|
Obviously Somalia is no more an ancap's dreamland than it is for an anarcho-syndicalist, but on the other hand Somalia is something that libertarians (and other anarchists) need to contend with from the perspective of "what about your ideology prevents your society from turning into Somalia once the government is gone?" Just like a Marxist needs to have an answer to "how do you deal with the potential of your revolution leading to Stalin 2.0?"
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:These are really poor examples to use to criticize libertarianism because the examples you cite are examples of fraud, which is theft and would be illegal in a libertarian society. If someone sold you a Blu-ray player that only played DVDs then they have defrauded you and stolen your money. If someone sold you a 16 oz package of cookies and it only contained 13 or 14 oz of cookies that too is an example of fraud. Fraud is illegal under libertarian law. The same thing goes for drugs that are sold with incorrect labels. You purchase a prescription for Vicoden and its supposed to be 250mg per tablet (says so on the label) but in reality the pill are 1000mg per tablet, this is clearly fraud and theft. He's saying you need a government to proactively work to catch instances of fraud before they victimize a consumer. Individual consumers don't have the time or knowledge needed to test every product they consider purchasing. jrodefeld posted:I don't even understand these criticisms exactly. Are you saying that because we might morally excuse a starving child who steals a loaf of bread under extreme duress, that the principle of property rights is suspect? Yes. e: I should add more content. Jrod, the problem you're creating here is that you believe libertarianism is morally correct from an objective, deontological standpoint. Therefore, any disconnect between libertarian public policy and morality is a contradiction that undermines the foundations of your whole argument. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It seems like what really matters is if you hold the words of Mises in your heart. Then everything is permitted, including mass murder. But that means considering libertarians as a group! Are you saying that jrod is--*shudders*--a collectivist?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
A libertarian arguing against well-established medical practice due to distrust in corporations is the kind of comedy gold that makes this thread worth reading.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh and that climate change is not anthropomorphic Well, actually, I think they're right on this one. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. You claim others are strawmanning you, but Rand's/your objections to vaccination are only "reasonable" in comparison to a complete strawman of the other side. You are arguing against the position that any theoretical government vaccination mandate is good and just, which is clearly a ludicrous idea. Your opponents are instead arguing in favor of the actually existing laws regarding vaccination, or at most for the claim that the existing bureaucracy is the most qualified group to determine vaccination laws . But of course nobody here, or anywhere, would blindly accept every hypothetical regulation. The reason that you and Rand seem like crazy people is because you can't or don't distinguish between specific existing laws and absolute, totalitarian mandates. If Rand Paul wants to dispute the necessity of the measles vaccine, then he could easily say very clearly "I don't think the benefits of the measles vaccine are enough to legally require it". Instead he chose to make a argument about vaccination in general. This is because he is not honestly trying improve a specific area of government policy, but rather using the issue to make a PR appeal to anti-vax and anti-government wingnuts. Only after everyone saw this plainly obvious fact did he (and you) move the goalposts. But unfortunately, everyone in this thread is smart enough to realize that you don't give a poo poo about policy specifics because you want to destroy the government entirely, even if that means killing people with epidemic disease. e: I am even leaving aside the fact that Paul gave credence to despicable lies regarding vaccination and mental disorders, since others have already covered that at length. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And reading comprehension is apparently lacking with many if not most of you. I didn't argue "against well-established medical practice". Rather, I said it is wrong to use force to make people get vaccines against their will. You must use persuasion and evidence to get them to practice good health habits. A subscriber to Austrian economics says that we should forgo important public health regulation in favor of appealing to evidence.  Let me blow your mind, jrod: anyone who is persuaded by the evidence doesn't have to be compelled by the law. My storm trooper pigs (and I, personally, employ several squads of them) exist to protect us from the people who reject the evidence and, doing so, endanger the lives of their children and the rest of the population. These people are committing violence against their children, and against me, and it is my natural right to defend myself, with force if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Hahaha how huge is your book if you can't even fit it into a goddamn trilogy of movies. To be fair, they somehow made noted children's book The Hobbit into 9 hours of film. We're lucky that Hollywood doesn't see blockbuster potential in it, or the John Galt speech would be a trilogy on its own.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I wasn't around for that era of his posting, and almost* everything in his rap sheet requires archives to read, but judging by this: Basically, you know how every time jrod gets backed into a corner where his position has become unequivocally loathsome or stupid, he goes away and then comes back with a million-word essay on an entirely new topic? Imagine each of those being a whole new thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Hey Jrod, if you really don't want to talk about vaccines, could you explain how the millions of children starving to death annually in capitalist countries, while capitalists let untold tons of food spoil because they can't make a profit on it, are proof that market liberalism is better for the poor than central planning?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
You also get plenty of libertarians that don't really care if it would work at all, as long as it appeals to their innate sense of how the world ought to be (namely, "gently caress you dad you can't tell me what to do" coupled with strict mechanistic rationality). Furthermore, by nature regulations lend themselves to confirmation bias: it's easy to notice when a rule restricts you or seems silly, it's hard to notice the bad things that were prevented from happening altogether. So it's easy to dream about how everything would be better with government out of the way, since libertarians will never ever have to actually run a society.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertarians were also pro-apartheid. It's just like white evangelicalism in this way. Hoppe is embarrassing because he doesn't bother to lie about the aims & results of libertarianism, but they can't actually argue against him. After all, when the main thrust of your ideological position is that it's objective truth derived logically from axioms, any argument deployed against Hoppe can be immediately turned back around against another libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
"Objective" is defined right there in the sentence you're asking about: any study that agrees with jrod's ideology is objective, any that doesn't must be biased.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Feminism is a materialist ideology that exists specifically due to the context of modern patriarchy. What use can any struggle for equality have for a purely abstract viewpoint? Regardless of its abstract claims, in the real world libertarianism is staunchly allied with anti-feminists, ranging from conservative religious groups to neofascists to MRAs, and therefore is rightly understood to be an enemy of feminism. e: I would also say that capitalism is intrinsically anti-feminist, but that's probably a can of worms that we don't need to open.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
It's important to recognize the context of any feminist discussion of self-ownership, namely that in the western world women have traditionally been considered posessions of others. Consequently, "self-ownership" is a rejection of ownership by men (e.g. daughters and wives) or the state (e.g. widows and pregnant women). Libertarianism, by contrast, is a creation of white dudes who wanted to justify and entrench their hegemony over everyone else. Rich white men weren't considered property, so consequently "self-ownership" in libertarianism is a wholly abstract concept that exists solely to beg the question about whether all rights are fundamentally reducible to private property rights. Another way of saying this is that feminists say "you own yourself" but libertarians are emphasizing "you own yourself".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Surprisingly enough, the one area in which property isn't sacrosanct is the one where the rich aren't able to monopolize the means of production.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:This. I also watched a Thunderf00t video to see what was going on during the whole gamergate shitstorm and now my Youtube is STILL flooding me with recommendations of Sargon of Akkad and other bipedal vermin. Hell, just watch any femfreq video and don't remember to click away before it autoplays some garbo nerd afterward.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Because libertarianism is a religion and like all religious fanatics they think everyone will convert if they can merely explain their odious views correctly. It's like jrod telling Caros "sure, free-market ideology murdered your friend, but thats not a legitimate reason to reject libertarianism," or fundamentalists campaigning for increased bullying of gay kids. e: Also, someone writing for Mises is preaching to the choir, so it's assumed that their intended audience largely already accepts that child labor is okay.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that breathalyzer results are not especially reliable and thus it's pretty valid to refuse to take one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Why won't people just be respectful to the corpse of a man who got rich on slave labor? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I'd just like to say that I'm a statist, in fact I'll state right now that libertarianism is a misogynist, white-supremacist Hell philosophy in design and practice! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Less than 24 hours before Jrode is un-probated! Maybe we can replace him with fishmech
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Man, I'm not gonna name who but there's someone in another thread that is basically libertarian This is way worse than just calling them out straight up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Is it kosher to link to offsite forum posts? I found one supporting Gary Johnson which even tried defending his support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other assorted bullshit. The RFRA is a pretty good law that's consistent with libertarian principles, to wit. It's only laughable if he supports its perversion from protecting religious minorities to enshrining straight male hegemony in the guise of Christianity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
The desire for a flat tax is pretty understandable. Modern society is extremely complex, and nobody can honestly understand everything without getting overwhelmed. So taking one particular complicated aspect and turning it into something simple is really attractive. It also fits in with the idea that the rich pay few taxes because of "loopholes," places where the tax code is just so complicated that you can use tricks to get ahead. But of course it's not due to complexity that the rich are taxed less, but rather because that's how the system is designed. e: The desire among poor people is understandable, that is. The desire for a flat tax among the oligarchy is also understandable, but for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:The thing that gets me about that list is how spiteful and regulation-heavy it is. Arguing against the existence of a welfare state at all (while wrong) is at least an honest position; this douchebag, on the other hand, is engaging in that libertarian-bizarre (well, maybe not, considering how many of them are apparently sociopaths and selective misanthropes) rhetoric where somehow regulations are bad, unless it's to punish or hurt a group that the libertarian finds disdainful. Free us, but bind them in chains! If poor people are to be in thrall to a government, they had better be in thrall. It's as if the prospect of slavery can never be completely exorcised from hardcore libertarian ideology. Slavery can never be excised from capitalism, so naturally it features prominently for people that push ever-more-aggressive capitalist ideologies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of which, it's one thing to attack unemployed people for not being able to work during a strong economy, but what about during recessions when businesses don't want to hire? There are (if my personal acquaintances are anywhere near a decent sample) a loooot of people who believe that 100% employment is always possible if people simply want it bad enough. Their delusion is abetted by McDonald's keeping "help wanted" signs up all the time so they can have high employee turnover and thus minimize job security.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:If I wasn't married and she wasn't dead, I'd do Ayn Rand. Just for curiosity. Not sure both of these criteria are good, she probably smells better now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's at the moment salient to me is that while there has probably never been a large-scale, stable, by-the-book socialist/communist or libertarian society, we can see (not to speak for now of fascist) multiple attempts at creating the former - people who, we have all reason to believe, were truly trying to create a socialist utopia - with well-known results. And we don't really have that with libertarian societies for some reason. I guess you could say Hoover and the Great Depression was something like that, and if I was a libertarian, I'd actually like if people swallowed that, because Hoover and the Great Depression was bad, but not Great Terror or Holodomor bad. But then, I doubt actual libertarians would call Hoover a libertarian. Trying to compare the human cost of socialist vs capitalist economies through history is definitely not going to come out looking good for the capitalists. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
I'm also not sure I'd say explicit calls for ethnic cleansing, mob violence, and executive control of the press are "bog-standard populism".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I think we're giving too much of a pass to the claim there there has never been a "libertarian-inspired" nation. Not only am I quite comfortable calling at least the last 30 years of genocidal US oligarchy libertarian-inspired, but Cingulate's framing also ignores the fact that libertarian ideology is itself created to justify past atrocities. This is the real reason that a True Libertarian country will never arise: there is no such thing as true libertarianism. If you want to take a look at a libertarian country, either gaze back to feudalism (for the DRO fetishists) or to the pre-Emancipation USA/CSA (for the extreme white supremacists) or to the Gilded Age (for the Koch types). These are the societies that libertarianism is created to propagandize for, and I'll take the USSR over them 100% of the time. It's also worth pointing out that the threat of revolution gave us most of the things that make the modern US less of a hellscape than it was 100 years ago. If you want to throw out the USSR then the New Deal goes with it, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not good on US history, but wasn't the New Deal basically the only sensible response to the Great Depression? Consider the huge push for austerity in response to the 2008 depression. It's clear that the "only sensible response" the economic disasters is not always pursued without the ruling class having its hand forced. It's also a great example of how libertarian principles have been put into practiced and resulted in widespread poverty, misery, and death.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:So..yeah. Democratic socialism, ho! I don't think anyone is calling for a totally socialist government ITT. Except maybe Paragon1. I am, for the record. Though I don't consider myself nearly well-versed enough in political theory to know how to get there or what specifically to do once we arrive, I want worker ownership of the means of production.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I guess the Triangle Shirt Factory disaster would be kinda funny if you put Benny Hill music over it. It's because he's not arguing just to argue, he's arguing in order to advance an ideological position (that liberalism, capitalism, & imperialism are morally superior to their opposition) that can't withstand scrutiny. The name of the game is to bounce around taking shots at leftism while deflecting every counterargument with "you don't seem to understand what I'm saying" (or, increasingly, "I'm not listening because you're meanies"). e: I don't disagree that he should stop posting though, either way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought libertarians defaulted to a society where child exploitation/molestation was the goal? Don't besmirch Rothbard's good name with your talk of base bestiality! What about baby animals? e: Being slightly more serious, I assume that most libertarians consider animals to be mere property and thus are quite alright with animal rape & abuse. But I wonder how, or if, they justify this position. Similarly, are there libertarians out there who recognize that some animals are people, and advocate for signing contracts with your dog? Mornacale fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Jrod only supports that position because it lets him pretend like he's not pro-slavery while still condemning and working to undo the one and only way the slaves were actually freed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:It was for over a century pretty much the policy of the white nations that Haiti must never succeed. No way in hell were we going to let a nation where the slaves had given the colonists what they deserved be seen to be prosperous and peaceful. This shouldn't really be in the past tense, see the USA to this day forcing Haiti to lower its minimum wage so our corporations can essentially use them as slaves once again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I like how American medical school seems deliberately geared toward the biggest bastards exceeding at the expense of actual nice people. It's wild that a group of extremely wealthy Americans tend to institutionalize the most sociopathic and anti-social aspects of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Libertarianism is not an intellectually honest ideology, it is and always has been an attempt to retroactively justify support for reactionary politics.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
I think the most notable aspect of this thread has been Jrod and Caros being perfect models of evangelism. Caros has been a great model for how to try to convert someone to your belief system while Jrod has steadfastly shown everyone exactly what not to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 13:27
|
|