|
im gay posted:What is the libertarian answer to environmental issues such as climate change that require international responses? After enough time passes and everyone notices that something is up, we will voluntarily pool resources to try and stop it. That is usually the local but I don't see why it couldn't be applied nationally. I mean it is dumb either way, but no more than the original version. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 23, 2014 |
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:A libertarian-ish solution reliant on state power would probably be some kind of a universal carbon tax, the revenue from which would be returned to the general population via a no-strings-attached citizen's dividend. Make problem (carbon) more expensive but don't try and jury rig the market via industry or product subsidies, or heavy planning. A non-state solution would probably involve innovating our way out of it. That seems to be manipulating the market pretty heavily so I don't think many libertarians would support that.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well. This thread went places fast. You could go away or contribute more than your own personal circlejerk. I mean I don't think you will but theoretically you could. tbp posted:I'd hardly call any response I've ever received "ripped apart", and I think it speaks volumes that you would consider a discussion an arena wherein people need to be "ripped apart". Personally I don't agree, to be ripped apart you must have a position that is rooted enough to tear.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Have you been contributing to the thread? I don't recall you posting anything other than this. Yes, but even if I didn't it would matter, as I am not the one man circlejerk here.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Well we at least made it to page 2 before the one-line poo poo posting and personal attacks started in earnest. I consider that social progress. Well we where doomed to that since libertarians aren't really a thing here. We are stuck with lovely Devil's advocates.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
tbp posted:I didn't confuse it at all. You know just saying that doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. That doesn't address his argument. I think you are just being to hypersensitive to the anti gun thing so you are kind of missing the forest for the trees. Like why couldn't those parties engage in literal actual premeditated force? What is stopping them? If libertarians get their way? Its a very real very big problem libertarians have to deal with, how to completely remove coheresion since that is what they seem to hate, but for whatever reason governments are the ones that get the lion share of the blame when anyone could (and have) do those things themselves. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well if they did engage in force that would be different wouldn't it? Not really? Least not in any meaningful way. The potential always there and since its a really, really obvious problem you should probably address it first and not react to it happening, which seems to be what you are implying.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Well you are more than capable of actually posting why its wrong. Other than it offends your preconceived notions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I am more than 900 posts behind in JRod's new thread. Is it worth the slog? I mean, it's hilarious that he is basically advocating revolutionary socialism (the workers seizing the means of production and the destitute expropriating unused real-estate) as the only way out of the inhuman bind that the non-aggression* principle put him, but is there any punchline I should be looking forward to? NO SPOILERS! Nah he just stops posting and then a new guy comes in but he isn't as fun. I don't think that is a spoiler.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Well I mean its theoretically possible a business owner could just fund the research as a vanity project. I am not sure you want to rely on that for this kind of stuff though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:I would be really interested in finding out how common each of these reasons are among self-professed libertarians. Like, are most of them just misguided? Or are the majority really just selfish, poor-hating assholes? It is probably a good deal, as American society at this point heavily favors Just World theory and has been going that way for close to two decades. So its no coincidence that Libertarianism has also had a rise in membership recently.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:I think you mean to say me. Without the free market, how would you post this thread. Unless you don't like this thread, then stupid government regulations, causing bad threads!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You could say the same for former socialist states, even social democracies in Europe are privatizing services. Not really, at least not in the same way. I mean you forget to mention that the two endgames are for two completely seperate outcomes. The gilded age new deal transition was a battered business sector going into full on retreat, while the new shift is those same businesses recollecting themselves and attempting to reassert their complete dominance. One is the outcome of failure, while the other is actually the outcome of success, maybe to much of it. edit: This doesn't exactly apply to socialist countries, but they aren't actually really successful at the moment. Pre or post transition. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:And? You were making a berating comment for someone else having a low content post. I am now doing the same thing to you. The difference is that someone like SedanChair will usually contribute something to a discussion. You seem to exist solely to post about Chile or to pedantically poo poo up threads. You forgot the smug. At least J seems sincere, for all his problems I don't doubt that he is trying to honestly say his opinions. Water just seems like he is trying to troll D&D, but he is terrible at it. Sedan could school him something fierce.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh his answer to this is literally identical to how you would answer it. I don't think RC is a capitalist so I don't see how the answers would be identical. Or a social democrat? I guess the arguments would be similar for both, but you don't need revolutions for either. I am going to guess you are talking about socialism, but Libertarians tend to focus on the "freedom" their ideology brings, while Socialism focuses more on economic balance (that may be the word). Obviously those two arguments are going to appeal to wildly different groups. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They both appeal to middle class first worlders. That isn't really true, middle class persons are probably the greatest enemies of socialism. As they tend to have the most to lose should revolution arise, they tend to throw it under the bus at the first opportunity and thus a Social democrat was born. Though you missed my point, you can't just say "it will make everything better" that doesn't work, you have to give them a reason why it will be. Even if that reason is really vague, hence me using freedom and economic balance. Both have their appeals and both are vague. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
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. Edit: Though if you cleave out social issues then it changes demographically a bit. asdf32 posted:Have you not read this thread? It's filled with reasons why society is going to be a ton better for everyone if only we throw off the shackles of the state. No it doesn't make sense. But the people saying it believe those reasons. Of course they think its better, they just funnel everything through freedom. That is the why its better, sure it doesn't make any sense, but it is an answer. They don't say everything will be better just because, but because you will be more free. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I missed trolling Sedanchair.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Wouldn't be the first time, dudes still disagrees with the CIA on why the CIA supported the Coup against Allende.
CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Aw. I missed Water being weirdly smug without contributing at all? That is my favorite part of D&D. Water you do know that saying "stop being a circlejerk" without contributing anything is pointless right? I bet you do but that would get in the way of your smugness.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Did you watch the youtube video I linked to? Austrian economists use empiricism quite often in their research but they know where it is appropriate to use it and where it is inappropriate. It is a coincidence that the correct times to use empiricism is when it happens to back the Austrian position. I am sure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Stop posting articles at us and argues something. Anything really.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I assume you already know this but just in case: Jrod isn't here to argue; he's here to proselytize. I know and I will accept anything at this point. What is your favorite color? Who is the best character on Dragon Ball Z. Anything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
They aren't being judged by that, it is being used to show why the people tend to lean that way. It isn't hard to see why Libertarianism is more appealing to the privileged classes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This is the opposite of reality, you doofus. Russian food intake dropped dramatically following the Big Splat and introduction of a market economy, and even by the turn of the millennium they still lagged behind what they'd been at the formal disillusion of the USSR in 1992. Part of why things were even starting to get back to the baseline they'd been at was, in addition, because of several substantial foreign aid packages from Western governments, not natural market improvements. Well he also seems to be under the opinion that technology improving has no effect whatsoever and that government paying for something is the reason why medical bills or so high. Even though medicare (a fully government controlled medical practice) actually pays much, much lower prices than it's free market competitors. Because the government can legislate what they have to pay, instead of it being left up to the whims of the free market you see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:It is a simple biological truth that teenagers take more time off of work than the average adult because of their hormones, and so it only makes rational sense to pay them less you see. What if those teenagers are also black? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Pretty dumb and obviously useless conclusion. For whatever it's worth. The Libertarian Motto.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They really do think that. I would like to hear how that is true.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit: Sweet, a new AV. More It should be noted that despite being from SA, water doesn't know that much about Allende either. He also disagrees with the CIA in regards to what the CIA was doing there. Also to be fair he doesn't love Pinochet, he just hates Allende so much he would rather have Pinochet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 00:34
|
|
redistributed from the wallets of the global 1%.
|
I don't think you have any room to be smug right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing. So what you are saying is that the post about "Ideological detectors" was actually about your own posts? I am sorry that we misunderstood your point, carry on. Though you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
I am legit curious what your solution to that is. Cut them off welfare and then ?????????.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
I assume if someone on Mises knew who Caros was then you would have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
That is a good point, a lot of Libertarian rhetoric is rather inflammatory by design. So I don't think you have much of a high ground here. Is it better because it isn't vulgar?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Unseen posted:Stupid as in they're illogical or stupid as in you don't agree with them? Illogical and/or sociopathic are the trends.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
jrodefeld posted:This was expressly NOT what Tom advocated for or supports. And his participation came literally seven or eight years before he converted to libertarianism and dropped his previous conservatism. Even now, Tom frequently recants and apologizes for being a "stupid conservative" when he was young in the 90s. He was duped and mislead. He listened to Rush Limbaugh and supported George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton. jrodefeld posted:Then Caros made some claim that Ron Paul personally endorsed David Duke when he ran for Congress or he hangs out with former KKK Grand Wizards and all these discredited smears. None of it is true. It is slander and deception by people who attempt every trick conceivable to discredit Paul by circuitously linking every unsavory figure to him in the most outlandish ways. "See, this guy who hates Jews had his picture taken with Ron at some campaign event!" jrodefeld posted:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Just saying something doesn't have context doesn't make is so. It has plenty of it. People tend to ban/heavily regulate things that literally kill/or injure children. I don't think that is a slippery slope as you seem to think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You know what else kills children???? WATER. DO YOU BAN WATER YOU NANNY STATE ASSHOLES???? Soccer moms start suicide bombing rivers and lakes. So we invade Iran. WHERE WILL IT END?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
That isn't lacking context. We aren't comparing them to anything, as it is pointless. Literally The Worst posted:You know what else kills children???? WATER. DO YOU BAN WATER YOU NANNY STATE ASSHOLES???? Also US to declare war on Poseidon, FOR THE CHILDREN.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 18:26
|
|