|
jrodefeld posted:The title of that article "Vacant Houses Outnumber Homeless People in U.S." tells you something doesn't it? It might surprise you, but there is a libertarian argument to be made that homeless people should squat in these unused homes that are sitting vacant. The reason is simple. The housing bubble was not a market phenomenon. The Federal Reserve and government policy created an over-investment in housing, far exceeding market demand. Plus the encouragement by the State for lenders to make risky loans and all the funneling of expropriated taxpayer money into this sector of the economy combine to render the legitimacy of the property titles to these homes claimed by the Banks rather suspect. First, gently caress YOU, gently caress YOU, gently caress YOU! Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. What you are referring to is the Community Reinvestment Act, and what you aren't saying is that no one with any knowledge of the 2008 housing crisis believes even slightly that the crisis was caused in any meaningful way by the CRA. An exaustive study by the University of Florida had this as its end quote: quote:It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness. The CRA had negligable impact on the financial crisis because the issue at its heart wasn't "Oh we are being forced to lend to poor people". The banks literally could not find enough people to give their garbage loans to, so they started throwing them at anyone with a pulse, and they were more than happy to do that. Giving loans to poor people was not the cause of this crisis, terrible financial management and an utter lack of regulation was the cause. Also, the issue with the legitimacy of titles has absolutely nothing to do with the loans or the government, and everything to do with banks being so negligent in their processing of these loans (since they planned to sell them) that they did not bother with any sort of proper paperwork that was required. They needed to sell them and sell them quickly to keep raking in the cash, so they skimped on little things like title transfers. This is hardly surprising considering they also couldn't be bothered to do something as simple as check income. Stop saying "expropriate". You're basically just saying 'steal' but trying to classy it up and/or make yourself seem smarter. You are failing at both. quote:The very fact that there are more vacant houses than homeless just serves to illustrate how out of control that housing bubble is. But how can you blame this on libertarianism? Libertarian monetary policy would never have permitted the creation of an artificial bubble like this in the first place. The artificially high housing prices would not exist and the price of homes would drop under a libertarian society, there would not be an overproduction of houses and supply would meet demand on the market. These problems you are referencing would simply not exist in a libertarian free market economy. You are correct in that the problems would not exist because a libertarian market economy would not exist. So you've got me there! quote:In a related note, Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe have even advocated for embracing the concept of syndicalism to transfer "public", State owned property to private hands. The idea is that since it can be difficult or impossible to determine who homesteaded the land before the State stole it originally, the next best way to privatize this land is to give it to those who most recently worked on that land. Therefore, the factory to the factory workers, the farm to the farmers, the government facilities to the government workers, and so forth. A similar argument could be made about the excess houses from the housing bubble that only exist due to State interference in the market. Therefore a coherent argument could be made that these homeless people should be permitted to "squat" in these homes, thereby homesteading these properties and justly acquiring them. The State didn't steal land from anyone except the Native Americans in any significant amounts and it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that they did so. Also you are aware that the government owns very few of these homes, so this entire paragraph is pointless unless you are suggesting that the government 'expropriate' the houses from the banks to give to poor people, in which case, gently caress and/or yes. quote:This concept of syndicalism is only applicable to State-owned "public" property, or property that, like the extra homes built during the housing boom, were so intertwined with State funding and intervention that the supposed private property titles are suspect or invalid. Okay, so you as a libertarian are in favor of the government seizing millions of homes from private banks and giving them to citizens to live in? Did you have a loving stroke or something?  Also despite what Hans Hermann Hoppe says, its really easy to trace title back on these. If you think the bank shouldn't own them, then why not the people before them, or before them? Is it just too hard? Have you actually rationally thought about what it would do to bank balances and the US economy if suddenly these banks lost probably a trillion dollars in 'assets'? A Rambling Vagrant posted:Keep going guys; at this rate it's looking like Jrod will, before the end of page 12, write a post arguing that the only way to ensure a truly capitalist society in the spirit of Herms "Triple H" Hoppe is for the workers to seize the means of production through Glorious People's Revolution. Seriously, what in the actual gently caress? I mean its a retarded idea on its face due to the whole 'collapse our economy without a bank bailout to go with it', but that is just a blatantly socialist idea. He's going full Lolita-Sama and arguing the US government should just Eminent Domain those homes into the hands of the homeless. Caros fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Aug 10, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The title of that article "Vacant Houses Outnumber Homeless People in U.S." tells you something doesn't it? It might surprise you, but there is a libertarian argument to be made that homeless people should squat in these unused homes that are sitting vacant. The reason is simple. The housing bubble was not a market phenomenon. The Federal Reserve and government policy created an over-investment in housing, far exceeding market demand. Plus the encouragement by the State for lenders to make risky loans and all the funneling of expropriated taxpayer money into this sector of the economy combine to render the legitimacy of the property titles to these homes claimed by the Banks rather suspect. This sure is a lot of words without a shred of anything resembling fact or reason. You cannot justify your intellectually stunted beliefs with what are effectively religious arguments about the market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:29
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
SedanChair posted:Hans Hermann Hoppe is a totalitarian and a racist who believes libertarian societies cannot tolerate or survive the expression of ideas contradictory to libertarianism. These ideas include homosexuality. Do you agree with him? That is NOT what he said. Did you read the previous post I made where I quoted from Stephen Kinsella about this slander and misrepresentation of Hoppe's position? What he said was that under very specific circumstances, where private property owners form private covenants and communities, then these property owners have the right to set certain rules and standards for people who wish to move and live there. Since they own the property, they have the jurisdiction to set the rules for its use. In a free society, like minded individuals will naturally tend to associate with each other and form the sort of communities that they want to live in. If a Christian community forms, then they would probably not permit someone to move into their private covenant who openly advocates the worship of Satan. This would be seen as contrary to the purpose and values of the covenant and even damaging to the eternal souls of their children (ridiculous I know), so they logically would not want to associate with such a person. On the other hand, a community in San Francisco could form where the standards and rules would be drastically different. The bottom line is that people have the right to associate or disassociate with whoever they choose. All this slander against Hans Hoppe comes from one out of context paragraph in his book Democracy The God that Failed. I have actually read this book cover to cover and I doubt anyone here can say the same. Even Hoppe would agree that in a libertarian society Marxists could form a covenant based on those principles and anyone advocating capitalism could be expelled from the community. Here is the full link to Kinsella's rebuttal of this ridiculous slander: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/hoppe-on-covenant-communities/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is NOT what he said. Did you read the previous post I made where I quoted from Stephen Kinsella about this slander and misrepresentation of Hoppe's position? Did you read the post where I replied and pointed out Hoppe's racist stance on immigration into Europe and the USA and how it should really only be for white people? Because it isn't one quote taken out of context. It is a pattern of behaviour that includes his belief that segregation and tribalism are good things, something which is the hallmark of someone who is racist. Did you ignore the part of his post where he talked about the totalitarian streak Hoppe has since he is famously known for supporting monarchy as a more preferable form of government than democracy? Did you miss the part that Hoppe considered Murray Rothbard his greatest teacher and "master" While Rothbard himself is famous for having numerous racist opinions such as support for the bell curve, a book that hypothesized that blacks were genetically dumped than white people? Or that Rothbard is connected to other racists such as Lew Rockwell? Seriously, in libertarian circles there is a game I like to play called six degrees of separation from a white supremacist. I think the longest I've seen was Mises himself who is one of the few austian/an cap thinkers I do not say is racist. I think it took four with him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is NOT what he said. Did you read the previous post I made where I quoted from Stephen Kinsella about this slander and misrepresentation of Hoppe's position? the dude thinks undesirables should be rounded up in camps and/or exterminated, your ideology being inspired by him is reason enough not to engage you on any kind of serious level
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Do you sincerely believe that greed (and marketing) don't exist in a "libertarian free market economy"? Of course greed exists. If greed is not backed up by initiatory aggression, I don't see how it can harm me. In fact the market economy harnesses greed in a way where the greedy are forced to serve the needs of the consumers through competing for voluntarily paying customers. Whether they are greedy or not, the successful entrepreneur adds value to others and enriches society. A libertarian monetary policy would be one where there is free competition and the market (the people) choose which currency best maintains its value and serves their needs for exchange and as a store of value. Without a State, there would be no monopoly (since by definition monopoly means "grant of exclusive privilege by the State) and the currency that emerges victorious would be one that serves the needs of the people. The business cycle (booms and busts) come about through manipulation of the interest rates by a central bank and expansion of credit with a fiat currency. A central bank is a government granted monopoly on the issuance of currency. Without such a monopoly, the endless booms and busts would no longer exist. Since people will be transacting in different currencies and people are free to switch to a different medium of exchange the minute one currency begins to lose its value, this would prevent unnatural bubble formation. The market tends towards equilibrium and slow, steady growth over time. Without constant currency devaluation, people will feel more comfortable actually saving money. This store of savings are what fuels investment on the market. Provided there is an actual store of savings due to lenders actually abstaining from consumption, this means that the growth of an economy is real. When economic growth is based on debt, that means it is unsustainable and will inevitably crash down the road.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the dude thinks undesirables should be rounded up in camps and/or exterminated, your ideology being inspired by him is reason enough not to engage you on any kind of serious level Not true. Hoppe just wants the blacks/homos/druids kept away from him personally so everyone can live in their own homogeneous tribe of like minded people ruled by the natural social elites. That isn't much better, but I honestly don't think hoppe wants to kill undesirables. He wants them segregated so they will eventually collapse under their own failure of being inferior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course greed exists. If greed is not backed up by initiatory aggression, I don't see how it can harm me. In fact the market economy harnesses greed in a way where the greedy are forced to serve the needs of the consumers through competing for voluntarily paying customers. Whether they are greedy or not, the successful entrepreneur adds value to others and enriches society. How do you explain the forty three books and busts that occurred during the free banking period during which the United states did not have a central bank? Are they not 'real' booms and busts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:victorious would be one that serves the needs of the people. This is just easily demonstrably false. The boom and bust cycle predates the setup of central banking. By a lot. quote:Since people will be transacting in different currencies and people are free to switch to a different medium of exchange the minute one currency begins to lose its value, this would prevent unnatural bubble formation. The market tends towards equilibrium and slow, steady growth over time. Switching between currencies would very much be a boom and bust scenario in and of itself. You appear to lack any capacity for examining your own arguments critically, you also appear to not know anything about history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
I mean, Jesus loving Christ, he named the book "Democracy: The God That Failed". At least he has a good, strong German name, like Himmler or Goebbels, worthy of writing such illuminating sentences as:quote:Thereby, in order to illustrate one's theoretical conclusions, every attempt should be made to compare societies which, apart from the theoretical distinction under consideration, are as similar as possible. It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids, any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Of course greed exists. If greed is not backed up by initiatory aggression, I don't see how it can harm me. Have we just not established a number of ways someone could be harmed withoug 'initiating aggression'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
I would like to propose that instead of jrod's idea that we implement what I affectionately call the "Road Warrior Economy". Basically we dissolve the State and all social contracts. Anyone and anything you can take belongs to you, by right of conquest. You deal with aggression against your property with murder. Non-violent negotiations and standing agreements will be considered taboo (don't ask how we'll achieve this, it is unimportant). I can think of several benefits of this system over our current system: 1. No taxes! 2. Everything is free (sort of)! 3. 100% employment rate! 4. It'll be fun! 5. Few elderly or children to worry about! 6. Everyone will get more exercise and eat more fresh foods! 7. Hockey masks and piecemeal armor can look good on anyone!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Have we just not established a number of ways someone could be harmed withoug 'initiating aggression'? "Help! Help! I'm being aggressed!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Caros posted:Did you read the post where I replied and pointed out Hoppe's racist stance on immigration into Europe and the USA and how it should really only be for white people? Because it isn't one quote taken out of context. It is a pattern of behaviour that includes his belief that segregation and tribalism are good things, something which is the hallmark of someone who is racist. None of those people are racists. Ron Paul is not racist, Hans Hoppe is not racist, Murray Rothbard is not a racist, neither is Lew Rockwell or Walter Block for that matter. What you do is something that many leftists do, which is you are constantly on the alert for so called "code language" and hints of politically incorrect ideas or vague associations with people who have politically incorrect views. The logic runs like this. Many libertarians support State's Rights, secession and nullification. These are really "code words" that racists use, therefore all who advocate such positions are racists. Many libertarians are critical of Abraham Lincoln. Therefore you call them "neo confederates". Nothing more need be said. Anyone critical of Lincoln or who thinks we should have avoided the Civil War is clearly a racist. Many libertarians support the right of property owners to discriminate. They are clearly motivated by racism. I read your quotes of Hoppe and in fact I read them in their proper context and you are making a gigantic leap, needed to support your accusation of racism, that Hoppe really is motivated to simply keep out non-white immigrants. I took his comments about an immigration policy focusing on achievement, education and so forth likely favoring those of European decent to be an illustration of the higher levels of prosperity in European countries, which would mean that those immigrating from those countries would be more educated, more skilled, and less prone to crime. Not because of their race but because Latino immigrants usually are emigrating from very impoverished nations with a lot of violence, little education and higher crime rates. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the sort of society they come from. And Hans Hoppe is not saying he would advocate enforcing a pro European bias to immigration, he is just saying that he suspects that if we instituted a strict immigration policy based on achievement, education levels and lack of criminal background, this criteria would likely favor those of European decent. I suspect an empirical study would confirm as much. Again, it has nothing to do with race and much more to do with wealth and development. It should be noted that this medium term "compromise" solution is not what Hans is really striving for. In actuality, in a Stateless society, there would be no borders and no "immigration" to speak of. Rather, since all private property would be privately owned, anyone can invite anyone else onto their property if they wished regardless of where they currently lived on the planet. But there is no "right" to movement, since movement across private property without permission would be trespassing and a rights violation. In a free society people like yourself are able to invite as many immigrants as you want from Latin America and elsewhere. You could even build entire communities for new immigrants. In a thriving free market economy, businesses will likely sponsor the immigration of many new workers and there would be a demand for labor. Since Hans Hoppe is a libertarian, he would not be making any determination of who immigrates and who doesn't. A true racist would be advocating some sort of authoritarian aggression to keep society white and segregated. Hans is merely affirming the right of every person to associate and disassociate with whoever they want. Do you concede that the oft quote passage about the covenant "physically removing" those that threatened the values of that community is incredibly distorted and misleading? Do you understand that, in its property context and given the further context provided by Kinsella, that quote is NOT an example of racism or homophobia or any other sort of bigotry? These other quotes you dug up are not examples of bigotry either as I have clearly demonstrated. There is a standard of proof that has to be met to call someone a racist. It is not just a cudgel you use to beat your political enemies over the head with. It is a serious accusation and casually throwing it around devalues its power when it is truly applicable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
First of all:jrodefeld posted:the market (the people) No. Markets are not even vaguely a representation of what is valued by society. They are a representation of what is valued by those who have money, which 99 times out of 100 is "things that make me more money." jrodefeld posted:In fact the market economy harnesses greed in a way where the greedy are forced to serve the needs of the consumers through competing for voluntarily paying customers. No, it doesn't. jrodefeld posted:A libertarian monetary policy would be one where there is free competition and the market (the people) choose which currency best maintains its value and serves their needs for exchange and as a store of value. The US tried this. It was awful. It's why the US now has a central bank. jrodefeld posted:The business cycle (booms and busts) come about through manipulation of the interest rates by a central bank and expansion of credit with a fiat currency. No it doesn't. Booms and busts are a fundamental component of market economies of any form. jrodefeld posted:A central bank is a government granted monopoly on the issuance of currency. Without such a monopoly, the endless booms and busts would no longer exist. Yes they would, and far more harshly. jrodefeld posted:Since people will be transacting in different currencies and people are free to switch to a different medium of exchange the minute one currency begins to lose its value, this would prevent unnatural bubble formation. The market tends towards equilibrium and slow, steady growth over time. No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. jrodefeld posted:Without constant currency devaluation, people will feel more comfortable actually saving money. No, they won't. jrodefeld posted:This store of savings are what fuels investment on the market. No, it isn't. jrodefeld posted:When economic growth is based on debt, that means it is unsustainable and will inevitably crash down the road. This I agree with. You've said nothing about why your utopia forbids the issuance of debt. If two entities agree to a voluntary trade where one borrows money now for the promise of paying it back later with interest, would your society forbid this? What if the entity issuing the debt issues it based on promised debt from other entities? If not, you've done nothing about debt at all. Simply waving your hands and going BUT FIAT CURRENCY doesn't change that debt and the ensuing inflation is just a thing that happens in market economies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is NOT what he said. Did you read the previous post I made where I quoted from Stephen Kinsella about this slander and misrepresentation of Hoppe's position? It's exactly what he says. Nobody outside of your incest circle gives a poo poo what the idiot Stephen Kinsella says, because that article is a bunch of garbage arguments stitched together. Read the passage Kinsella actually quotes, then read the torture he puts himself through trying to turn up into down. The entirety of his argument is: "I hang out with Hoppe, I don't hang out with bigots. Therefore, Hoppe is not a bigot." His mind is trash, like yours. This is philosophical homeopathy. And I have read Democracy: The God That Failed from cover to cover. It's monarchist, totalitarian fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
SedanChair can I get some feedback on my Road Warrior Economy idea? I really think it is what we need to make America great again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the dude thinks undesirables should be rounded up in camps and/or exterminated, your ideology being inspired by him is reason enough not to engage you on any kind of serious level Do you have a source for these ludicrous accusations? By the way, my ideology is not inspired by Hans Hoppe. He is one of many libertarians and Austrian economists. I agree with some of his positions and differ on others. His work will hopefully be superseded by the next generation of libertarian intellectuals. He is influential, but Mises and Rothbard are much more influential in the history of libertarian thought. I have no reason to engage with you on any serious level if you just toss off incendiary slander like that without the slightest circumspection. That would be like if I said "that dude 'icantfindaname' sure likes raping children. Why does he rape children all the time?" That is an equally libelous remark that is completely unfounded. I used this example because I suspect that you don't even consciously realize it when you throw around accusations of racism and attribute heinous views to your political opponents. That in itself is troubling but could you please stop raping children?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you have a source for these ludicrous accusations? By the way, my ideology is not inspired by Hans Hoppe. Nope sorry, gently caress off. You are alternately citing Hoppe and disclaiming him. We are sticking with proving he is a bigot right now. He is a libertarian, and you have spent many pages defending him for two years. Ride it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
You really like tackling those straw men you set up for yourself, jrodefeld. Mind explaining how the justice system would work in a libertarian anarchy? Practical details, please. If you're not too busy shouting about how you're not a racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Nobody respond to jrodefeld until he either agrees with or rejects the basic premise asserted by Hans Hoppe that the Negroid has a smaller attention span than the Caucasian and/or Ron Paul's commentary on the fleet-footedness of the black American teenager. Or homosexuals with telegenic AIDS!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:Not true. Hoppe just wants the blacks/homos/druids kept away from him personally so everyone can live in their own homogeneous tribe of like minded people ruled by the natural social elites. Where did Hans ever argue that blacks/gays/hispanics or whoever else are inferior? I've read a lot more of his work that you have and I haven't read a single supremacist thing from him. Given your track record of inaccurately quoting him (out of context), I don't expect you'll be able to produce any evidence of these supremacist views. I already explained why the immigration thing was not based on race or racist views. Hoppe certainly doesn't shy away from politically incorrect ideas or topics, but to my mind all his analyses are based on an empirical rational mind that is trying to deduce certain axioms from observed data. But he is not motivated by any racist or supremacist views clearly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Hans-Hermann Hoppe can't be a racist because he's a libertarian and libertarians can't be racist. QED.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
First Bass posted:I mean, Jesus loving Christ, he named the book "Democracy: The God That Failed". At least he has a good, strong German name, like Himmler or Goebbels, worthy of writing such illuminating sentences as: Is the term "negroid" what is so shocking about this sentence and paragraph? Refer to the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid Negroid (also known by the more precise term Congoid[1]) is a term that is used by some forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are frequent among most populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Negroid as a biological classification remains in use,[8] particularly within the field of forensic anthropology. Yes this word, given that it is close enough to the N-word, can be offensive to some people. But it is widely in use among anthropologists. I don't know whether or not Africans and Europeans have, on average, different rates of time preference as Hoppe indicated, but if that is what the empirical data illustrates, then that is what the data illustrates. People can be racists, but empirical data cannot be. There is no superior or inferior about differing time preferences anyway. It's just different. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
How about "Brick to ya face Economy"? Everyone will through voluntary rationalism enter a continent sized thunder dome with one brick and then proceed to murder everyone else with said brick (don't ask how we'll achieve this, it is unimportant). Whoever the last human alive is will gain property rights over the planet earth solving all property disputes forever!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Is the term "negroid" what is so shocking about this sentence and paragraph? Refer to the wikipedia entry: He's making claims about intrinsic mental and cultural differences between white and black people. That is a racist thing to do and is not based in reality. Axetrain posted:How about "Brick to ya face Economy"? Everyone will through voluntary rationalism enter a continent sized thunder dome with one brick and then proceed to murder everyone else with said brick (don't ask how we'll achieve this, it is unimportant). Whoever the last human alive is will gain property rights over the planet earth solving all property disputes forever! Please, can't we just get beyond thunderdomes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Seriously, if you had just a modest competence in reading comprehension you could clearly see my position. Or even a five minute Google search to try and understand the nature of aggression or Rothbardian private property rights. Actually, if someone steals from you, you have no right to initiate violence against them. Currently, that is the purview of specific agents of the state. I'm not forgetting the word 'initiation.' I am saying that you do a bait-and-switch by pretending that you despise the initiation of violence when it comes to taxes and the state, then turning around and special-plea for a large number of cases in which you would, in fact, initiate violence. Suddenly, any violation of your 'natural rights' (as you happen to define them) is defined as 'aggression,' even when the violation does not involve violence. It turns out, then, that you actually support the initiation of violence in a great number of situations. It is quite possible, then, that a libertarian society that you would support would initiate the use of force as often as the modern state, or even more often. That you feel that this society would initiate the use of force 'correctly' is irrelevant here. Your criticism of the state on the basis of its initiation of violence is dishonest and hypocritical, for your society would simply initiate the use of violence for slightly different reasons than the state does. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:How about "Brick to ya face Economy"? Everyone will through voluntary rationalism enter a continent sized thunder dome with one brick and then proceed to murder everyone else with said brick (don't ask how we'll achieve this, it is unimportant). Whoever the last human alive is will gain property rights over the planet earth solving all property disputes forever! See this is the kind of rewarding dialogue that I was hoping for! I question the need for a dome and limiting methods to a single brick. Surely once everyone starts resorting to violence things will resolve naturally? DoctorWhat posted:Please, can't we just get beyond thunderdomes? I agree, we don't need domes to let man's naturally brutality against man assert itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:See this is the kind of rewarding dialogue that I was hoping for! This video by revolutionary Brickbertarian philosopher James Murray Hoppe "stitches" Randberg von Mises should make my natural Axioms self evident as I'm sure you all will agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtW6HW8jO_U His teachings are some of the most influential amongst Bricktarian theorists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:He's making claims about intrinsic mental and cultural differences between white and black people. That is a racist thing to do and is not based in reality. Do you understand the concept of time preference? If I have a high time preference it merely means that I prefer goods sooner than later. Does that make me inferior? Does that make me less intelligent? If there are observed differences in time preference between different cultures and racial groups, why is it inherently racist to point that out? Hans Hoppe also made the point that people who have children have, on average, a lower time preference. As a way of illustration he mentioned that, again on average, single people, gays and nuns have a relatively higher time preference. Since a parent usually makes long term plans for the future, even after he or she is dead, for the good of their children, their time preferences are very low. Someone who doesn't have children will, on average, not save as much for the future and be more likely to consume more of their wealth before they die. This doesn't mean that people who don't have children are intellectually inferior to those who have children! It is simply logical given the different priorities that come from having children. Do you now see how ludicrous it is for you to claim that comparing average time preference differences between cultures is inherently racist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Your theories are outdated old man!  Everyone knows dunebuggies, machine guns, and machete's are the true means of achieving a Just World!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you understand the concept of time preference? If I have a high time preference it merely means that I prefer goods sooner than later. Does that make me inferior? Does that make me less intelligent? If there are observed differences in time preference between different cultures and racial groups, why is it inherently racist to point that out? Racial generalizations about personality or "inner life" are racist. Part (but not all) of why is that we do not currently live in a world where social biases can be fully eliminated from experimentation on human psychology. I'm going to cut you off at the pass and say that, no, racial tendencies towards cancer and other diseases are NOT racist to acknowledge, because they don't make assumptions about a human being's capacity for thought and feeling based on their race. There are NO KNOWN INTRINSIC MENTAL DIFFERENCES ACROSS RACIAL LINES. To insinuate otherwise promotes racial essentialism, which is just another form of racism and bigotry. "Black people talk like this while white people talk like this" isn't some brave defiance of "political correctness", it's racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you understand the concept of time preference? If I have a high time preference it merely means that I prefer goods sooner than later. Does that make me inferior? Does that make me less intelligent? If there are observed differences in time preference between different cultures and racial groups, why is it inherently racist to point that out? Keep digging, you shimmering autistic star
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
I'd try citing (as Hoppe did) more of J. Phillipe Rushton's "scientific findings", but you are literally the densest D&D poster I have ever had the misfortune of meeting, and I spend most of my time in the I/P thread these days. I mean, that long-winded poo poo about the term "Negroid" is nearly textbook "missing the forest for the trees" (sorry, I'll refrain from using idioms in the future: your cold literal machine mind probably can't process them). The "empirical data" doesn't illustrate jack poo poo about any fundamental difference in intelligence or personality between morphologically distinct populations, and you have to be a special kind of ivory tower autist to draw conclusions that completely disregard socio-political factors. You're just too much of a gullible loving idiot to do anything but nod and say "well Hoppe cited him, I trust that his mind, the Platonic ideal of empiricism and logic, did all the heavy lifting and I don't have to critically examine the data or its source". So, for people who don't want to wade through several layers of intellectually bankrupt tripe, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a fan of and frequently cites a Canadian psychology professor who at some point came to the conclusion that black people have a predisposition to both crime and a lower average IQ relative to white people, which is but the worst of other racial findings he's made which are relevant to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's construction of fantasy narratives about communities that are WHITE PPL ONLY
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:The stupidest thing about libertarians and especially an-caps is that modern economics wouldn't exist without the stability provided by states. Ultimately it seems like libertarians are just mad that there are already established economic systems that require effort, time, and extensive knowledge to enter successfully so they just want to destroy the current system so they can have an easier chance at becoming captains of industry. In the case of a stateless society this would not be the result since the people that banded together first would easily overpower any people trying to get by individually. Although considering most libertarians are hypocrites/sociopaths they would probably just try to be the rulers/upper class of these new states. This reminds me of a partial quote on the topic I saw, but it's unattributed and without context. quote:Libertarianism, by contrast, is a theory of those who find it hard to avoid their taxes, who are too small, incompetent or insufficiently connected to win Iraq-reconstruction contracts, or otherwise chow at the state trough. In its maundering about a mythical ideal-type capitalism, libertarianism betrays its fear of actually existing capitalism, at which it cannot quite succeed. It is a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, if it was in an argument or somewhere published. Anyone know? Edit for extra content: I've still only read claims that people will just DO the right thing to make libertopia work, or that ostracism will prevent people from being lovely, when demonstrably, people are frequently somewhere between apathetic and actively lovely and if you're enough of a gently caress-up that locals actually turn away from you, you can just MOVE. The US isn't even that small. One the Libertarian revolution dismantles the State you probably won't even have to leave the continental US, you just move about three postapocalyptic libertopian enclaves in any direction and meet a whole new set of people who'll never hear of your backstory. But I've not read any convincing arguments as to WHY regular people will simply be better than today by a large enough margin to make libertopia function. DoctorWhat posted:Here you go, I just googled "capitalist inadequacy". I have no good excuse why this course of action didn't occur to me 
Psykmoe fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, if it was in an argument or somewhere published. Anyone know? Floating Utopias by China Mieville
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Psykmoe posted:This reminds me of a partial quote on the topic I saw, but it's unattributed and without context. http://inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias edit: gently caress, beaten
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you understand the concept of time preference? If I have a high time preference it merely means that I prefer goods sooner than later. Does that make me inferior? Does that make me less intelligent? If there are observed differences in time preference between different cultures and racial groups, why is it inherently racist to point that out? Dude, you're racist. Embrace it. Edit: The term "Academic Racist" describes your views well. SPLC has some good articles about academic racism and historical revisionists. Cercadelmar fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:How do you explain the forty three books and busts that occurred during the free banking period during which the United states did not have a central bank? Are they not 'real' booms and busts? Wow 43?! Do you have a good source for this you can link? I know there were lots of booms and busts in that period of US history but I didn't know it was THAT bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Wow this discussion is so American that I don't know if I should even reply to it. How come you even have guys that want a free market that bad? This almost sounds more a religious discussion than anything else. I really only skimmed through these pages, so I don't have anything unique to refute. Just what I think in general about anarchy / libertarians. If you actually succeeded in implementing government less society the only thing you actually would achieve is to reboot it. Yeah for a few years you might actually have peers who decide on things. But after a few years you will end up with people who have just a bit more to say, are a bit richer, a little more powerful. A few years after that they will go for more power, become regional leaders. That's when you have the first wars. After the conclusion of these wars you will have a really strong leadership, maybe calling himself king. It probably will take a few thousand years after that for the people to realize that they want to be more free. That they don't want to be ruled anymore. That's when the guillotine gets to work. Now when the French did that the first thing they did was to elect a leader. And they made sure the leader had to be elected. This is the only thing that works. Anarchy and or libertarianism just leads to monarchy, leads to feudalism, leads to democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 11:45
|
|