Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›5 »

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

That cryonics article is....sad and infuriating. I remember back in the old days of the Rotten Encyclopedia, where their cryonics piece was a funny jab at the morons and cheats, while still making plenty of sense.

This is just harrowing. Unethical failed ubermensch playin upon the fear of death of the spergy Silicon Valley tycoons, and catching poorer, deluded people in the crossfire.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2016 02:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 1, 2024 18:49

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

When we are talking about people who literally and unironically believe that telling two homeless people to fight each other for 25 cents is 1) charity and 2)completely moral and justified as no one was coerced, you have to expect a few sadists and eliminationists to start openly masturbating at the prospect of suffering at some point.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2016 08:07

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Twerkteam Pizza posted:

Roughly 39 hours ago I picked up the engagement ring that I picked out for ~my girlfriend~. Now I'm thinking this is a much smaller milestone than I once believed.

On a side-note, my girlfriend is like 3 times hotter than me and AT LEAST a bit smarter than I am, so I have no loving idea why she loves me.

Irrationality for the win. Rand it wrong yet again!

Also, congratulations!

# ¿ Mar 31, 2016 12:53

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

This reminds me of some recent apologists for colonialism (Niall Fergusson? Possibly some other jerks as well. It was trendy among a hawkish subsect in the late oughts) claiming that India had nothing to complain about because it was more populous when the british left than when they arrived.

It's wrong and outright evil in several ways (it distorts data over a long period of occupation/rule, disregards the appearance of modern germ theory and antibiotics during that time, etc), but also hypocritical to a level that...wow. No one sane would say that the USSR was good for Ukraine because it had more people in 1990, when the soviets left, than when they irst swallowed the country.

Cingulate, you are also very much ignoring/glossing over the fact that private actors can and do define 'acceptable' roles and places (geographical placas, too) for other groups, and are quite willing to employ violence and wipe them out if they stray from that convenient niche. Ask the Boers or native brazilians about how non-totalitarian systems cared for their well-being and rights, once someone more powerful needed to expand their turf.

One could even call it a special evil because it will claim that the downtrodden and the oppressed are a self-selecting group, and thus the favored caste/race is fully justified in grinding their boots on their faces. The killers don't even need to lose sleep over it, since the corpses were just headed for the grave anyway. Let's bring up an example of someone of no consequence or importance in our current model...

"Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should." Alan Greenspan, in a sloppy blowjob to Ayn Rand.

So basically, radical ethnically-minded autocracy (nazis) will methodically wipe out their pet hatreds. Modern capitalist/libertarian actors will disenfranchise them, banish them off coveted land/resources, allocate as little support as possible to them, excuse casual violence against them, shrug when that model causes them to die by the hundreds of thousands, and shoot them if they get uppity. There's your shiny trophy for that shelf of yours, I guess.

P.S- also, kinda cute that you minimize the Irish famine body count of 'only' a million dead because so many left. They left because the one fortune the country had was being close to a major sea trade lane. Those who could flee did so, or they'd also have died. "See guys, my gulag is not so bad, it's located next to a river that lots of prisoners used to escape!"

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 16:42

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Cingulate posted:

What point exactly do you perceive me as making? Because you indeed seem to be arguing against essentially Niall Fergusson's Empire, rather than what I was going for.

Your assertion that a libertarian country/system would be better than any existing one, based on the dubious argument that it would not be quite as awful as balls-out Nazi rule. If that is what you are trying to get across, that is. It's a bit hard to tell, and people have a proud history of contrarianism in this forum, with results good and bad.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 17:05

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Cingulate posted:

But now I really want to know, what of what I posted did you read as actually indicating I would consider a libertarian order better than what we have right now?

"A society fundamentally inspired by any branch of Libertarianism is untested. I don't, however, think we have realistic cause to believe they'd approach the limits of the horrors of of what we've seen in the past. "

I did get things mixed up, and I apologize. I read that you were comparing this potential libertarian regime to the current paradigm instead of regime 60-100 years past. In my defense, my molar is a knot of red-hot barbed wire in my mouth right now, and I am facing the fun choice of visiting the dentist OR buying my course study books for the semester.

That said, your assertion that a libertarian-informed society would not do is also very much unsupported. Instead, there is no reason to believe that they would not pursue policies of persecution, societal callousness and division, and oppression, given how they support such ideals even in our current system, and excuse even the worst instances of those in the past (when done by capitalist factions, of course). It's not even just Hans Herman Hoppe and bloodthirsty reddit racists. Even the newfangled cryonics loons of the app economy will go on at length about how we dirty untermensch just need to die out and stop cramping their search for eternal life after a good freezing.

For all of the alleged hatred the libertarian IT crowd has for nazism, they sure borrow a lot from the worst aspects of Futurism.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 17:45

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

GunnerJ posted:

An alternate possible conclusion is that libertarians need to stop trying to hide or obfuscate the racist implications of their ideas and make them central.

This is disturbing, and possibly right. Doing the Atwater two-step may serve you if you are already a big established political force needing to deal with a shifting cultural/political landscape, but when you are growing your brand, so to speak, hemming and hawing won't really help.

People who are not down with the racist content will see through it and feel disgusted. People who are all about the racial 'realism' and consider coddling minorities the big problem with society will want it out and proud in your campaign and will equate you with the mealy-mouthed liberals and bureaucrats if you don't grab a megaphone. People who don't really have a strong opinion on the issue will 1-)Eventually see through the act and feel fooled and angry or 2-)Get confused when accused of supporting racist policies and turned off regarding politics in general or possibly 3-) Get mad at being called racist over stuff they don't think is racist and make the full leap into overt racism, making the cover moot.

Not saying we'd see it reach 30+% of the people go for it, but it might reach a full 10-15% of the people and become more than a billionaire hobby party.

((Also, scheduled dentist for tomorrow. It'll be a white bread and baloney month, but...yeah.))

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 21:29

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Yeah, that's some morality alright.

"Now, I could just let this baby starve on my lawn as is only just and right, but I'd possibly be aggressing against Hoppe's Child Labor Emporium demand for tiny oilers for steel-folding machines. Guess I'll give it a ride to the workhouse out of the goodness of my heart...wonder if that qualifies me as a charity, in fact!"

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 00:00

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Cingulate posted:

I'm not good on US history, but wasn't the New Deal basically the only sensible response to the Great Depression?

....alright, now I'm stumped.

Pretty much every single libertarian author (really; there's no controversy on this issue) consider the New Deal toxic, and many claim that it CAUSED the Depression. Many more claim it extended the crisis and was worse than doing nothing and just allowing the Free Market to fix itself, which the big bad government prevented.

What is your exposure to current libertarian figures, if I might ask?

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 01:36

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Cingulate posted:

It seems to me you are still somehow assuming I must be defending libertarianism as a viable policy. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're saying.

Not at all. But I must ask myself (and you) what your understanding of libertarianism is and what/who informs it, or we have no basis for any real discussion and are just talking in circles into the ether.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 03:27

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

fade5 posted:

Or let's just skip to the second part, what happens when they point their guns at you and steal all your poo poo just because they can?

Let's not be absurd. That would violate the NAP!

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 17:40

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Cingulate posted:

I am absolutely clueless

Clearest, most concise and accurate thing you'd posted so far. And even then I had to trim it down to essentials.

You've been alternating between "I'm just a neutral seeker of wisdom, recognizing valid points wherever they may rise" while contributing nothing, and just dropping out assertions backed by nothing ("Real world libertarianism would be that bad, it's not like we have examples of private institutional cruelty like the Belgian Congo or sharecroppers or company downs to derive from! At its worst, it would be comedically wacky!")

So yeah, I'm done. Have fun playing your 'eel swimming through a tub of KY' game.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 20:13

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

YF19pilot posted:

This is going more into the weeds, and I've heard both arguments of "deregulation led to 2008" and "government incentivizing risky practices led to 2008". I'll admit that conflicting messages and not having researched it much myself, I don't know the actual answer, except to say perhaps a combination of the two. But, having worked at a small bank myself in the wake of all this, I would put the blame more on the banks themselves for looking at the incentives as easy money, and a lack of oversight or critical thinking to make sure they were lending responsibly rather than just chasing the almighty dollar sign. I also feel that without the incentives, one of two things would've happened; either 2008 would still have happened, or those people whose homes were foreclosed would've been screwed some other way. Because nothing says capitalism like making a quick buck off of loving over poor minorities.

The whole 'government incentivized bad practices' gambit is also monstrously dishonest, and often veiled racism. The biggest thing the government did that gets brought up was making redlining illegal. What i redlining? Basically, rejecting loans a priori based only on the person's place of residence. Live in a crappy neighborhood? You're obviously a bad person and you get no loan. It was a great way to stagnate whole segments of society.

Had that been an actual thing, the crisis would have happened two years after the reform, not twenty.

I refer the thread to the amazing 2008 'debate' between Matt Taibbi and Byron York, where that line of bunk should have been buried. It's hard not to bold everything that comes out of York's mouth.

quote:

B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.

B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.

M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.

Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?

B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?

M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.

I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?

B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?

M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.

Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis � in the middle of a live chat interview.

B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.

M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.

B.Y.: It's National Review.

I also love that Taibbi gets York's publication name wrong at the end, but he still corrects it. In his place, I might have let people look for my lovely econ writing in the wrong place.

Full thing here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/10/matt_taibbi_and_byron_york_but.html

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 16:45

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

David French, National Review's resident scold and frth-spitter, has been broken by the Ascension of God-Emperor Trump upon the defeat of the Ted Cruz Heresy.

Broken libertarian.

quote:

Now is an ideal time for the Libertarian Party to get its act together and nominate a truly serious candidate � a person who may not meet the party�s typical purity tests but who can at least make a serious argument and advance a range of policies that unite both conservatives and libertarians.

Reminder French opposes Griswold V. Connecticut. Yes, a loon that rails against available contraception now suddenly embrace freedom!

# ¿ May 4, 2016 21:32

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Eminently necessary rear end in a top hat Mark Ames did a piece on Gary some time ago.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle/

quote:

According to documents filed with the state of Utah, the person responsible for filing the paperwork to register Gary Johnson�s "Our America Initiative" is Maureen Otis, a Texas attorney with deep roots in the far-right Minutemen movement, and with Republican Party voter-suppression dirty tricks. Otis�s Texas law office is listed as the mailing address for Johnson�s "Our America Initiative."

Maureen Otis has a long history with far-right anti-immigration vigilante groups. Just a few years ago, Otis served as board secretary for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which the Southern Poverty Law Center described as a "nativist extremist" group that "targets individual immigrants rather than immigration policies." That Minuteman outfit collapsed after donation funds went missing, much of it paid to Maureen Otis�s own private company, "American Caging," a company that specializes in "caging as the name implies.

TL;DR: Johnson is neck-deep into dirty tricks, prison privatization, tough-on-crime '3 strike and you're out' policies, Kock and Wackenhut money

# ¿ May 23, 2016 23:38

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Caros posted:

So why am I drinking tonight?

I know its only loosely related to libertarianism, but Jesus loving Christ on the cross. They ran a goddamned program called 'Hussle' and they can't be convicted of goddamned fraud because their lawyers are high priced enough. How on earth does anyone think a private court system would be better when even a public court system can be bought is loving beyond me.

Isn't this a consequence of the general post-2008 mindset of 'extract fines, but never send anyone to jail or close companies, because jobs'?

# ¿ May 24, 2016 15:18

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Sometimes dreams do come true!

The catholic in me feels that the shitstorm in my native Brazil is somehow retribution for how much I enjoyed the Trump debacle. But now my original fix of political amusement returns from the grave, like Jesus did to show his apostles the nail marks on his palms, before loving off to Libertopia (Chilean or Eastern European branch, depending on the bitcoin exchange rate).

No chargebacks, Jrod. I thought ibertarians considered that a feature. I've been banned for writing about Democratic party issues in the USpol thread; it wasn't a Hillary Vs. Bernie post per se, but it fed into the shitstorm that leaks there every few days, so out to pasture I was. Plenty of other berniacs and HillPeeps also got stomped in the same batch, so it was fair.

Also, as a med student, I consider it both hilarious and monstrous how broken your mindset is.

"That guy sold me sugar pills saying they were cancer medication! I want a refund and compensation!"

"Sorry, fellow entrepreneur-to-be! He never openly disclaimed it -wasn't- sugar, or actually low-grade fructose. And it's not been proven that fructose does NOT treat cancer. Inform yourself better next time."

----

"I got banned from a comedy forum that is proudly infamous of banning people for subjective reasons, after deliberately laving the place there made just for me where I routinely indulged for years in behavior that would have gotten be kicked out in any other thread!"

"My sweet lamb of light, this aggression shall not stand. Even joining forces with anathema, vile institutions such as Big Government Regulations and Consumer Protections is acceptable to defend your holy tenner. It is needed for its natural purpose, of course: funding some Dark Enlightenment kickstarter somewhere!"

# ¿ May 25, 2016 15:56

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Our Jrod was too good for this sinful, state-lousy world. He ascends into Galt's Gulch while we remain in the socialist boneyard to watch moochers ruin everything.

Even in his parting, he leaves us gifts.

"Trump is a crazy loser! now, this John McAffee guy, he's my first pick!"

Oh, that my tears were diamonds, that I could properly weep in awe rich enough for this post! NAP Avatar who flees his stateless rape bathsalt compound to come back under the sheltering wing of US socialism, just the guy to usher in the libertarian vision. Correct in so many ways, it's like an onion of layered, golden truths.

"I am a very busy entrepreneur, which is why I was away fueling the furnaces of industry and human enterprise. Now -behold- as I fail at committing petty internet fraud."

They should have sent a poet.

# ¿ May 27, 2016 00:34

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

We had some times, we did. Guess it's back to lurking the Bitcoin thread in YOSPOS, but it's just not the same.

# ¿ May 28, 2016 01:16

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

ToxicSlurpee posted:

To be fair though, goons are jerks.

...with hearts of gold? Intrinsically-valuable, non-fiat gold? :ohdear:

# ¿ Jun 3, 2016 19:18

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

OwlFancier posted:

Oh I can field this one. Capitalism is not something you can realistically opt out of and participation in it does not constitute meaningful support for it.

Yes to redistribute you have to take from somewhere, the sensible place to take from is the concentrations of wealth, not other workers.

To be fair, xwing is the first libertarian I see that acknowledges the very marxist concept of surplus value as being worker exploitation with the savings aimed firmly upwards. The fun thing is that he thinks it's awesome.

I've seen ancaps and libertarians say that wealth comes from innovations, accessing new markets, greater efficiency and all, but he just out and said that paying more people less is where profits are. There's a crooked purity to that.

Now, why he thinks that would stop at his level (or at any level that is not bag capital owners) is decidedly up in the air.

I also liked that he implied that immigrant halfbreeds will even have a competitive advantage as bilingual overseers over more recent chattel! See, everyone wins.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2016 22:23

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Literally The Worst posted:

yeah sorry that was the point i was tryin to get across, that for a libertarian "well i'd prefer the state do it" is like, the most nonsensical poo poo ever making it SUPER OBVIOUS you're just backpedaling like a mother

Isn't this a contradiction, though? "The state shouldn't fund Planned Parenthood because abortion is icky and I shouldn't pay for it....but the state should just take over their functions and thus make everyone pay for them!"

I mean, I'm all for that, I just don't see how one would arrive at it from that particular mindset.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 03:52

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

xwing posted:

Same with the whole ACA deal... rather than gently caress with third parties it probably would have been cleaner to have a single payer system.

Ahh. That's better and clarifies a lot. I can understand wanting to do away with complicated, possibly defective compromises/hybrids and just having things be defined straight and simple, even if it's something I don't care for (sometimes especially then)

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 05:08

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

RuanGacho posted:

I know it's not really going to register with anyone else but it really is no surprise that the guy who works in construction doesn't like building codes.

I'm sorry we won't let you let people in wheel chairs literally get trapped in bathrooms or cause litteral deathtraps you irresponsible fucker.

Sorry to be rude but that's really god drat unconscionable.

Why do you people always come to the permit desk like its some sort of crime against you to require you to take basic steps to prevent harm to others?

Go ahead, tell the class what building codes are so BURDENSOME, fucker.

This reminds me of the Penn&Teller Bullshit! show, which was usually rather good, but every now and then let the mask slip (as was their right) and resulted in some lemons. A full episode was dedicated to...handicapped ramps and doors. Including an interview of a handicapped guy who was against such things because people need to be challenged to improve, and a hilarious scene of him in front of a bathroom glaring at the easy-access doorknob, shaking his head gravely at the sheer injustice that he could open that door if he chose to.

And then another episode about how cheerleader should get their activities covered with state health benefits, because they are CUTE!

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 21:00

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Good news, everyone!

Guess which bazillionaire will be attending Hans Herman Hoppe's aryan drum circle come September?

quote:

PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, in the news recently for his role financing the Hulk Hogan lawsuit against Gawker, is scheduled to travel to Bodrum, Turkey, in September to address the annual meeting of the ultra-libertarian Property and Freedom Society.

Founded in 2006 by libertarian academic Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the Property and Freedom Society is dedicated to what it calls �uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association�which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against�anyone in one�s personal and business relations�and unconditional free trade,� according to its website. But beyond the libertarian academics, economists, and business leaders from across Europe and the U.S. who attend and speak at its conferences, the Property and Freedom Society has welcomed white nationalists, including several of the most prominent white nationalists in America.

Whole thing at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...rty-and-freedom

Tweets about it are a collection of MRA/gamergate/Dark enlightenment bile, so I guess they are not just the GOPs future.

Also, I have to snort at the site they picked for their powwow. When I think Turkey, freedom is definitely the first thing that comes to mind, not oppression of minorities, security crackdowns, and whitewashed genocide!

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 16:27

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Caros posted:

https://youtu.be/3zHRQn_IShw

The title on this one is sort of awkward, but I'm going to admit that I laughed way harder than I should have at the progression between calm, collected (as much as they can be) citizen and shrieking demon.

The title kinda baffles me. Woman screaming and being obnoxious? Of COURSE she must be a feminazi! Never mind that nothing in the video implied feminism.

But yeah, it's a good example of how some people really believe that it's a kind of magic that keeps authorities at bay and if you invoke the NAP or some bizarrely misconstrued legal hijinks, cops and feds will just shake their fist at you and leave like Cobra Commander. "Next time, Freeman! "

Also, being a latin american, it amuses me how confident white Freemen are to affirm "I'm NOT a citizen of the US!". Just once, I'd love to see a cop call the immigration on them to see how fast they change their tune.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 21:30

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Even if you just stick to restaurants, abolishing the CRA is absurd. Expand it to other services, and it becomes a nightmare.

Car broke down during a trip? Hope the closest mechanic doesn't hate your ethnicity/religion, or you're really hosed.

Car crashed? Hey buddy, I didn't spend 8 years in medical school to treat your mongrel kind. Go bleed somewhere else, and if the longer trip kills you, too bad so sad.

We're sorry ma'am, we'd love to have you stay at our fine motel during your trip but your husband is an undesirable. Spend a few more hours driving to a pricier place.

For people who claim to love capitalism so much, libertarians sure ignore the awesome stabilizing effect of "can you pay for this legal service? Then you're entitled to receive it without fuss". But apparently their ideal setting is Serbia just before the blood began to flow in the 90's; a community rigidly divided and always one bad scuffle away from a lynching.

But at least no one spits in anyone's food there.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2016 14:19

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Fun little anecdote:

Part of my med course is a bioethics class, taught by one of the country's foremost surgeons who specializes in 0-3 year olds. It's easily one of my favorite classes, as it's nice to learn stuff regarding the actual human side of patient care. It's a break from all the chemistry/minutiae/memorizing hundreds of nerves, their paths, apparent and real origins, etc.

Today we were discussing the two main ethical movements that inform patient rights in our age: Deontology and Consequentialism*. One is predicated upon building a set of strong, logical rules and abiding by them, the other by focusing on positive outcomes for the greatest number of people with the best use of resources.

I asked if Deontology had anything to do with Praxeology, as it seemed to also be predicated on assembling a chain of self-reinforcing premises. The teacher said he'd heard of the term, but wasn't familiar, and that he'd check it during the coffee break.

After the break, once he'd finished the content, he actually brought it up and started reading praxeology definitions, chuckling to himself. The other students were half laughing, half puzzled. We discussed it for a bit and people were mostly flabbergasted it could even be a thing. So yeah, it added comedy to a long class.

*: One of the most famous clashes between both principles happened in the bad Ebola outbreaks on the 1990s. The doctors in Zaire were getting desperate as the number of cases balooned and nothing seemed to work; they were just pumping meds into future corpses and barely slowing the course of each infection. In a desperate gambit, a group of local doctors and researchers filtered a serum from the blood of one of the few patients who managed to ride out the infection and just injected it into a whole wing of patients. No trials or controls or retroviral watch; borderline mad scientist stuff. The vast majority of the patients inoculated actually recovered, so the local docs were overjoyed. The international doctors that were providing support, on the other hand, were aghast, and slammed the locals for risking creating a new strain, for engaging in human experimentation, etc. So what is the right course? Follow the rules even when the outcomes are being terrible, or try risky, even unethical stuff because the predicted outcome is so grim? How bad does it have to get before you throw the established rules out?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 23:55

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Holy poo poo, that forum where Jrod is now peddling his worldview...that is certainly a thing. It was actually a bit nice to see Jrod aiming for non-vile points for a change, but his obstinate style and preachy nature are untouched.

It was also odd to see him ignoring several elephants in the room in dealing with the crazies there. Here, we certainly didn't skimp on calling people 'statists', 'aggressors' and such. Over there, no one was racist or a bigot or a supporter of genocide, even when they were pretty much calling out loud for such things.

In other, sadder personal libertarian news, another of my friends is going full libertarian. Small business owner who was sent Milton Friedman videos and now believes he is the wisest person ever and that only the lack of freedom and support for parasites kept him from being Mark Zuckerberg.

And of course, his way of expressing his new beliefs is to call for a ban on accepting all refugees, because "If we make it easy for them to just leave their messed-up countries, those places will never improve."

# ¿ Jun 23, 2016 21:30

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

It's been really sad watching the libertarians who backed Trump on the premise of "He's going to end the warmongering state and the crony capitalism in DC!" struggle with the reality that they have been history's easiest dupes.

And by sad, I mean hilarious.

Case in point: Justin Raimondo.A long-time antiwar activist and libertarian to the core (and not of the Ayn Rand variety, either!), he was pathetically enthused about Trump for...reasons. I don't think even Ron Paul got Raimondo giddier than The Donald. I guess it's the entrepreneur vibe. It _does things_ to libertarians.

He's been going full "russian peasant in 1916" now, too:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/08/08/privatize-afghan-war/

"Our Tsar is so just and fair, he must simply have not heard of our plight! 'Tis the fault of his evil councilors, whispering lies into his ears, and pushing virtuous minister Bannon to the sidelines, we would he living in libertarian peace and free-market plenty now!"

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 18:34

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Ugh, don't even remind me. Libertarian-funded "grassroots movements" played a part in making the BBB ("Bullets, Bulls and Bibles") political bloc in Brazil impeach the last president (There was a crisis going on, but others got away with worse without incident) and then basically stall an endless number of corruption probes, skyrocket the deficit so they have excuses to privatize everything, and are now plotting to change the political system to a parliamentarian one so the next president won't have the power to undo their poo poo.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2017 06:54

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Lightning Lord posted:

Lol possibily the only case I've heard of where a parliamentary system means less democracy

Very much the case, in Brazil, where Congress is serially passing measures that 95% of the people oppose under the cover of a backstabbing vice-president. And if they switch systems, the same congress gets to pick the prime minister, and flip a royal bird to the people and the decorative president they voted for.

Our former Congress Majority Leader was investigated for about a dozen corruption cases running into the hundreds of millions in illegal cash, and yet was mysteriously never indicted until after he sped the impeachment along. Under a parliamentarian system, he'd likely have been the Prime Minister himself, given the power of his chitty feudal bloc..

# ¿ Sep 1, 2017 07:04

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Third World update.

Movimento Brasil Livre (Free Brasil Movement) is a hip new libertarian outfit that rose to fame recently, after having an outsized influence in stoking popular unrest that resulted in the ouster of Brazil's labour president Dilma Roussef. At the time, their flags were the fight against corruption, nonpartisanship and freedom of speech.

Currently, they have been on the news after protesting private art expos because they were showing 'indecent' content, namely gay-themed artwork, and getting them to close down, while also pushing Pizzagate-level fare about how communist indoctrination forces kids to grope each other in class to show that everyone is equal. Many of their leaders joined conservative parties and got elected to office, where they now support several of the most hideously corrupt figureheads in the country.

And of course, pointing any of that out is sen a 'censorship', unlike, say, shutting down private art galleries.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 22:19

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

MBL is basically a victim of its own success. Brazil has erased its Labour politics so fiercely over the last few years that they have pretty much ran out of visible boogeymen, so they are having to improvise. Heading into schools to bully teachers for 'indoctrinating' children, posting memes about minor artists and congresspeople no one really knows.

That is, when they are not scrubbing their twitter feeds with Stalinist zeal to remove pictures of themselves hugging the protagonist of most recent political scandal.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 03:54

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

The closest I've seen to a libertarian society working out was that sweet, sweet time in Fallout 2 when I chanced upon the mafia and the yakuza duking it out near New Reno and basically killed themselves mutually leaving me to loot their corpses for many fine, expensive sniper rifles and katanas and basically making me filthy rich for the rest of the game.

Excuse me, I...have something in my eye.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 00:11

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

No, obviously.

Look at how much they bitched about liberal censorship when Google used its God-given property rights to fire a guy who wrote a "women can't be engineers because " memo.

Megan McArdle getting antsy about private employers having the freedom to fire innocent, brave neonazis for their beliefs was actually stunning. There is no bar low enough that libertarians cannot slither under it.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2017 02:20

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

RealTalk posted:

No libertarian who has ever lived has actually done as much evil as Hillary Clinton has.

Right up until 1917, no communist had ever lived that had done a fraction of the evil as the Catholic church. Or killed as much as the East India company.

Which is why it's immensely vital that we keep you and yours as far away from all levers of power as possible.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2018 18:31

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

reignonyourparade posted:

A LOT of people have noticed a Libertarian -> Alt-right tendency, so while he isn't necessarily typical of those who are STILL libertarian, it's absolutely typical of libertarians to become the sort of person who loves Misogynist Kermit.

My one libertarian friend (a woman to buck the trend, though she likes stuff like single payer so she's an outlier) told me that nearly all of her libertarian acquantainces have gone HARD into the JordyPete/Alt-Right train. It shook her really bad, because she despises Peterson and was insulted to her face when she brought up Charleston as a bad thing to her former pals.

She seemed so sad I even skipped on the chance to tease her by saying she just hated free spech (something she tossed at me before in our conversation, mostly in jest). Being an atheist that watched the community take a similar turn. I can't help but relate.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2018 02:59

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

OwlFancier posted:

How do you be a libertarian and also like collectivized healthcare?

By actually having a life, I guess. She's big on stuff like guns, taxes and regulations, but she's come a looong way in the time I met her. Her family comes from Ukraine, so they've seen some really nasty poo poo in soviet times that definitely left her pre-disposed toward hating the left. That said:

-Being sexually harrassed by her boss made her admit readily about how power imbalances in the workplace and the economy are a real and important thing.
-Working as a nurse gives her a front-row seat to the shitshow that is US healthcare. Once she told me that she had broken down crying at work because an really sick old man tried to crawl out of the hospital twice in one night because his insurance had run out and he didn't want to ruin his family.
-She actually makes an effort to read an understand stuff. We talked a lot about my country (Brazil) when it was doing well under a labour-friendly government, and to her credit she didn't just ignore it when something that went against her beliefs seemed to be working.

That said, I think there is a subgroup of libertarians that are fine with public healthcare under the "Give everyone a level playing field, then step back" rationale. I think even Hayek thought along those lines.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2018 03:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Jun 1, 2024 18:49

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Polygynous posted:

To be fair to libertarians (lol) some of them apparently do care about criminal justice reform etc. Even beyond "people shouldn't be in jail for weed". They just seem to think taxes are the bigger injustice. And end up voting for Gary Johnson.

Yeah. I've seen some rather good posts by Radley Balko on police abuses and such, and there may be others.

But when the rubber meets the road, such concerns are always window dressing. What really gets the cheers and votes are tax cuts, deregulation, pot and 'free speech'.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2018 18:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›5 »