|
theshim posted:A quick google search pops him up as recently as two months ago, so there's hope yet. And he is in top form, too. And by "top form" I mean, "saying the exact same things he always has, but even less coherently".
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Ok, I know this probably isn't kosher, but this was too loving funny not to post here:Jrodefeld, July 5th, 2015 posted:
Haha, hooooooly poo poo, this post. We need to get him back here.  -EDIT- I won't bring any more offsite posting unless it's ok'd by a mod, but seriously this link is pro-loving-click Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, I know this probably isn't kosher, but this was too loving funny not to post here: Haha, hooooooly poo poo, this post. We need to get him back here. [/quote] Agh Christ. That hits the spot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
quote:As this political season gets underway, I am dismayed at what I am seeing. For the sake of human progress, we must cease our faith in political authority and stand on firm moral principles. We know who he is but you know for a fact he'd still open up with something like this if he came back and opened up a new thread. Oh to feel so naive about his intentions again. quote:1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves? Yes. quote:2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right? Yes. From everyone, by consensus. quote:3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)? Yes. See: Combat. quote:4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own? No. If they did then all police would be kidnappers. quote:5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"? Yes and no. If one wants to obey the law one is by definition required to obey the law. That said there are plenty of instances of people challenging what they see as unjust laws by violating them in the hope that the violation and the treatment they recieve as a result will spark civil discussion ultimately leading to a change in said laws. quote:In my view the State as an institution must be abolished because it can never be morally justified. The issue is with consent. No State can ever have the consent of the people they rule. For authority to be legitimate, the people being subject to that rule must have fully consented. Here we see our first example of Jrodefeld's patented wtf doublespeak. No State can ever have the consent of the people they rule. Period, end of sentence. Now clubs and social orders, those we could totally have because they are voluntary and spontaneous and subject to rules determined by voluntary authority. You're even allowed to leave! If that sounds exactly like a modern state then clearly you must be misunderstanding his difficult genius. quote:Under any State system, the ruling political faction has the legal right to forcefully dominate those who expressly did NOT grant consent. They enact political policies funded through coercive taxation that a substantial number of people subject to that rule find morally repugnant. By substantial he means at best five percent. The other 95% of americans agree with the statement "It is every American's civic duty to pay their fair share of taxes." Keep in mind that disagreeing with that statement doesn't mean that you automatically go into la la libertarian land, but that you could in fact just be an rear end in a top hat. quote:Furthermore it is illogical, as Larken Rose points out in his five questions. People can only delegate rights to a third party to act on their behalf if they have the right to do those things themselves. For example, I am free to voluntarily delegate the right to self defense to a defense agency who will defend my life and property along with a voluntarily participating community. Each member of a community has the right of self defense so they can collectively delegate that right to a defense agency. This is something I see a lot. I like to call it Socratic Libertarianism and I'm surprised it hasn't come up in the thread before now when I forcefully make you poor bastards aware of it. Jrodefeld argues it pretty well (for what its worth) here and above. I have the right to defend myself. I have the right to defend myself by paying someone else to do it for me. But I don't have the right to go to your house and steal your watch to pay my bouncer to keep me safe. The argument here is that since I don't have the right to steal (collect taxes) it isn't one I can give to someone else to do for me. Socratic Libertarianism is basically asking these questions with a pseudo socratic fashion. I say pseudo-socratic because in reality what they are actually doing is asking questions in the form of a pedantic child. Why? *Gives a list of reasons* Why? *More reasons* Why? etc. Now there are really two ways to argue against this. The first if my favorite that I'll let Bernie Sanders explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIKP4W50-I Bernie himself can barely get through dealing with this obnoxious gently caress but the gist of it is that individuals can grant rights that none of them individually have because rights are a convenient social fiction. You have no "Right" to life. There is no universal thing that gives you a right to live, instead we have a societal agreement to not kill the gently caress out of one another. Since rights are in reality just a social agreement there is nothing stopping us from collectively socially agreeing that certain people or organizations can do things that others cannot. This is basically what a corporation is for example, a legal fiction given form by communal agreement. A second way to argue your point is to bring up the reality that his premise is false. He argues that he can give his right to self defence to someone else to which I respond "Why"? If he is too much of a pussy to defend himself I don't agree that he should be able to grant his right to self defence to a third party. I don't have any beef with that third party so why should that person be allowed to aggress against me?! There is of course a rare and mythological third way of dealing with this argument, which is to bitchslap the loving retard upside his head, but I've yet to see it in practice.  quote:The belief in political authority is a barbaric relic that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the other grossly offensive institutions such as slavery and human sacrifice. Civilized people came to the realization that chattel slavery was a moral abomination yet these people continue to believe that they have the right to point the guns of the State at their neighbor to compel them to act as they would have them act. Hey, remember when you guys talked about how Jrodefeld could make his point with 50% less words? Well look at this pointless loving emotional statement! quote:It is about time that we reassert moral consistency and affirm that coercion is a moral abomination that is not fit for civilized people. Cultured, decent people choose voluntary interactions and persuasion to achieve their shared objectives. Barbarians and sociopaths choose the initiation of violence to achieve their goals. And this one too! Especially in light of the fact that he has to know by now that the majority of people disagree with him on the issue of taxes being coercion or violence! quote:I don't mean to be offend by implying that you all (who defend the State) are sociopaths and savages, but my patience grows thin. You must understand the practical implications of that commonly stated phrase "there should be a law". What that means is that if people act in a manner that displeases you, you will unleash the violence of the State on those persons. For the most innocuous offense, it may begin with a threatening letter and a fine. But if the person resists, the coercion will soon escalate. The person who violates your opinion on how they ought to act will be taken from their friends and family and thrown in a cage where, statistically, they are likely to be repeatedly raped. I don't meaaaaan to call you sociopaths and savages, but my patience is so thin with all of you sociopaths and savages. Also we have here one of the most disingenuous arguments of the libertarian! The good old "If you don't pay your traffic tickets it's rape cages for you!" quote:If a person resists further, an agent of State oppression can kill them on the spot. As the rise in police brutality persists, granting the pigs even more justification to kill civilians is, to say the least, extremely unwise. Wow, did he just actually call police "Pigs"? Guys... I'm getting scared for Jrodefeld. He appears to be going off the deep end even further.  quote:This is such a depressing time of year for me. People get so worked up over which sociopathic thug will coercively dominate them "better" than the other. This is a depressing time of the year because the majority of people who disagree with me actually want to engage in democratic processes which remind me that my weird cult ideology will never fly in reality. Shouldn't we eventually break this cycle and affirm that the initiation of force against others is morally indefensible and the State therefore cannot be legitimate?[/quote] And in true Jrod fashion he ends by begging the question. Come back jrodefeld, we miss you. I won't even ask you about the watermelon! Edit: quote:I won't bring any more offsite posting unless it's ok'd by a mod, but seriously this link is pro-loving-click I'd say you're probably okay. I mean this is the Jrod quarantine zone and its the first click off google. It isn't like you are posting his facebook status updates, and you know he'd post that exact thing here if we wouldn't just make fun of him. Caros fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Please don't respond to jrod itt unless he actually posts here Like I get that we all want to make fun of him and refute his childish arguments, but posting a response here to a thread from a whole different forum is crazy on the same level as the libertarians that we mock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
In other words THIS VESSEL DOES NOT CONSENT TO JOINDER WITH THE ENTITY KNOWN AS **J** OF THE FAMILY **ROD**, PLEASE DIRECT ALL FURTHER INQUIRIES TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY OF ADMIRALITY WITHOUT NONPEACEFUL TRANSGRESSION
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Please don't respond to jrod itt unless he actually posts here I wouldn't have at all but my wife was late driving home on super lovely roads and I needed a way to pass the time so I didn't get all nervous and panicked. She's fine tho! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
I think you need a better hobby
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:I wouldn't have at all but my wife was late driving home on super lovely roads and I needed a way to pass the time so I didn't get all nervous and panicked. Did you show her what you were doing, to teach her never to be late again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Wait, didn't JROD post that same exact argument in this thread at some point? I mean the man really doesn't have a wide repertoire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did you show her what you were doing, to teach her never to be late again? I did actually! She just looked at me oddly. QuarkJets posted:I think you need a better hobby I'm an inertial creature. I don't like to start something unless I can finish it in one sitting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did you show her what you were doing, to teach her never to be late again? Please don't advocating abusing a spouse by exposing them to Jrod. That's just inhumane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Caros, like an addict, could not resist the sweet siren call of just one more line of uncut, purestrain Liberty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Wait, didn't JROD post that same exact argument in this thread at some point? Yeah, any time he got tired of getting his rear end beat on specific policy questions, he'd fall back to that basic "state=law enforcement, law enforcement=violence, violence=bad, state=bad" thing. And then we'd start actually digging into his definitions and declarations, and suddenly he'd want to talk about something else entirely! Rhjamiz posted:Caros, like an addict, could not resist the sweet siren call of just one more line of uncut, purestrain Liberty. I can't deny I've checked r/anarcho_capitalism once or twice to get my fix. But gently caress that, it's like jumping from the occasional joint straight to downing fistfuls of benzos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Caros, like an addict, could not resist the sweet siren call of just one more line of uncut, purestrain Liberty. *Visibly shaking* I just... man I can stop if I want to I.... hey have you talked to any an-caps lately?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:*Visibly shaking* I just... man I can stop if I want to I.... hey have you talked to any an-caps lately? You need to get your time preferences in check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Yeah, any time he got tired of getting his rear end beat on specific policy questions, he'd fall back to that basic "state=law enforcement, law enforcement=violence, violence=bad, state=bad" thing. And then we'd start actually digging into his definitions and declarations, and suddenly he'd want to talk about something else entirely! Now I don't want to talk about racism, but
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Caros posted:*Visibly shaking* I just... man I can stop if I want to I.... hey have you talked to any an-caps lately? *Steps suspiciously out of nearby alleyway* Hey. Buddy. You lookin' for something? A little poorly-reasoned argument for racial hygiene based in equal parts on misunderstood 19th century economics and perfectly understood 20th century fascism? I got what you need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Hey Caros, don't listen to Captain, man. You want libertarianism, come to me, I'll hook you up. Bitcoins, voluntary debtor's prisons, you name it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:*Steps suspiciously out of nearby alleyway* The first dose is, over the authors' protests, free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Hey Caros, don't listen to Captain, man. You want libertarianism, come to me, I'll hook you up. Bitcoins, voluntary debtor's prisons, you name it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Hey Caros, don't listen to Captain, man. You want libertarianism, come to me, I'll hook you up. Bitcoins, voluntary debtor's prisons, you name it. I will not tolerate such clear aggression against my peaceful operation in the marketplace; expect to hear from my good friends over at Valhalla DRO shortly. Largely as they tend to scream a lot once they go into their battle frenzy. Karia posted:The first dose is, over the authors' protests, free. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
i forget did jrod ever state his opinion on IP laws?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I will not tolerate such clear aggression against my peaceful operation in the marketplace; expect to hear from my good friends over at Valhalla DRO shortly. Largely as they tend to scream a lot once they go into their battle frenzy. I'm up to date on my Valhalla membership fees too, so that means we need to settle this internally. Trial by combat! The finest in nonviolent dispute resolution.  paragon1 posted:i forget did jrod ever state his opinion on IP laws? Either he or one of his idols expressed a blanket opposition to IP as a concept, if I remember right. We made fun of him for it a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm up to date on my Valhalla membership fees too, so that means we need to settle this internally. Trial by combat! The finest in nonviolent dispute resolution. Thank heavens we live in such an enlightened time where barbaric state actors can no longer impinge upon our freedom to resolve disputes on our own with such outmoded, oppressive concepts like "rule of law," "trial by peers," and "not being loving slavering barbarians whenever we feel like it."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i forget did jrod ever state his opinion on IP laws? You can't, like, own ideas, man. Not being able to steal concepts and designs totally stifles innovation because once someone invents something he has no reason to ever invent anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Out of interest, hypothetically, if society were significantly more equal in every way with complete racial/gender/religious etc parity and significantly more wealth equality would libertarianism be an acceptable philosophy to practice? I understand that this depicts a utopia and will likely never occur but would the opponents of libertarianism feel that it would be a more humane and feasible system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:i forget did jrod ever state his opinion on IP laws? A libertarian's support for IP laws is directly correlated with their ability to come up with an original thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
greengreen posted:Out of interest, hypothetically, if society were significantly more equal in every way with complete racial/gender/religious etc parity and significantly more wealth equality would libertarianism be an acceptable philosophy to practice? I understand that this depicts a utopia and will likely never occur but would the opponents of libertarianism feel that it would be a more humane and feasible system? The best you could ever do with Libertarianism is making everyone have an equal shot at competing with eachother for exactly one generation. After that, the kids of the richer people will start getting better education and benefits than the kids of the poorer people, and then we're slowly slipping back into "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer". At that point to keep everyone on a level playing field, you'd need a totally nationalized educational system, some sort of program to prevent wealthier parents from using business contacts to help their kids get job offers, etc. That's not even getting into questions like what happens to someone who is born with a condition that prevents them from working (or even leaves them able to work but requiring medicine/therapy for their entire life), what prevents sexism/racism/religious bigotry from coming back (I'd argue a Libertarian society would be a breeding ground for bigotry even if the society that created it was initially egalitarian), what could this society do to protect itself from external threats (I'd argue a Libertarian society does not naturally lend itself to creating well funded standing armies), etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
greengreen posted:Out of interest, hypothetically, if society were significantly more equal in every way with complete racial/gender/religious etc parity and significantly more wealth equality would libertarianism be an acceptable philosophy to practice? I understand that this depicts a utopia and will likely never occur but would the opponents of libertarianism feel that it would be a more humane and feasible system? Depending on exactly what you're asking there's two ways to answer that. If you're proposing a society that is always kept equal regardless of what happens, the answer is plausibly yes. If you're asking about a society which starts out equally and can go which ever way (like societies can in the real world) then the answer is no, because a lack of regulation will throw things out of whack really quick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
greengreen posted:Out of interest, hypothetically, if society were significantly more equal in every way with complete racial/gender/religious etc parity and significantly more wealth equality would libertarianism be an acceptable philosophy to practice? I understand that this depicts a utopia and will likely never occur but would the opponents of libertarianism feel that it would be a more humane and feasible system? How could wealth equality and libertarianism coexist when we know wealth tends to accumulate in smaller and smaller numbers of hands under a laissez-faire system? And what kind of libertarianism do you mean, ancapism? There will always be indingent people with mental issues that prevent them from holding a job and functioning in society, there will always be orphans if only because their parents died in an accident, whom it would be totally legal to rape and murder if police protection is strictly for hire only, that doesn't sound like a humane or feasible system to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Depending on exactly what you're asking there's two ways to answer that. If you're proposing a society that is always kept equal regardless of what happens, the answer is plausibly yes. If you're asking about a society which starts out equally and can go which ever way (like societies can in the real world) then the answer is no, because a lack of regulation will throw things out of whack really quick. Even then, it still wouldn't be. The reason (and also the reason why I have an issue with people who only focus on trying to create equal opportunity) is that society requires the people at the bottom to function and, as a result, those people will always exist. Even if it was 100% fair and perfectly organized with the most intelligent/hard-working people doing the best jobs, you'd still have a large portion of the population living in poverty. That just isn't acceptable (to any reasonable human being).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
greengreen posted:Out of interest, hypothetically, if society were significantly more equal in every way with complete racial/gender/religious etc parity and significantly more wealth equality would libertarianism be an acceptable philosophy to practice? I understand that this depicts a utopia and will likely never occur but would the opponents of libertarianism feel that it would be a more humane and feasible system? Libertarianism is fundamentally based on the idea that a human's life is only worth what that human is able to earn--the only real freedom it guarantees is the freedom to protect property you already own. If such a utopian equilibrium were to somehow exist, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would exist for any long period of time, until the mean-spirited, greedy, and sociopathic began to creep back into economic power, and the disadvantaged slipped out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
The biggest issue is that libertarians always assume that every penny of income somebody gets is earned by them and them alone. Which, of course, completely ignores how the world actually works and silly things like the children of very rich people using that money to rig the game in their own favor then passing it along to their children. The groups that vomit most of the libertarian thoughts, or the "proof" that libertarianism is 100% right, are often funded largely by very rich people but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
It might work if it went like this: 1) No inheritance. Each person's property goes in a community pool upon their death. 2) We use some of the money from the pool to educate and care for children until they reach the age of majority, with all children getting the same quality education and care. 3) Each newly-minted adult receives a modest sum of money from the pool - an "inheritance" - that they can use to start their futures. 4) Retired people and people with disabilities get social security if they don't have enough savings to live on. So pretty much a welfare state, but the only tax you pay is a 100% inheritance tax. E: And most people will probably dodge that tax by giving all their property away to their friends and loved ones just before they die. Oh well. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:It might work if it went like this: I wholeheartedly agree that libertarianism would work if all meaningful elements of libertarianism were eliminated
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:E: And most people will probably dodge that tax by giving all their property away to their friends and loved ones just before they die. Oh well. That's what gift taxes are for
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
You don't even need inequality for Libertarianism to be broken. There are a ton of services that the government provides that require a non-commercial entity to do well (food inspection, medical standards, basic research) and there are many cases of coordination problems where any solution ends up looking like government (environmental protection, fishing limits).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:It might work if it went like this: Excuse me, taxation is theft. (I brought up a similar line of argument with a libertarian once, and that's what he said.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:It might work if it went like this: Then your entire state gets bought out by Target, instant generational indentured servitude. *feral Target associate swings down from shelves* "U lukken towels, ha? Ee-on git-git aisle 7!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 03:23
|
|