tbp posted:

I think it's a folly to rush into a position, and while I admire socially focused policies I am extraordinarily wary of the socialism commonly endorsed in this subforum. I am unsure what the correct answer would be.

tbp posted:

Both libertarianism and socialism in their "pure" forms are untenable and unlikely to ever occur.

quote:

(my) rights come before (other people's) safety

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I rarely, if ever, pass an opportunity to post at least a relevant section from this classic, which you've now given me a opportunity so to do!

Captain_Maclaine posted:

In fairness, you should probably clarify that you wouldn't trust a Koch because they're duplicitous bastards out to line their own pockets and the hell with anyone/thing else, whereas you wouldn't trust Brandor not because of any such character flaw but rather that, despite any apparent similarities, he doesn't actually speak English.

Caros posted:

Seriously, what the gently caress. Or how about my favorite:


What is the difference between a 90 or an 80 on this scale? Apparently it is 'some delays' and the difference between minimal corruption and nearly non-existent corruption. How do you determine that difference? hosed if I know!

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Really? I thought they didn't actually complete the story in part III, and so were going to try for one more or something?

Crowsbeak posted:

Yeah because part 3 is the speech.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

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.

VitalSigns posted:

According to one of the links posted earlier, his foray into a conservative forum was during a hiatus from this thread.

I actually read most of it at the time, and I think jrodefeld got the better of a lot of the arguments there, but that's because most of the posters were like, "a ban on non-initiation of force?! But then how will we kill all Muslims before they all murder us as they inevitably will?!?!"

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

jrod-

Maybe instead of a giant wall of text containing lots of different arguments, you could post things separately. Like, start from a single axiom or very limited set of axioms, and we can engage with those. Once we've accepted them or at least understand what you're saying, then move to a specific argument about a specific aspect of policy or societal organization. We'll talk about that one thing and then move on to to others.

sudo rm -rf posted:

And also seeing that you seem to be responding to people about actual things that affect how people live instead of ideas, would you mind going back and explaining why the NHS has been a better vehicle for providing care and controlling costs than the US' system of healthcare? Because it is utterly at odds with your suggestion that the problems of the US healthcare market are centered in government involvement. How do you contend with the data and examples that contradict you?

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

You seriously expect praise when you happen to appropriate a position that isn't completely insane?

Disinterested posted:

(2) Child porn/rape is child abuse but could be legitimate and allowable if it was the only thing you could do to raise money to keep the child alive, because raping is better than death by starvation, and also allowable in the above case.

SedanChair posted:

You see, it all started at a cocktail party in 198X.

ElCondemn posted:

If they can feed and clothe themselves, balance their finances, and communicate effectively I would consider it a success. But even if we presume a nightmare scenario, they somehow never learned to read, write or do basic arithmetic, they never learned to bathe, are essentially feral and can only communicate through a series of grunts and gestures, I can't imagine they would be much worse off than than the other stupid kids in class.

Plastics posted:

People a\re finally realizing that government is not their friend in any capacity and all of it is about control one way or another. Black slaves were given food and shelter, that didn't make them free. Why is giving people today food and shelter a good thing instead of being transparently seen as the exertion of control that it really is? We may never know.

Plastics posted:

Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA!

quote:

Libertarian philosophy is very simple: There's no one better suited to look after your own interests than you. Therefore, if everyone looks out after their own interests, you've created a system where everyone has someone looking out for them. In addition, a libertarian system allows everyone the opportunity to succeed. Will everyone succeed? Of course not—but once again, that's not the libertarians' doing. That's just how the world works.

The weak will fail. That's what makes them the weak. Doing anything to help them is both prolonging the inevitable and risking failing alongside them. It's not personal to libertarians. They do what they need to do to succeed. If others can't do the same, well, then they deserve their fate. Others see this as libertarians being heartless, but they realize they're just being pragmatic.

There will always be those who suffer. Once again, this isn't the libertarians' doing. It's an inevitability of life.

paragon1 posted:

Was anyone else shocked that the poster wasn't HorseLord?

Mr Interweb posted:

Been an embarrassing week for the liberal media:

https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/1136585123900604416

Guavanaut posted:

Most places the bishop is some kind of cannon, officer, or battle elephant.


A rook (from Persian rukh) is a chariot, but lots of places call it a tower, in Eastern Europe the queen is a chancellor.

In summary it's a probably a poor system of governance and the game where men jump over each other in order to get topped and become dames sounds a lot more fun.

KozmoNaut posted:

Brevity is the soul of wit.

polymathy posted:

polymathy posted:

polymathy posted:

Guavanaut posted: