|
It's like if someone had Nathan Bedford Forest as their avatar and went around claiming they just really admire his work as a cavalry officer.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Political Whores posted:Something I wanted to touch on: JRode totally worries about the blahs. It's just that given the choice, instead of helping them via things like prison reform, drug reform, fixing the Voting Rights Act, his main priority is to focus on eliminating welfare so that they can get off their lazy asses and be the proud, productive citizens JRode knows they can be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm glad you aren't racist and actually give a gently caress about racism in general! But... I don't think I have quoted Hoppe in quite a while yet you go on and on about him here. There is a reason why I don't do these sorts of public denouncements of people as racists, which you seem desperate that I do. The answer is two fold. In the first place, when it comes to someone like Hoppe or Rothbard who have written such an enormous amount of material, I can only read what I can and make my own judgments as to their character and motives. I have repeatedly been told that someone or other is a vile racist who said all sorts of horrible things and then when I read up on what they said, it turns out they were misquoted and their opinions distorted by their political enemies. So I don't play that game. Second, the act of outing someone as a racist has a lot to do with dismissing a person out of hand without having to engage with any of their other arguments. If someone is found to be a racist then they are dismissed and none of their arguments are ever seriously considered ever again. There is no rational reason for this. People hold all manner of irrational prejudices yet they can still contribute to economic understanding, to philosophy or politics. I don't think I need to defend Hoppe to defend libertarianism. He is already an outlier in libertarian circles and a controversial figure for many reasons. But I will defend Hoppe with the caveat that I am not well read enough to understand all his views with the complexity that I might like when I am defending someone. What has been conclusively established is that Hoppe supports discrimination. Not specific discrimination mind you but the inalienable right of every private property holder to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It should be obvious that this is not a racist position in and of itself. Yet you continually contend that Hoppe believes in this principle of discrimination because he thinks or believes that people should specifically target black people for exclusion from private establishments. But I have NEVER read anything about Hoppe singling out blacks or Jews or any other minority for exclusion from society. From what I have read, he seems much more like an equal opportunity proponent of discrimination. He thinks that many different communities will arise in a Stateless society and each will differ greatly on whom, if anyone, they discriminate against. A fundamentalist Christian church might prohibit gays from entering the property, a KKK home might discriminate against blacks, and a black panther owned community might discriminate against whites. And a million different rules and policies regarding who can enter which property and which community. I have never read about Hoppe singling out any group and advocating for their specific segregation or saying that people should discriminate against them. To prove that Hoppe is a racist you have to prove that he favors the singling out of blacks for discrimination. You'd have to prove that Hoppe would personally discriminate against blacks or he would purposefully seek out a neighborhood to live that discriminated against blacks. I don't think you have offered any such proof. I am genuinely asking because racism is a term with a specific and literal meaning. To prove such you need to demonstrate Hoppe singling out a specific race for discrimination which I don't think he has ever done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think I have quoted Hoppe in quite a while yet you go on and on about him here. "Guys that was a while ago you can't bring that up!" For loving real dude. jrodefeld posted:To prove that Hoppe is a racist you have to prove that he favors the singling out of blacks for discrimination. So what, in your mind, would constitute him saying something racist? Would he literally have to say "Ship all those loving niggers back to Niggerland where they came from" for you to believe us?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think I have quoted Hoppe in quite a while yet you go on and on about him here. There is a reason why I don't do these sorts of public denouncements of people as racists, which you seem desperate that I do. The answer is two fold. In the first place, when it comes to someone like Hoppe or Rothbard who have written such an enormous amount of material, I can only read what I can and make my own judgments as to their character and motives. I have repeatedly been told that someone or other is a vile racist who said all sorts of horrible things and then when I read up on what they said, it turns out they were misquoted and their opinions distorted by their political enemies. So I don't play that game. Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Property and Freedom Society" hosted white supremacists, specifically Jared "Racial Realist" Taylor and Richard "Bell Curve" Lynn. Why would a man host these kind of degenerates unless he on some level agreed with their positions? Would the Property and Freedom Society ever host Negri or Zizek? No, they would not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:To prove that Hoppe is a racist you have to prove that he favors the singling out of blacks for discrimination. You'd have to prove that Hoppe would personally discriminate against blacks or he would purposefully seek out a neighborhood to live that discriminated against blacks. Hoppe posted:What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy?[...]More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias Hoppe: A just system inherently discriminates against non-whites. QED
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hoppe: A just system inherently discriminates against non-whites. QED No but he doesn't single out blacks because there are black people in Europe therefore not racist checkmate racist
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
An experiment. When Hoppe says something like this:quote:Furthermore, insurers would also be particularly interested in gathering information on potential (not yet committed and known) crimes and aggressors, and this would lead to a fundamental overhaul of and improvement in current — statist — crime statistics. In order to predict the future incidence of crime and thus calculate its current price (premium), insurers would correlate the frequency, description, and character of crimes and criminals with the social surroundings in which they occur and operate. And always under competitive pressure, they would develop and continually refine an elaborate system of demographic and social crime indicators. That is, every neighborhood would be described, and its risk assessed, in terms of a multitude of crime indicators, such as the composition of the inhabitants’ sexes, age groups, races, nationalities, ethnicities, religions, languages, professions, and incomes. [...] Can anyone see the racism in here? I'm choosing something that is fairly obvious, but still not out and out saying "whites are superior". If you can't see the racism in this, or it seems reasonable to you, congratulations, you are racist. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Ooh ooh is it race as a "crime indicator"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
"Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears." -Jared Taylor, "racial realist" and speaker at Hans Hermann Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society. But of course there is no reason to suspect HHH is affiliated with white supremacists or has white supremacist tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:These are the things I notice with Jrod that makes him hard to talk to. I've already conceded that I was wrong. I don't know why I said that actually. I somehow was just thinking about the very small number of conservatives I talk to in my day to day life (most of my friends are left wing) and I somehow totally forgot about Fox News, talk radio, and all the evidence that points towards the vitriol and hatred expressed by conservatives. You are right and I am wrong on this. I don't think most of you are outright Marxists but it is definitely true that Marxists have a very hard time keeping their cool when they are talking to someone who believes in capitalism. To this people, capitalists (as in defenders of the political and economic ideology) aren't just well meaning but misguided but rather they are evil. This is my experience anyway. But this whole thing is a stupid diversion anyway. The point is that we should keep ad hominems and outbursts of hatred out of a civil discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've already conceded that I was wrong. I don't know why I said that actually. I somehow was just thinking about the very small number of conservatives I talk to in my day to day life (most of my friends are left wing) and I somehow totally forgot about Fox News, talk radio, and all the evidence that points towards the vitriol and hatred expressed by conservatives. You are right and I am wrong on this. Then stop doing it. You're throwing out lame, false ad-homs in this very post, coward. In fact, how about you altogether refrain from saying poo poo you know isn't true, like "all wars were financed with fiat money" and "Hoppe isn't an explicit, deliberate racist."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know what you are talking about here. Any legal contract stipulates that the two parties agree to act in a certain way. If they don't act in the way specified the contract is broken and a penalty forthcoming, their reputation will be affected and people will be unwilling to sign contracts with them in the future. The problem is that people are not robots. People are subject to pressure, duress, and coercion. If you permit people to give away their rights via contract, then you create a society that is essentially run on violence. If your society has certain inalienable rights, then you should not be able to give away those rights under any circumstance. In your society, I could point a loaded gun at you and "encourage" you to sign a contract giving me unlimited access to everything that you own. You're arguing that this situation is not only necessary but also perfectly acceptable. jrodefeld posted:The issue about war and its profitability has been discussed before. We are arguing over definitions. Yes, people will fight and criminals will engage in violence in order to profit from it. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about whether or not established businesses or security firms in a free market economy will choose to wage open war on other businesses. I am saying that they will not because the incentives and cost would be too great. It is not that it is impossible per se, but that economic incentives and the desire for profits would make it unlikely. Groups will wage war on other groups for profit. You're stating very confidently that the incentives are too poor and the costs are too great for private enterprise to engage in warfare, but you don't actually know anything about the costs or the incentives. The incentives don't even have to be financial; plenty of groups, big or small, with or without a state being involved, have gone to war for a variety of reasons. The fact of the matter is that countless private enterprises throughout history have done the exact thing that you claim they would never do: they engaged in war for profit. quote:I cannot understand why you can't concede at least that the existence of a State and a fiat currency makes it easier and more likely that a nation will go to war. This is fairly elementary. There may be a lot of gang warfare and small time criminal behavior, but waging a modern war effort using a modern military would be extremely difficult if you couldn't outsource the cost of that effort to taxpayers or monetize the cost through money printing. Really, what do you even think "modern war" is? If you're imagining World War 2, then you're way behind the times (as usual). Modern warfare is still most often guys with guns shooting at each other. The guns have improved, and we've added all sorts of additional toys into the mix, but you don't need the F-22 or a battalion of tanks in order to engage in a "modern war".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No it doesn't. Politicians have the legal authority to use initiatory force while businessmen do not. People who work for a business or buy products from one do so by choice, voluntarily. NEWSFLASH: in an ancap society, the laws will be made by the people with the most money. This means that the wealthy will be the politicians, they just won't be called politicians. In other words, it'll be a feudal society. Poor people can do whatever they want so long as they don't step too far out of line and get murdered by a rich guy's personal thugs. Also, I love it when libertarians make rape analogies completely out of the blue. And followed by a huge Mises quote? You never stop giving me things to laugh at quote:It is clear to me that people who think of free market capitalism as a sort of neo-feudalism are very confused and misguided. The businessman does not "rule" over us but rather must serve us as a producer. There is no similarity between an oppressive ruler of a State that gets its funding from coercive taxation and wields a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, and a market entrepreneur whose great wealth is predicated only on the degree to which he serves consumers. You're too naive to see the outcome of the scenario that you describe. If I'm a wealthy business owner, perhaps the only one in the region who produces chairs, then it's in my rational self-interest to crush any chair-making business that grows above a certain size. I don't have to make a law that makes chair businesses above a certain size illegal; I can just hire thugs to burn down any chair-making business that grows above a certain size. In this way, I have imposed my will upon the people even if I'm not officially described as a "ruler". I am king of the chair making business, and my word is law even if the law is not codified. Taking the analogy further, have you ever heard of a company town? I suggest that you look that up before you start talking about the state's monopoly on force; believe me, there are plenty of examples where private enterprise has shown that it is perfectly capable of wielding force, when permitted. quote:Great gains of wealth are almost always transitory. People have a very productive few years, earn a lot of money in a short period and then fall down to middle class once more. The great wealth accumulated by the most shrewd of businessmen are usually frittered away by an idle progeny who lack the entrepreneurial skills of their parent(s). Hah, you really do have an extremely naive view of the world, and you have almost no understanding of history at all. Oh man, if only you would branch out to non-libertarian authors and start reading about what the world is really like. You have so, so much to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Again, comparing the State or feudalism to free market capitalism is exactly analogous to comparing rape and love making. Let's make this real. The State is Bill Cosby and the free market is Leonardo DiCaprio. Both had or have sex with a lot of women. But the difference is critical. Bill Cosby used his power and influence to drug and rape tons of women while Leonardo DiCaprio woos and seduces lots of women with his charm, good looks or whatever else he has to offer. It is the use of violence and coercion that makes Bill Cosby a vile racist and DiCaprio just an innocent charmer and playboy. Jesus Christ, dude. A rape analogy AND race-baiting? Come on, surely this is some sort of gimmick
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't think I have quoted Hoppe in quite a while yet you go on and on about him here. There is a reason why I don't do these sorts of public denouncements of people as racists, which you seem desperate that I do. The answer is two fold. In the first place, when it comes to someone like Hoppe or Rothbard who have written such an enormous amount of material, I can only read what I can and make my own judgments as to their character and motives. I have repeatedly been told that someone or other is a vile racist who said all sorts of horrible things and then when I read up on what they said, it turns out they were misquoted and their opinions distorted by their political enemies. So I don't play that game. Show me one other libertarian, hell one other intellectual thinker who uses the phrase "Forced integration" and I'll back right the gently caress down, but I don't think for a moment you can. Just because you aren't using his name doesn't mean you aren't parroting back his beliefs almost verbatim. And you know what, even if you are just arguing from your own personal viewpoint then it is even worse. What the gently caress does forced integration mean to you if it isn't coming from Hoppe. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are simply parroting racist poo poo instead of actively spewing it yourself. If you'd like to correct me on that be my guest, but I don't think you'll be happy doing so. As for the suggestion that we are quoting Hoppe out of context, you know that isn't true. You want it not to be true because it probably hurts your brain to read his racist poo poo and defend it, but it is. Go back and read the sections I quoted you and then please tell me in what context you think the phrase: "The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners" is ever an appropriate thing to say. Go ahead, I'll wait. quote:Second, the act of outing someone as a racist has a lot to do with dismissing a person out of hand without having to engage with any of their other arguments. If someone is found to be a racist then they are dismissed and none of their arguments are ever seriously considered ever again. There is no rational reason for this. People hold all manner of irrational prejudices yet they can still contribute to economic understanding, to philosophy or politics. Do you not think we should dismiss racists out of hand? If I personally think that we should drive the niggers, fags, jews and spics out of our country do you think that I should be listened to on the national stage? Do you think that I should be one of the pre-eminent thinkers in my field? Do your really not think that Hans Hermann Hoppe's vile racism informs every aspect of his economic theory, especially when large swaths of that economic theory seem to be dedicated to economic systems where it is encouraged to exclude others and where "The Natural Social Elites" rule over everyone by dint of superior genetics? I don't think someone who is an avowed racist has much of anything to offer in TTYOL 2015. If someone is still up their own rear end about the inferiority of other human beings in the modern era then I happily take anything they say with a mountain of salt. On top of all of that however, HHH is loving wrong. About everything. I can't actually point to a single major economic or political idea which he has come up with that I do not find makes me queasy. quote:I don't think I need to defend Hoppe to defend libertarianism. He is already an outlier in libertarian circles and a controversial figure for many reasons. But I will defend Hoppe with the caveat that I am not well read enough to understand all his views with the complexity that I might like when I am defending someone. Yet you base your loving immigration policy onto him. If you want I will go back to your opening post and find passage for passage that you have drawn essentially ALL of your inspiration from him, and I know I can do this because as you say, Hoppe is an outlier when it comes to immigration. If he is such an outlier then why do you constantly reference him and let his disgusting views impact your take on some of the most basic things such as freedom of movement. quote:What has been conclusively established is that Hoppe supports discrimination. Not specific discrimination mind you but the inalienable right of every private property holder to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It should be obvious that this is not a racist position in and of itself. Yet you continually contend that Hoppe believes in this principle of discrimination because he thinks or believes that people should specifically target black people for exclusion from private establishments. But I have NEVER read anything about Hoppe singling out blacks or Jews or any other minority for exclusion from society. Yeah. That is bad. Supporting discrimination is bad. I'm sorry that you find it difficult to believe that a man who vocally talks about the superiority of europeans and western culture, who considers the civil rights act a mistake and who talks about genetically superior naturally social elites is probably racism. This is what I am talking about when I say that you cannot understand anything that is not overt. This isn't even reading between the lines like talking about welfare queens, this is you skipping every second line that talks about white supremacy. Racism is a thing JRodefeld, its just that most racists who work at public universities, or just most racists in general, don't usually walk around saying how much they hate the friend of the family because... well... yeah take a guess why. Just because he doesn't outright say it doesn't mean that it isn't blaringly obvious if you read his work. A man who goes around saying that the civil rights act was a mistake, that immigration is bad unless it is europeans, that western culture is the best, that homosexuals have poor time preference... these are things that tell you about the man. But of course since he didn't SAY it I guess we'll just never know. quote:To prove that Hoppe is a racist you have to prove that he favors the singling out of blacks for discrimination. You'd have to prove that Hoppe would personally discriminate against blacks or he would purposefully seek out a neighborhood to live that discriminated against blacks. I will agree. I cannot empirically prove that Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist. I don't have documents of him writing "I hate black people", or of him saying how he wants to deport the negro. What I do have is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that all point in that direction, and effectively nothing to the contrary. I get that isn't enough for you, but lets not pretend the writing is not on the wall just because you have your hands over your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:I will agree. I cannot empirically prove that Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist. I don't have documents of him writing "I hate black people", or of him saying how he wants to deport the negro. What I do have is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that all point in that direction, and effectively nothing to the contrary. I get that isn't enough for you, but lets not pretend the writing is not on the wall just because you have your hands over your eyes. I can, I already proved it. I've noticed you sometimes have a problem recognizing forms of racism more subtle than saying "I hate blacks" as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hah, you really do have an extremely naive view of the world, and you have almost no understanding of history at all. Oh man, if only you would branch out to non-libertarian authors and start reading about what the world is really like. You have so, so much to learn. I totally missed this last bit. Wow. Add "actual wealth disparity" to the long list of things jrode knows nothing about.  I don't know, something tells me that the people who've inherited 4/5th of the wealth in the country are safe from pissing it all away on sports cars and caviar, regardless of whether or not they lack the entrepreneurial spirit of their parents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I already told you, the economics program at George Mason has no credibility. You can choose to believe your incestuous inner circle that this is not true, but it is. Well Walter Williams earned his economics degrees at Cal State and UCLA so I don't see how his current teaching position reflects on his education or knowledge. Whatever your opinion on George Mason, it has little to do with the credibility of Walter Williams as an economist or commentator. Don't just make these claims without evidence. Why does George Mason have "no credibility"? And how does that make Williams a "fake" intellectual? How does that reflect upon his knowledge or education which did NOT take place at that university?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Its worth pointing out, as others that Hoppe founded the Property and Freedom Society. I'm going to bed but I recommend anyone who staying up mine this new gold. For example, the PFS is labeled as: "serious academic racist event" populated by the "movers and shakers" of the racialist movement." Just looking at wikipedia I recognize Jared Taylor, Richard Lynn and Richard B. Spencer all as Thomas DiLorenzo just to round out the jackasses. I especially like the presentation labeled "Why are the Jews so Smart?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I can, I already proved it. I've noticed you sometimes have a problem recognizing forms of racism more subtle than saying "I hate blacks" as well. No no, I mean I can't prove it to Jrod's satisfaction. I already posted that exact thing upthread and Jrod ignored it so clearly it isn't proof enough. You see what hoppe actually meant there is *Sound a wet fart makes* Also... you gotta hurt my feelings like that man? Is this payback for when I made that "Even for you" crack? 
Caros fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Well Walter Williams earned his economics degrees at Cal State and UCLA so I don't see how his current teaching position reflects on his education or knowledge. Whatever your opinion on George Mason, it has little to do with the credibility of Walter Williams as an economist or commentator. The market obviously provided employment for him. Jrod if I could create a government job for you that compensated you four times as much as your best paying job and was funded by a grant from a private entrepreneur who wanted that job done, would you take it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why does George Mason have "no credibility"? He's a doofus.[1] [1]This really happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Good thing taxes aren't force then, you mealy mouthed gently caress! I've answered this question many times but I'll do so again. A crony capitalist is someone who uses the political means, either entirely or partially, to acquire wealth and market share. They use the State and the law to create an artificial advantage for themselves such that consumers have less influence on their success or failure. A market entrepreneur is someone who starts a business, risks their own capital and is dependent on consumer demand and preference for their profits or losses. Their economic associations with both workers and customers are voluntary and not coercive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Do capitalists have x-ray vision?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's probably easy for you to forget about right-wing media, because forgetting helps you feel like you're not a pet that right-wingers take for a walk around the block to attract If this relationship between right wingers and libertarians is as cozy as you suggest, why is it that the GOP routinely denigrates and insults libertarian ideas and Ron Paul was treated as badly as he was by Fox News and the Republican Party during his 08 and 2012 runs for president? If they wanted to attract libertarian votes they would have treated him with respect and given him a prime time speech at the GOP convention. They did not and as a result there is a generation of younger voters who hate the Republican Party and will now vote third party of not participate in politics. Sure the GOP would like libertarian votes, but they are not likely to get them. In fact, there are a whole bunch of libertarians, myself included, who won't even vote for Rand Paul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:JRode totally worries about the blahs. It's just that given the choice, instead of helping them via things like prison reform, drug reform, fixing the Voting Rights Act, his main priority is to focus on eliminating welfare so that they can get off their lazy asses and be the proud, productive citizens JRode knows they can be. Have you ever actually listened to any libertarian commentary?! Prison reform and drug reform are two of the absolute highest priorities. You can't hardly get a libertarian to shut up about those subjects. In fact, to me, those two issues are FAR more important to fix as a priority than food stamps or welfare benefits. Go listen to the Scott Horton Show or read some commentary by Will Grigg. If you actually expose yourself to libertarian commentary you would see how seriously we take those issues, because you clearly have no loving idea what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've answered this question many times but I'll do so again. A crony capitalist is someone who uses the political means, either entirely or partially, to acquire wealth and market share. They use the State and the law to create an artificial advantage for themselves such that consumers have less influence on their success or failure. Why would any capitalist, crony or otherwise, not use any available advantage? Isn't the end-goal of your philosophy to create wealth for yourself? If they're already willing to lobby the State to operate in their favor, why would they play by the rules when it's gone? Is your entire worldview predicated upon the honor system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you ever actually listened to any libertarian commentary?! Prison reform and drug reform are two of the absolute highest priorities. You can't hardly get a libertarian to shut up about those subjects. In fact, to me, those two issues are FAR more important to fix as a priority than food stamps or welfare benefits. It's good to know that while you ultimately believe the starving poor should be subject to the whims and capabilities of local charity, you also totally care about legalizing weed first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If this relationship between right wingers and libertarians is as cozy as you suggest, why is it that the GOP routinely denigrates and insults libertarian ideas and Ron Paul was treated as badly as he was by Fox News and the Republican Party during his 08 and 2012 runs for president? quote:If they wanted to attract libertarian votes they would have treated him with respect and given him a prime time speech at the GOP convention. They did not and as a result there is a generation of younger voters who hate the Republican Party and will now vote third party of not participate in politics. SedanChair has characterized Libertarians as pets of the Republican party. It's possible to love your pet yet still leave it penned up in the backyard while you go out drinking with your buddies. Your pet is not the #1 priority in your life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:"Guys that was a while ago you can't bring that up!" For loving real dude. You have to demonstrate that he thinks blacks are inherently inferior due to their race. Pretty simple. Short of that, what you could correctly say of Hoppe is that "he says thinks that I am offended by" or "that statement is offensive". That is perfectly fine as a criticism. But someone saying they believe in the right of discrimination by private property owners for any reason whatsoever is NOT racist. For all we know, a free society envisioned by Hoppe might have more businesses or private communities that discriminate against Germans than against blacks or any other minority. And you know that Hoppe would defend to his death the right of private business to discriminate against Germans. That wouldn't make him a racist against himself. If he is as overt a racist as is assumed, then why wouldn't he explicitly single out blacks and say something to the effect that "the natural order has no place for an inferior race" or that "all rational actors would no doubt discriminate against blacks due to their obvious inferiority". But he never, to my knowledge, says anything remotely like this. Therefore he cannot be called a racist. The extent of what is happening here, I think, is that some of the things Hoppe says reminds you in some way of what Southern defenders of segregation said in the 1950s, so you are inferring from that that Hoppe is a racist because he used these "code" words that have a certain connotation for you. Even though it is clear that the private law society envisioned by Hoppe is absolutely, categorically different in every respect from the segregated South. I am open to having it conclusively proven that Hoppe is a racist but there is a burden of proof you have to fulfill for that accusation to stick. Hoppe isn't my favorite libertarian and I haven't read more than a small percent of his output, the little I have read I found intriguing and thought provoking. If he was an out and out bigot and this could be proven, I'd move on and simply focus on the thousands of other anarchist and libertarian authors and commentators on the left and right who don't hold any such irrational prejudices in their heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I've answered this question many times but I'll do so again. A crony capitalist is someone who uses the political means, either entirely or partially, to acquire wealth and market share. They use the State and the law to create an artificial advantage for themselves such that consumers have less influence on their success or failure. Then most of the people you have derided as crony capitalists in Caros's posting are in fact market entrepreneurs or work for someone who is a market entrepreneurs. You are, once again!, refusing to acknowledge negative qualities in people you claim to trust and admire. Now please address the post on the in-elasticity of medical care that several people have been kind enough to point out for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
He doesn't just hate blacks. He hates all non-whites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
*starts an organization that caters to and promotes white supremacists* He never literally said "I am a racist, specifically against black people." so I guess we can never know how Hoppe really felt  You're such a disingenuous piece of poo poo jrode
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
I'm seriously struggling to think of anyone who actually meets jrod's definition of crony capitalism outside of like, the dole fruit company a few decades ago, and maybe companies like Lockheed-Martin. Unless what he actually means is anyone who ever gets a contract from the government ever. Like seriously Caros either very few people today actually meet your definition of crony capitalist or a huge percentage of America's wealthy do. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Don't just make these claims without evidence.  Each and every one of your posts is a long string of blind assertions, you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:
Nah, I want him to post more alt history fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you ever actually listened to any libertarian commentary?! Prison reform and drug reform are two of the absolute highest priorities. You can't hardly get a libertarian to shut up about those subjects. In fact, to me, those two issues are FAR more important to fix as a priority than food stamps or welfare benefits. Oh I know libertarians talk about such things, but you're insane if you think those priorities are anywhere near the top. I don't see a flurry of bills being introduced in the Republican congress trying to decriminalize marijuana, yet for some unknown reason we have a never ending tsunami of legislation cutting welfare programs. Imagine that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
im personally against abortion, mr interweb
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Property and Freedom Society" hosted white supremacists, specifically Jared "Racial Realist" Taylor and Richard "Bell Curve" Lynn. Why would a man host these kind of degenerates unless he on some level agreed with their positions? Would the Property and Freedom Society ever host Negri or Zizek? No, they would not. I don't agree with Jared Taylor on much at all with regards to his views on race. Richard Lynn, whatever one thinks of The Bell Curve, cannot be rightly described as a white supremacist. I don't know much about the science of racial differences in average IQ levels or if they exist. But it should be noted that Lynn observed the highest average IQ in Asians NOT Europeans. We don't know that Lynn's research is motivated by racial or supremacist attitudes. Again, i'd like to see proof of this. I have no idea what the empirical data says with regards to racial differences in IQ averages. But if there is evidence to that effect, then it is the scientists job to report what data suggests. Any study in this field, by its very nature, is incredibly controversial and politically incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily imply that it is incorrect. I have no idea but I'd like proof that Lynn has racist or supremacist motivations. I don't know what Hoppe agrees or disagrees on with these men. But my understanding is that the "Property and Freedom Society" was established out of a frustration at mainstream academia for censoring controversial positions and academic research. As such the organization will host speakers whose work is controversial. That doesn't imply agreement with the speakers. I can't justify calling Hoppe a racist through this guilt by association tactic. Maybe he provided a platform for these men because he loathes academic censorship and political correctness and feels that people who have controversial ideas should still have a platform to express their views?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 10:42
|
|