|
Who What Now posted:And enforce it how? Who cares if it's illegal if there is no force more powerful that can impose the rule of law? Depends upon what he means by "anarchism", but most anarchist societies operated like a ground-up, nonhierarchical directly democratic government. If one small group decided the rules didn't apply to them the rest would respond in an organized way very much as a state would using their equivalent of police or militia. Anarchists draw some kind of distinction between State and Government, retaining the latter in all but name, but I'll let Tias give his own opinion.
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Maybe. If they feel like it and/or are getting compensated (probably monetarily) and/or something something self-interests. That's anarchocapitalism, I was talking about left-anarchism. If you did have some kind of large-scale coordination between communities for economic, environmental and social decision making then one community would not be allowed to let everyone else die from a Russian invasion due to their inaction. But if it's a really small community or group of conscientious objectors that won't have much effect on the outcome it might be allowed. It goes without saying that NAP is not something left anarchists care about.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Eric Dondero and the Ayn Rand Institute are very pro-war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm starting a DRO which has a policy of never, ever agreeing to find our clients guilty. To do otherwise would be a breach of our duty to our customers. You could try that, but who would do business with you? Presumably contracts or terms of service in an AnCap society would specify which DRO would be used. If a company uses a well-known DRO with a reputation for impartiality, people will be more likely to work with them. That DRO has an interest in being fair and impartial, because they want to be used by everyone. If you use a DRO with a strong bias toward its own clients, others will be hesitant to interact with you because they know they can be cheated. In effect, you'd be boycotted (or sanctioned) for using an untrustworthy DRO.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:However as a DRO customer, wouldn't my rational self-interest be to choose the DRO that rules/acts in my favor as often as possible? As a DRO customer in a vacuum, yes. As a human being who has a rational self interest in being able to buy and sell things, no.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:How do libertarian DROs and so forth deal with intellectual property rights? If a man steals revolutionary self-pedaling bicycles from my factory, the theft is obvious. If a woman photographs the design specs for those bikes and begins duplicating them... well, nothing that I mixed my labor with is being taken from me. What are their rules for the Marketplace of Ideas™? Many libertarians don't believe in intellectual property at all, especially bitcoiners and crypto-anarchist types, but for others it's all they care about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The gilded age was so terrible that people reacted by rising up and creating the big government New Deal society; they saw what free market praxeology had brought upon them and ran screaming in the other direction. You could say the same for former socialist states, even social democracies in Europe are privatizing services.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Libertarians and Anarcho Capitalists, how do you imagine your society coming into being? It seems clear that the evil central bankers and dictators don't want your society, and will do what they can to crush it or stop it from happening, so I wonder if you acknowledge that you could only accomplish your goals with a revolution. In that case, I'd like to know who the base of support is... will you get the working and middle classes on board, or just rich people? And how will you convince the hundreds of millions of moochers and takers to join your cause?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Why do they think Libertarianism would fill the vacuum, instead of militant socialism or some other force? I guess warlordism in destabilized African countries is close enough, and they all love Somalia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They both appeal to middle class first worlders. That's a new one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so the actual current support base for socialism/leftism is what? And don't answer by telling me it's the people you think would benefit from socialism. That's not necessarily the current base. A Pew survey published in 2011 found that people with incomes under $30k were more likely to have a positive view of "socialism" and a negative view of "capitalism" (as they understood the terms). Black and young people responded in the same way, and people with incomes over $75k were less than half as likely to favor socialism over Captalism. So basically what you'd expect. If you want to see a microcosm of this, look at the neighborhoods and ZIP codes where Sawant's votes came from: "Conlin, considered the establishment candidate, handily won nearly all the well-heeled waterfront neighborhoods, while the socialist Sawant ran strong in Seattle’s less-wealthy interior." There were exceptions, but overall poor people and minorities chose the socialist candidate. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:http://blogs.seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2013/12/12/who-voted-for-socialist-sawant-income-map-has-some-surprises/ I already said the correlation wasn't perfect, but (as the article said, this is where I quoted it from) "Conlin, ... handily won nearly all the well-heeled waterfront neighborhoods, while the socialist Sawant ran strong in Seattle’s less-wealthy interior." In general, poorer people voted for Sawant and richer people voted for Conlin. Being poor makes you more likely (but not guaranteed!) to support Socialism, and being rich makes you less likely (but not guaranteed!) to oppose Socialism. People vote for candidates for many reasoIf somebody says "white men are richer than black women" you can't disprove it by pointing to Oprah and Beyonce.  Filtering out older white people from this chart (who grew up with racism, Reagan and McCarthyism) would make this correlation even more pronounced, but even here you can see that the poorer you are, the less likely you are to support capitalism and the more likely you are to support Socialism. So that handily disproves any suggestion that the white Middle Class is, has been or will be the primary support base for socialism. 
OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
So what is the support like for removing the minimum wage by income level? I know what it is for increasing it: "A majority of voters at all income levels support raising the minimum wage. Support is highest among those making less than $75,000 a year (77% favor an increase)." Sounds like just another policy that elitist, middle-class snobs think is good for poor people. Keep dreaming, leftists, poor people will never support policies that materially benefit them, no matter how much you want them to  I do not know why ASDF32wanted to argue that leftist economic policies are more popular with the white Middle Class than with people of color and the poor. It seems like an odd thing to believe unless you just hate socialists and think they could never be right about anything, but it's also very easy to disprove. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, those upper brackets that go for socialism, why do they support it? Or to flip it, the lower brackets that went the other way, why did they do that? Who knows? Upbringing and religion can sometimes make a difference, someone may just dislike Conlin or like Sawant, or they could just have lots of (or very little) empathy. Propaganda also works, which is why people who grew up in the Cold War are less likely to support socialism than are kids who never lived under St. Reagan. But that doesn't change the fact that support for capitalism increases with wealth and being in the majority and support for socialism increases with poverty and being a person of color.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER The difference is that you can choose to be part of that DRO or another DRO, and can shop around for the DRO you like best. Harder to do with countries tied strictly to geographic territory and ethnicity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A big chunk of Americans think France is socialist. But that wasn't our discussion. I showed that they would be more likely to support socialism than would the Middle Class, which was your contention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Returning to Praxeology, how do you know that it isn't as good as scientific evidence? Empiricism also rests on a priori claims that humans can accurately experience reality. How do we know we're really observing anything without a priori arguments like the cogito? Scientism is quite circular.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
You can only use science to learn things. Who told you that, Science?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Science is based on much more than merely human experience QuarkJets posted:Also, are you claiming that an idea can be correct even if humans experience events that prove that idea to be incorrect? This is a pointless and self-defeating debate tactic What if the human experience of morality conflicts with the human experience of those events? At best you don't know which is true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, many times. When you read that study you experienced that study and experienced the words on the page.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Scepticism About IntuitionDavid Sosa posted:Because perception seems to be our only means to assess its own reliability, we appear to be caught in a kind of epistemic circle: how can we rationally trust a faculty whose trustworthiness can be known only in part through its own use? And so we face the philosophical threat of scepticism. But scepticism about our knowledge of the external physical world is not to be embraced: the threat is philosophical, even academic. Even when we are puzzled and philosophically threatened, we justly do not yield. When you say that praxeology is wrong, all you are saying is that observed evidence seems to disagree with intuitive evidence. When praxeologists say that observed evidence is wrong, all they are saying is that intuitive evidence seems to disagree with observed evidence. Which evidence you prefer is ultimately arbitrary and the matter cannot be settled. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
JRodefeld has disappeared so SOMEONE has to take his place, right? "Functionally, the illusion might as well be real. " Here you acknowledge that you lack absolute certainty (as we all do) that reality exists, but you choose to treat it as real because it gives you results you personally consider beneficial. Choosing to treat Libertarianism as true, despite our inability to truly KNOW whether it is true, likewise yields results that some people consider beneficial. In either case, we know that we don't know and have to make assumptions. At the end of the day, you can't say that I'm wrong and you're right, only that your subjective preferences are better served by empiricism than they are by moral intuition.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
"You make a guess based on what you know but you cannot intuit the exact number of apples in the barrel. If your intuition says "well the barrel SAYS apples and there is a layer of apples on top but I think it has 6 apples and then 10,000 crabs" then you're a loving idiot and your intuition is flawed." Have you seriously never heard of a crabapple? The arrogance of Statists never ceases to amaze.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Don't limit it only to Praxeology, because that's just one method you can use to arrive at the conclusion of Libertarianism. Ayn Rand, for example, started from first principles and used logic to conclude that man is a rational actor who should be free from force. Nozick did likewise. Why should we disagree with any of these arguments just because what we "observe" about the world contradicts them? Our observations can be flawed, as can intuition, so there's no reason to privilege either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Which drug are you on Colloidal silver, pure-strain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Get rich quick schemes are not how people amass wealth and power. How did the wealthiest country in the history of the world get where it is? By extinguishing one race and subjugating another. [citation needed] America got where it is now by allowing people to innovate and pursue their own dreams and ideas without too much interference. Want to start a search engine? Great, we won't get in your way. Want to found an electric car company? Go for it. Slavery held America back, because the practice of slavery artificially delayed automation and industrialization by making workers too cheap compared to what they would have been in a free society. We would be even wealthier if African Americans and Native Americans had not been held back by government and prevented from learning, achieving, creating and interacting with the marketplace as free men.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 01:00
|
|