|
Caros posted:I could logically prove that a double down is objectively the best food, but that doesn't make it anything but heart clogging garbage. Bacon is good, chicken is good, the Double down has naught but chicken and bacon. What other food has nothing but chicken and bacon? The double down is the best food. The billboard I drive past on the way to work has Panda Express offering Orange chicken with bacon 
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful [Citation Needed]
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... If we choose an objective morality, why wouldn't we choose one directly based on the well-being and happiness of people, rather than presupposing that "property rights" are the best way to secure that well-being and happiness? Because there sure as gently caress is no proof that the latter supposition is in any way true. All there is is the navel-gazing and masturbation of a discredited philosophy, assembled by angry cranks with no social skills. Hurry up and abandon it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Oh hey, Hoppe was the guy who invented "argumentation ethics," in which anything that contradicts libertarianism in any way is assumed to be logically incoherent. That's not how rational human beings debate things in good faith. Ever. "Let's play tic-tac-toe. But I get to go first and make three moves. It's only logical." absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... Of course, when we look at what the kind of unregulated society libertarians propose has actually done in real life, we find that it turns out pretty awful for non-rich people. Libertarianism seems to be weirdly naive about how human beings actually behave, and in some cases insanely hyper-cynical about how governments behave, even though they're equally made of people. Whenever people point out what has actually happened when these beliefs get practiced, you write it off as a violation of those beliefs (which doesn't at all address the fact that those beliefs can have have caused those things to happen) or just say "welp, if that happened you'd be hosed," and when a proponent of something says something like that, that's pretty damning. absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful Hahahahahahahaha...oh... wait. You're serious? Please tell me you aren't seriously looking at the proof of my double down example as if it were serious. And pretty much [citation needed] numerous people have raised criticism of your 'proof' and you've yet to defend against any of it apart from what amounts to 'nuh uh.'
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Proof is irrelevant to the magnificent a priori edifice of praxeology. Still want to know why I should embrace a system where the top 1% who hold 50% of the wealth in this country can just outright buy the police and justice system rather than at least having to bamboozle people into voting to let them partially do it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:11 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
It's worth noting that academic libertarians like Robert Nozick employ side constraints in their theories to prevent someone from monopolizing everything and watching the rest of us suffer; the Lockean Proviso (you aren't allowed to take everything; you have to leave enough, and as good, for others to use) explicitly says that you have other non-property-oriented duties towards others. Nozick also thinks that any good derived from an injustice, no matter how far-removed, is owned unjustly. He literally says this outright; his principle of justice in transfer has some of the same features as logical entailment.absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful 2. Chicken is good. 3. The Double Down contains only bacon and chicken. 4. Therefore the Double Down is good. It's an instance of the fallacy of composition (suppose that there are two chemicals that are both good when consumed separately, but when consumed together cause death...sorta like the Double Down...), but that doesn't mean that your proof is any better. I don't accept your a priori principles, partially because I'm not sure there is a category of knowledge called the a priori, but also because they aren't justified. Your 'argument' (it's a bad one) for voluntarism doesn't follow. I can say "sometimes violence is necessary for the resolution of conflict"; the 'argument' you presented in that pastebin (for gently caress's sake just post it in the thread) assumes that the answer to all conflict is either violence, or voluntarism is true. That's obviously a false dilemma. Now if you eliminated all other possibilities, it would at least have some strength, but you actually can't eliminate all the other possibilities (which is why I'm not going to bother talking about sober points of logical theory here). So no you haven't proven it. I haven't read the rest but I'm still not sure what property rights are, or why I'm supposed to think I own myself (because that's loving weird; I've read some of the academic libertarian literature and I still have no idea what self-ownership is...so I can own people so long as that people is me? It barely makes any sense to me). EDIT: Also the theory of logical argumentation you/Hoppe is using is a bad one, hope that helps. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful Do you practice your own ethics, or do you say "Well, I would but mumble mumble..." Because you should actually try them out and see if they work before you claim they're objectively true.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it.
Corvinus fucked around with this message at 02:13 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, Your proof of your ethics started as worthless garbage and has somehow only gotten worse. But I'll ask again. What in your moral/ethical system can stop a roving gang of 600,00 Road Warrior marauders from rolling into any town they want, shooting all the able-bodied men in the face and enslaving the remainder?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful I probably wasn't really clear in my post above, but our morality changes over time. Is that bad? Nope, it is good. Morality actually evolves with society, it grows as society grows, it changes as society changes, etc. Morality is about how we treat one another and ourselves, right? If we aren't going to use a religious definition, we have to use something, so I'd say that morality is how we treat others and ourselves. Caros is right, morality is subject to change, it is also subject to environment and society. If there were a cataclysm tomorrow, morality would go out the window for a lot of people, and personal survival would be the primary operating system for a lot of people. Since we are living in a somewhat civilized society, most of us operate under a moral system day to day. Morality is not rational, it isn't religious, it is social and biological. Morality relates directly to our society and our place within it. I guess it is rational in that we behave morally so we don't lose what we have in society: job, lover, etc. I would argue that is more of a social norm, and a social penalty than morality, however. Every single one of us commits an immoral act on a regular basis, but these are generally small and meaningless things that don't matter. You've compared stealing a dime to murder and rape... once you've said something like that you've lost the argument because there is no comparison. A transgression against another person, no matter the size, isn't the issue. We are social beings and we are constantly loving with each other endlessly, what does matter is the actual damage done. If you can't understand that intent and outcome matter, then everything you say is fantasy. Pohl fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it. And druids. I don't know the specific backstory because even when I was a libertarian I thought Triple H was a little nuts, but the guy has this bizarre thing where he loving HATES druids.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:It's worth noting that academic libertarians like Robert Nozick employ side constraints in their theories to prevent someone from monopolizing everything and watching the rest of us suffer; the Lockean Proviso (you aren't allowed to take everything; you have to leave enough, and as good, for others to use) explicitly says that you have other non-property-oriented duties towards others. Nozick also thinks that any good derived from an injustice, no matter how far-removed, is owned unjustly. He literally says this outright; his principle of justice in transfer has some of the same features as logical entailment. Awww man, I was gonna post Nozick you jerk  He pretty much establishes that you can't have property rights that are just if the property was unjustly acquired in any way, no matter how far back you go. The only truly just property rights system involves either 1) redressing all of the past property injustices (essentially impossible) or 2) resetting everyone back to a common starting point (violates his other principles). When I read Anarchy, State and Utopia in college it was the nail in the Libertarian coffin.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
Respect for the NAP, duh. If they took over a town and enslaved its inhabitants then people would refuse to trade with them, allowing the free market to prevail. It would be a lose-lose for all. That's why we don't see violence in either history or nature.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it. Doesn't surprise me though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
quote:A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly… [B]esides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished… to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:Respect for the NAP, duh. If they took over a town and enslaved its inhabitants then people would refuse to trade with them, allowing the free market to prevail. It would be a lose-lose for all. In the land of the NAP the one gun owner is king. Or... something, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. quote:More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias quote:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:Respect for the NAP, duh. If they took over a town and enslaved its inhabitants then people would refuse to trade with them, allowing the free market to prevail. It would be a lose-lose for all. As "natural" and fundamental as property rights may seem, the "strong take from the weak" is just as natural. If your political philosophy says that we all must abide by property rights and live non-aggressive or coercive lives, but has no answer for when people don't abide by those rights, then you need to examine why you think this framework was a good idea in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
 What the gently caressA real person cannot believe this kind of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. I've bolded the important part of it here. gently caress druids and their level 9 spells.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Are we playing guess the racist author?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
absolem says he does. Caros posted:I've bolded the important part of it here. gently caress druids and their level 9 spells. Dude obviously played Fighters and was mad jealous of spellcasters.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
cheese posted:Are we playing guess the racist author? It's all Hoppe. You've got to admit the guy has a certain, um, Teutonic crispness
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
What do you even call this ideology? Fascist Libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What do you even call this ideology? Fascist-Libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's all Hoppe.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What do you even call this ideology? Fascist Libertarianism? Feudal capitalism (capitalists are the nobility) with fascist overtones.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
quote:The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic one-man-one-vote rule. Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently undemocratic, and antimajoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hoppe to it. Damnit Sedan. I'm just getting beaten left right and center in posting interesting things today. quote:Unlike states, [insurers] could and would not want to disregard the discriminating inclinations among the insured towards immigrants. To the contrary, even more so than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in discrimination, i.e., in admitting only those immigrants whose presence adds to a lower crime risk and increased property values and in excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
quote:They [these confused libertarians] fantasized of a society where every one would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as as result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity. Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
quote:In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumberable things and promote almost any idea under the sun but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
e: beaten! OK try this on for size! http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t565842/ quote:I have brought up Hans Hermann Hoppe myself multiple times only to be criticized on this board because he often cites Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. If you read through the comments you will quickly discover that the economic beliefs espoused by Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are the only part of Ludwig von Mises that they really endorse, despite what they say.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
You're doing the Lord's work SedanChair. EDIT: Please answer my question about the water, abselom.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
So I suppose I have one more question for Absolom, how do you feel about Hans Hermann Hoppe now?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Ahahah. Yes yes yes. Blood gates, open them.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
It's like the political version getting told that radios work because there're little gnomes inside.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I can't tell of this is better or worse than the Brony guy who tried to get campaign donations a few weeks ago. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Turns out, the superiority of the white man can be proved a priori. Also democrats or communists or homosexuals existing is an initiation of force so by the NAP they must be exterminated
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:I can't tell of this is better or worse than the Brony guy who tried to get campaign donations a few weeks ago. Where did the OP go? We were having such an interesting conversation and then he just vanished. VitalSigns posted:Turns out, the superiority of the white man can be proved a priori. When you are right, you are right. At that point you may as well use every tool available to eradicate the Jew. (I'm not even going to strike that out).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:46
|
|