What I'm getting from this is that the first IQ tests probably had questions along the lines of the sort on SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy skits. Edison would've been Sean Connery. Not really? Like, the urge behind trying to figure out what IQ actually measures is fairly benign, and a bunch of folks are genuinely convinced that g exists in a completely spherical cow way. The problem with libertarians is that they want g to both justify their beliefs and influence policy, and they want their online test's 240 IQ score to be taken as proof that their belief in right-wing ideology must be smart. Really they just want validation. JRod watch the video
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:52 |
|
Somfin posted:Not really? Like, the urge behind trying to figure out what IQ actually measures is fairly benign, and a bunch of folks are genuinely convinced that g exists in a completely spherical cow way. I stick by with the idea that no one who cared about their own IQ has accomplished something meaningful. It has yet to be wrong. Not even the suck rear end captains of industry dumbasses like Musk care.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:59 |
|
Guavanaut posted:Free market obsessives are not good at averages. Was it Eisenhower or Truman that lost several nights of sleep after being told that half of all americans had 'below average' intelligence?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2021 22:59 |
|
polymathy posted:Therefore I consider libertarian theory more accommodating in that all people would have the free option of choosing either co-ops where they would indeed have "a say in how their workplace operates", and a traditional worker role where they agree to the terms of an employment contract but give up certain control and say in their workplace environment. And of course every person also would have the option to become an entrepreneur themselves. YOU PETRI DISH OF POOPSICLES WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU I'm going to ask the same question I asked you literal loving years ago that you, of course, never answered, and that you really loving need to: HOW DO THEY EAT WHILE DOING THIS What, exactly and specifically, is your mechanic in Libertopia that means that everyone can afford to take those risks you're so fond of? I know for absolute fuckin' sure it isn't a robust social safety net because you and I both know you hate those with the fiery passion of a magical libertarian perpetual motion machine's energy output. What is the reason for this assertion you constantly make? What makes you think people will be able to put forth the necessary capital and still be able to feed and clothe themselves? What is the basis for your blind idolatrous belief that people are completely free actors with no outside forces or demands on them? What is your obsession with people being Fully Rational Actors when it flies directly in the face of observable reality and all of recorded history? polymathy posted:Consider the following hypothetical:
|
# ? Feb 4, 2021 00:36 |
|
theshim posted:What is your obsession with people being Fully Rational Actors when it flies directly in the face of observable reality and all of recorded history? That's the Praxeology magic!
|
# ? Feb 4, 2021 00:47 |
|
Did he ever address the question "what happens when your local
|
# ? Feb 4, 2021 01:10 |
|
Weatherman posted:Did he ever address the question "what happens when your local I feel like this scenario concedes too much to ancaps In reality if there were no laws other than what private armies say the law is, the warlords wouldn't bother with cockamamie land purchase schemes to extort money from you while technically staying within the bounds of the NAP They'd just pillage and raze your whole neighborhood and pay their armies with the loot, Valhalla DRO 4 lyfe
|
# ? Feb 4, 2021 01:27 |
|
|
# ? May 22, 2024 02:14 |
|
Oh I know reality is like that. I just wonder how he thinks it would work in ~~magical libertopia~~
|
# ? Feb 4, 2021 01:51 |