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

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

«‹›850 »

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

Visionary tech entrepreneur rebuts joke with horrifying picture of statist dystopia where you cannot poison yourself 24/7 with no age restrictions

Is this a real tweet?

# ? Jan 25, 2016 02:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 13, 2024 05:22

fermun: Nov 4, 2009

It sure is.

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/691395600173002752

# ? Jan 25, 2016 02:43

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

On one hand, deadly tainted drinks and a lack of heath care, but on the other hand, not being able to drink while underage.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 02:58

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Hahahaha I somehow had thought that the first tweet was a rebuttal to the second but it's the other way around :psyduck:

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:01

Beelzebufo: Mar 5, 2015; Frog puns are toadally awesome

I know this is a doctrinal point of contention with libertarians, but every one of those could apply to a private business or DMR covenant community.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:07

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

I am reminded of this post.

Suspicious posted:

being called a statist by a libertarian/anarchist/whatever is about as insulting as being called an adult fucker by a pedophile

# ? Jan 25, 2016 04:47

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

I am reminded of this post.

They seriously act like it's an :iceburn:

to call someone a "statist," like they've just shown you to be mindless sheeple, when it basically means you haven't been gobbling down their crazy pills.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 05:18

Woolie Wool: Jun 2, 2006

paragon1 posted:

Has humanity even created the words necessary to describe whatever the hell it is that Eripsa believes?

Magic.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 05:33

Happy_Misanthrope: Aug 3, 2007; "I wanted to kill you, go to your funeral, and anyone who showed up to mourn you, I wanted to kill them too."

the replies to that are basically this thread's glory days

# ? Jan 25, 2016 06:36

Despera: Jun 6, 2011

Live free and die

# ? Jan 25, 2016 06:46

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Promontorium posted:

A friend of mine got me into this forum. I was reading all the rules about being honest and upfront and just dealing with others as adults. I noticed a libtertarian thread and chose to post here first, since I am one and could honestly discuss some topics. But the more I read the more I realized this was a thread just flame and shitpost about one person. I've been to the poo poo end of the internet long enough and yet I've never seen so much obsession and hate towards a single person be tolerated. The rules say no trolling. That's all this is. It's the kind of over-the-top "cyber-bullying " I simply couldn't even believe existed.

It seems even the OP created this thread just troll. The descriptions of various libertarian ideals are mangled or flagrantly negatively biased.

It wasn't until I was reading in this other thread that I realized this person you are perpetually bashing isn't just laughing this off either.

"On Caros's thread, he specifically poisoned the well from the very beginning by writing an OP describing libertarianism and its adherents in an unflattering and, from my perspective, misleading way. By the time I first posted on that thread, there had already been something like two hundred pages of people making GBS threads on libertarianism before I had a chance to defend it. And since the thread was almost entirely directed at me in particular" -Jrod

Do you adhere to the rules, or what? I will grant I haven't read 300 pages yet so I don't know if this person you've dedicated your lives to bashing is really deserving, but if he is, why not ban him? If not, then you should be banned. This is harassment. And I do have a bias in this regard because it seems you are conflating all libertarians with him. He's just the forum whipping boy?

Is this forum just a thinly veiled dailykos and the idea of someone arguing anything less than Marxism is a novelty to you?

An old copy paste

quote:

A better analogy would be if someone walks into a championship tournament, says "GEE I THINK I MAY HAVE TRANSCENDED THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF YOU GRANDMASTERS HERE, WANT TO JOIN MY NEW SCHOOL OF CHESS STRATEGY?", then loses by scholar's mate twice in the first round.

This person then refuses to leave his seat, claiming that he needs additional proof that the queen in f7 actually ontologically exists before he will admit defeat, and that the rules of the CHESS ESTABLISHMENT were unfairly biased against him by disallowing the possibility of his king being able to leapfrog pieces.

Then he pulls out an ancient shopping list from 1905 and claims that "1. Eggs" means 'The King', "2. Butter" means 'can', and "3. Milk" means 'leapfrog'. This is admissible evidence for his case because he has lived according to the dictates of this list since he was a teenager, and it has drastically improved his quality of life. When the referees tell him that this makes no loving sense, he drags them into a three hour debate over the precise meaning of the words 'makes', 'no', 'loving', and 'sense'.

When people point out that there is more than enough evidence to suggest his list is just a scrap of paper from some long-dead housewife's purse, he rather proudly points out how close-minded they are in dismissing outright the possibility that the list was in fact a secret coded message on the best way to live life, originally formulated by Atlanteans and passed down through the ages disguised as everyday documents. After all, if one starts with the presupposition that such a document exists, then it would be very fair to argue that it is indeed in the form of his shopping list.

Never mind that his previous interpretations of the list led to three convictions and time served for robbery, hate crimes, and murder. These were just unfortunate misinterpretations on his part of the list's true intentions, he says. The list itself is blameless. In fact, the Atlanteans deliberately obfuscated the true meaning of the list in this way, so that it would require multiple failed misinterpretations before one would happen across its TRUE meaning, and in doing so appreciate it all the more.

In fact, he does have some evidence to back up his claims. Why, just last week during his daily meditation on the list, he felt it telling him that something good was about to happen in his future. And yesterday, wouldn't you know it, he found a twenty dollar note on the sidewalk! Evidence of the list's prophetic powers if I ever saw one. And believe him, he has many more stories where that came from.

By now, the debate has splintered off into innumerable tangents, with the one man against literally every other player and referee present at the tournament. Finally, he graciously accepts the possibility of defeat in some of the myriad topics now being covered. OK, maybe the tallest player doesn't always get to go first. Fine, I will concede that there isn't much evidence to support my third-invisible-knight hypothesis. But that's all irrelevant. What he wants to concentrate on, and what nobody has yet been able to disprove, he adds, is the ability of the king to leapfrog over other pieces.

The argument drags on for weeks. Finally, one afternoon, the beet-faced referee exhausts his last reserves of decency and throws his arms up in frustration and despair. "YOU loving RETARD, HOW CAN YOU LAY CLAIM TO KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT CHESS STRATEGY WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GRASP THE MOST BASIC RULES!?" He shouts, just as a new entrant walks through the door. "I'm sorry," replies the man calmly, "I simply cannot discuss the rules of chess with such an 'official' if you insist on using such strong and uncouth language. Please retract your insults or I will be forced to plug my ears whenever you say anything from now on."

Seeing only this last exchange, the new entrant pipes up. "He's right, you know. If he did something wrong, then you as the referee have every right to tell him he is so, but it should be done with a patient and thorough explanation of the details of his error. Hurling ridicule at him solves nothing and won't change anyone's mind."

The lazy eye of the retarded List-following, King-leapfrogging man twitches almost unnoticeably, as he cranes his head towards the source of this new voice. A welcoming smile cracks, inch by beaming inch, across his face. He licks his lips. He clears his throat.

"So glad to know decent people like you still value a polite discussion. Care for a game?"

You're the new guy

# ? Jan 26, 2016 03:10

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Wasn't that about Victor?

# ? Jan 26, 2016 03:13

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

I like that you can tell it was copy pasted by someone who wasn't logged in, because it has the old word filter

# ? Jan 26, 2016 03:13

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Who What Now posted:

Wasn't that about Victor?

I think we can all glean meaning from such an important document

# ? Jan 26, 2016 03:18

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

Who What Now posted:

Wasn't that about Victor?

What if jrod is a Victor sockpuppet? :tinfoil:

# ? Jan 26, 2016 05:38

YggiDee: Sep 12, 2007; WASP CREW

Yeah, hurrrr2 wrote it about Victor but frankly it still applies. Also if Jrod was Victor there'd be a lot more posts about Noah's Ark.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 06:00

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

YggiDee posted:

Yeah, hurrrr2 wrote it about Victor but frankly it still applies. Also if Jrod was Victor there'd be a lot more posts about Noah's Ark.

And protobears.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 14:38

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Captain_Maclaine posted:

And protobears.

Picturing bears in protoman armor

# ? Jan 26, 2016 14:49

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

The Ur-Bear.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 14:57

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

Guilty Spork posted:

They seriously act like it's an to call someone a "statist," like they've just shown you to be mindless sheeple, when it basically means you haven't been gobbling down their crazy pills.

That, and it's used as a slur to club people with rhetorically to show how hopelessly addicted to state services they are and that they're so intellectually rigid that they can't comprehend how good Libertarianism is and how evil the State is by comparison.

To a Libertarian, QED the State is bad and Taxation is Theft; this is the starting pointing of debate, nothing can come before it. In other words, ~*~Praxeology~*~!

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 26, 2016

# ? Jan 26, 2016 16:04

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

That, and it's used as a slur to club people with rhetorically to show how hopelessly addicted to state services they are and that they're so intellectually rigid that they can't comprehend how good Libertarianism is and how evil the State is by comparison.

To a Libertarian, QED the State is bad and Taxation is Theft; this is the starting pointing of debate, nothing can come before it. In other words, ~*~Praxeology~*~!

I'm still willing to begin with, "pay for services rendered, you fucker" when it seems like they're particularly obnoxious.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 16:32

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

I think we can all agree that the massacred skeleton fossils found in Kenya prove that the State has existed as the cause of all evil and wars for far, far longer than even Jrod suspected. Older even than farming and taxes, go figure!

# ? Jan 26, 2016 16:38

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

A random thought occurred to me this morning as I had been reading about the resurgence of tomb robbing in Egypt and other places: from a libertarian point of view, preserving the past through archaeology is worthless and morally contemptible. Archaeologists assert that a patch of land shouldn't be developed, and that instead we should dig up artifacts which should then be exempted from the market and the concept of commercial value. Archaeology is pure wealth destruction, just like what Lincoln did to all those poor innocent slave owners.

Guilty Spork posted:

They seriously act like it's an to call someone a "statist," like they've just shown you to be mindless sheeple, when it basically means you haven't been gobbling down their crazy pills.

Question: Some people say that "fascist" has lost all meaning, but there are still fascist groups of people who gleefully identify themselves as fascists. Are there any self-proclaimed "statists," or is it purely a slur?

# ? Jan 26, 2016 17:21

GunnerJ: Aug 1, 2005; Do you think this is funny?

Halloween Jack posted:

Question: Some people say that "fascist" has lost all meaning, but there are still fascist groups of people who gleefully identify themselves as fascists. Are there any self-proclaimed "statists," or is it purely a slur?

"Statist" is a term created to turn the norm into an identity, which is something that people opposed to a norm often do (for good or ill) to de-naturalize it. Generally speaking, though, it has to mean something beyond "believes X, unlike we who believe in not-X" for it to have any meaning. Otherwise people who believe in X are more likely to identify with various other things besides X, in opposition to other groups who also believe in X. The exception is if "not-X" is a credible enough threat to the norm for people to actually put aside differences and rally behind X as a cause.

Imagine atheists making "theism" the label of their ideological opponents. But being an atheist implies nothing beyond a position on one question of theology, and people with the opposite answer to that question are the vast majority and believe in many other things besides that they all can't agree on. Yet "theists" of every religious denomination have sometimes found refuting atheism to be worthwhile when atheism is focused on their own religion as a credible alternative or opponent. In this case "theism" really means "Christianity" or something.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 17:34

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Halloween Jack posted:

Question: Some people say that "fascist" has lost all meaning, but there are still fascist groups of people who gleefully identify themselves as fascists. Are there any self-proclaimed "statists," or is it purely a slur?

It's partially just a slur and partially a strawman. When JRod and Mises use the term "statism," they appear to be talking about an ideology diametrically opposed to libertarianism: one that seeks to increase the power of the state as an end in itself. Statism is a philosophy that favors universal healthcare, public schools, and food safety regulations solely as ways to increase the government's influence over people's lives. So it's basically Libertarianism's analogue to Satanism; nobody actually believes the ideas they're worried about, and nobody identifies with the label they give it except as a way to piss them off.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 17:42

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

GunnerJ posted:

"Statist" is a term created to turn the norm into an identity, which is something that people opposed to a norm often do (for good or ill) to de-naturalize it. Generally speaking, though, it has to mean something beyond "believes X, unlike we who believe in not-X" for it to have any meaning. Otherwise people who believe in X are more likely to identify with various other things besides X, in opposition to other groups who also believe in X. The exception is if "not-X" is a credible enough threat to the norm for people to actually put aside differences and rally behind X as a cause.

Imagine atheists making "theism" the label of their ideological opponents. But being an atheist implies nothing beyond a position on one question of theology, and people with the opposite answer to that question are the vast majority and believe in many other things besides that they all can't agree on. Yet "theists" of every religious denomination have sometimes found refuting atheism to be worthwhile when atheism is focused on their own religion as a credible alternative or opponent. In this case "theism" really means "Christianity" or something.

It's just an extension of the human race's tendency to create categories and boundaries. We all do that; it's just libertarians separating the world into "us" and "not us."

The problem is that they declare everybody in "not us" to not only be completely wrong about pretty much everything but also actively opposing their world views out of spite/insecurity/stupidity/all of those.

It sounds great to certain types of people as well as the young and stupid. "Well us is full of smart and awesome people who are also supremely moral. Not us is a bunch of smelly, stupid people who don't understand anything and need to be taught by us."

# ? Jan 26, 2016 17:55

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

RuanGacho posted:

I'm still willing to begin with, "pay for services rendered, you fucker" when it seems like they're particularly obnoxious.

"But I don't see any services in return for paying taxes. The government's just stealing my money to enrich the Statist cronies!"

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:50

Caros: May 14, 2008

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

"But I don't see any services in return for paying taxes. The government's just stealing my money to enrich the Statist cronies!"

Actually the correct libertarian answer is that I never asked those services to be provided, just like I shouldn't have to pay you if you came over and washed my car without asking.

Just to play devils advocate mind.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:55

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

gently caress YOU DAD, I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN

# ? Jan 26, 2016 20:53

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Caros posted:

Actually the correct libertarian answer is that I never asked those services to be provided, just like I shouldn't have to pay you if you came over and washed my car without asking.

Just to play devils advocate mind.

Yeah, some libertarians misunderstand the social contract to be an actual, literal contract that they never signed. Which if memory serves, is the origin of the "I do not consent to joinder ~~toot toot~~" part of the Freemen on the Land / sovcit stuff.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:00

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Can we actually give libertarians some patch of desert somewhere and ship them there if they don't want to consent to the "contract' that being a citizen entails, then don't let them re-join society until they sign that they agree to pay taxes and follow the laws of the land in exchange for all the benefits of living in a non-mad max society ?

I mean they don't have to go to galt's gulag, they can emigrate anywhere they want. But just show them the door if they start yelling that they dont' consent to the basic social contract. If they can ignore laws and society because "I didn't sign a contract!" then the government can ignore their citizenship.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:42

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Statist monopoly etc.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:43

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Baronjutter posted:

Can we actually give libertarians some patch of desert somewhere and ship them there if they don't want to consent to the "contract' that being a citizen entails, then don't let them re-join society until they sign that they agree to pay taxes and follow the laws of the land in exchange for all the benefits of living in a non-mad max society ?

I mean they don't have to go to galt's gulag, they can emigrate anywhere they want. But just show them the door if they start yelling that they dont' consent to the basic social contract. If they can ignore laws and society because "I didn't sign a contract!" then the government can ignore their citizenship.

gently caress that, if they want a wasteland to build their Mad Max citadel, let Glenn Beck pony up the cash.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:44

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Halloween Jack posted:

gently caress that, if they want a wasteland to build their Mad Max citadel, let Glenn Beck pony up the cash.

How's about an unpopulated patch of desert named for a certain retired Doctor Congressman?

quote:

The site was chosen by and for the large market of "100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty"; motivated followers of Paul have been estimated to number several hundred thousand, have had fundraising history that suggests "seemingly bottomless bank accounts", and appear not to be giving up in pursuing his campaign goals. Paulville has attracted mixed reviews. The alternative Seattle Stranger found it suitable for those who have "the covenant of freedom espoused by Ron Paul guiding their every decision". The Houston-based Lone Star Times referred to founding members as "Paulvillains" and as creating "an insane asylum", and presented diverse posts from forum members, while Philly.com and Reason anticipated other "dusty exurbs" named after presidential candidates, both citing "Bidentown" as an imaginary example. The Guardian expects shareholders to be interested in libertarian views like "the right to wield semi-automatic weapons and the abolition of income tax", and the Economist wonders whether the new town constitutes "a framework for utopia, or just a hilarious catastrophe".

It's just so odd that no one's updated that article since 2012. Can't imagine why, really.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:52

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

Baronjutter posted:

Can we actually give libertarians some patch of desert somewhere and ship them there if they don't want to consent to the "contract' that being a citizen entails, then don't let them re-join society until they sign that they agree to pay taxes and follow the laws of the land in exchange for all the benefits of living in a non-mad max society ?

I mean they don't have to go to galt's gulag, they can emigrate anywhere they want. But just show them the door if they start yelling that they dont' consent to the basic social contract. If they can ignore laws and society because "I didn't sign a contract!" then the government can ignore their citizenship.

No, gently caress'em. They're idiots and there's no reason to give their lunatic ideology any kind of official recognition by actually making a physical social contract. Picture current handwringing over the exact wording and interpretation of the Constitution, and add standard stupid contract dispute nonsense to it, and that's what you'd get.

And if we're funding weird ideological colonies, why not pick a philosophy that isn't intellectually worthless and doesn't have its own rich backers to fund it? Pick sites for state-funded kibbutzes and allow ideological groups apply for them like research grants. Let the Great American Experiment enter phase II trials.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:05

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

QuarkJets posted:

gently caress YOU DAD, I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN

A serious philosophical position held by serious philosophers

David Benatar in Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence posted:

More recently, David Benatar has argued from the premise that the infliction of harm is morally wrong and to be avoided. He argues that the birth of a new person always entails nontrivial harm to that person, and therefore there is a moral imperative not to procreate. His argument is based on the following premises:

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

If someone exists, there is the presence of pain and the presence of pleasure. If no one exists, nothing bad happens and pain is avoided. They miss out on pleasure, but it seems 'ignorance is bliss' with the nonexistent. For Benatar, �any suffering at all would be sufficient to make coming into existence a harm�. The harm that coming into existence creates is avoidable and pointless. According to Benatar, it is always good to avoid harm whenever possible and therefore it is always good not to come into existence

Deontology at its finest.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:07

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Baronjutter posted:

Can we actually give libertarians some patch of desert somewhere and ship them there if they don't want to consent to the "contract' that being a citizen entails, then don't let them re-join society until they sign that they agree to pay taxes and follow the laws of the land in exchange for all the benefits of living in a non-mad max society ?

I mean they don't have to go to galt's gulag, they can emigrate anywhere they want. But just show them the door if they start yelling that they dont' consent to the basic social contract. If they can ignore laws and society because "I didn't sign a contract!" then the government can ignore their citizenship.

There's that one patch of unclaimed desert in-between Egypt and Sudan, that might suit your purposes. But really, if we've gone through all the trouble to get the fuckers there, do we really have to take them back?

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:18

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I just want to see libertarians starving to death in the desert as they turn into cannibal tribes while still claiming to uphold the NAP. Is that so wrong?

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:21

Zanzibar Ham: Mar 17, 2009; You giving me the cold shoulder? How cruel.; Grimey Drawer

Muscle Tracer posted:

A serious philosophical position held by serious philosophers

Deontology at its finest.

Reminds me of the kinds of thoughts I had when I was really depressed.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 13, 2024 05:22

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Literally how I feel all the time, if that was the conclusion people came to instead of libertarianism I would have far fewer complaints.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:33

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

«‹›850 »