|
Nessus posted:I believe they feel that the market will present a solution to such problems if we just get out of the way and cut back on regulations. If the earth can't defend itself then it's asking for it.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
I don't want to watch libertarians on video.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
tbp posted:Socialism similarly will not work in the real world but it's a more admirable goal I suppose. You mean like Medicare and Social Security?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
tbp posted:Yes Thennn what's unworkable about socialism? Because socialist programs tend to work pretty well with good administration.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
tbp posted:Read Tocqueville if you want a decent understand as to why too much centralization is a problem. No you loving tell me what you got out of Tocqueville, if you please.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Why is a centralized welfare state more problematic than a centralized defense state? What does the centralization of services have to do with the tyranny of the majority? Is centralization a unique property of socialism?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
tbp posted:It's not, accountability to the masses leads to it, and no. So you seem to have more of a beef with democracy than with socialism. What do you think is the best way to remove "accountability to the masses" from our system?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
tbp posted:This is not the case. You said that the unsustainability of socialism comes from "accountability to the masses." Elaborate please.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
tbp posted:"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Use your words. Quoting somebody else without comment reinforces my impression that you don't have any fully formed ideas of your own.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
tbp posted:Brevity doesn't indicate rhetoric, and from past experience saying any more than the necessary opens up very long and pedantic avenues. Brevity's great. But what you're doing isn't brevity, it's just fragments of an incoherent whole. The reason you get ripped apart when you elaborate is because you put incoherent ideas right next to each other in the same post instead of spreading them out.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
"Socialism doesn't work" is pretty much a Goldwater libertarian canard so this thread seems like a good place to challenge it.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Well I guess this could be easily resolved by tbp stating what he thinks socialism is, as he has apparently rejected everyone's attempts at an explanation. So what is socialism, tbp? "Some quote from Alexis de Tocqueville that I don't understand."
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think the relevant words were "Hey, can I be rendered immune to probation so I can see if I can top the ignored-list chart" I keep forgetting those very important words.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
tbp posted:Common control of production, robust redistribution of wealth, of course the core tenants of a decent life provided (healthcare, transportation, food, etc.) by a central organization, a planned economy, any many more but I'm sure you can see where I am going here. What makes any of that unsustainable or impractical?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"? e: I mean without the obligatory "property" reference I would basically agree with that guy.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:No, i'm not saying the ability to defend yourself is the threat of violence. I'm saying the open display of force is a threat of violence. To gently caress off, I suppose. But you didn't mention anything about open carry in your statement, just guns.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It becomes less about defense of their selves, and more about a show of force to deter anyone from messin' with em. That is different. That's a weird definition of "force." But I mean other than open carry (which is just impolite) and brandishing (which is illegal) what's wrong with showing that you're not worth messing with? I mean it's OK to lift weights and be strong, isn't it? In any case, regardless of where you fall on the issue of guns I don't see what this has to do with critiques of libertarianism.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
tbp posted:Hm, perhaps it would be better if I were more clear, apologies. When I wrote idealistic, I meant in sort of a wish-fulfillment way. In this sense, the libertarian would like a government-less society (for the most part) in order to have what he believes would be, simply, a better society for the people. I think these statements are not surreptitious for the most of them, and it comes from a genuine place however misguided. The naive error here lies with the method of achieving this, which is repealing all the hallmarks they perceive as threatening to this ideal (social safety nets always chief amongst them, which to be honest I would place down to rhetoric more than any meaningful examination) So wait, when I asked "like medicare and social security?" couldn't you have said "that's not the kind of socialism that's unrealistic or unsustainable, in fact we should fight for it"? I think we got off on this whole jag because you're not drawing a clear enough distinction between half-satirical lf-posting and social democracy. You sound like a big fan of social democratic reform, though an understandably dejected one.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Especially since he isn't really any good at arguing with them.Jastiger posted:Oh didn't see this post! I would say its still a bit different. Your underwear can't indiscriminately kill a bunch of people because you decide to flip out. There is also a reason that the appearance of the ability to harm others has an impact on the way situations are perceived. I think to ignore that is to ignore reality in favor of having guns all over the place. I would be more than content to avoid lovely retreaded anti-gun arguments in this thread but you are leaning on them pretty hard.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It isn't as simple as that, SedanChair. It isn't just anti gun for the sake of being anti gun. I'm pointing to what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the NAP when applying it to modern US Libertarians. These same Libertarians argue that monopolization of force by a state is inherently wrong because it uses force or the threat of force to enact policy or certain behavior. For example, we hear of folks saying "They could just send a drone over if they don't like X!!" 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. You've got to spend a little time disentangling your own arguments.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Well if they did engage in force that would be different wouldn't it? Leave the gun thing aside. The same thing would apply to hammerskins or whatever, marching in the street with truncheons. It's the behavior that is (possibly) coercive, not the weapons. The militias=coercion argument is actually a pretty good one (especially in light of Cliven Bundy and what he seems to think his rights are) but it needs to be made more cleanly.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I see in the time I started this and walked away for a few moments this has moved on a bit. I still think that having even a single weapon does indeed constituent "coercion" of some sort, otherwise there would be no point to open carry. Yeah, in my opinion it's gone over that line on several occasions. I wish I could find the photo right now of some tac'ed out beardlord standing in the bed of his truck with an AR at low ready, surveying some public gathering. This will have to do for now:  If I was one of the people in that line in the background, I would want to yell "get out of here with that stupid poo poo, filth" but would feel like I was risking my safety and that of those around me to do so. That's clearly coercion. It's also coercion when police do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The call to "privatize everything" isn't really entirely true though. Not-for-profit and social organizations are typically prominent role in libertarian theory. Some libertarians support public property, just not administered by the state. Part of the difficulty in discussing "commons" and "public resources" are that people often confuse "the people" with "the state". While some times the interests of the state lie with the "public", it's not inherently the case. And then you have the larger problem of whether you can even define "the people" or "the public" as an actual definable unified group that has any legitimate claims to assert political power. But if somebody other than the state administers public or once-public property, that's literally what privatization is. Unloading the duties of social services on community organizations, even if they were somehow capable of handling that load, is also privatization. e: from your link: quote:Far from providing a sphere of independence, a society in which all property is private thus renders the propertyless completely dependent on those who own property. This strikes me as a dangerous situation, given the human propensity to abuse power when power is available.  quote:It may be argued in response that a libertarian society will be so economically prosperous that those who own no land will easily acquire sufficient resources either to purchase land or to guarantee favorable treatment from existing land owners. This is true enough in the long run, if the society remains a genuinely libertarian one. But in the short run, while the landless are struggling to better their condition, the land owners might be able to exploit them in such a way as to turn the society into something other than a free nation. The fact that this guy is struggling to hold onto libertarian ideals after coming this far is either despicable or laughable, I can't decide. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:14 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Privatization is another one of those words with nebulous definitions. When you hear it in common usage it often refers to stuff like selling off state-controlled utilities to the highest bidder. That's not what they're talking about here. Oh you might be surprised. Now some of their most abstruse and marginalized theoreticians (like Long) might be in favor of some kind of devolution of public property to community property administered by a soviet (ha) or something, but be assured that as far as pro-business libertarians are concerned, a selloff is exactly what they want. Remember, these are the guys who praise the railroad barons.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:In defense of the railroad barons, they were also the guys who paid Plessys legal fees in Plessy vs. Ferguson, trying to make government enforced discrimination illegal. The railroads hated segregation because it cost them money, so they tried to make segregation illegal, and took it all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was totally OK. For all the wrong reasons. When segregation was profitable they promoted it.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:When was segregation profitable? Always? The prison-industrial complex is its most obvious current incarnation.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
La la la. Not a law, not segregation.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Yeah, the leap from railroad segregation in the 1890s to racism in modern sentencing is a bit of a leap. It would probably be best to just drop the bickering over comparisons. No, there will always be profit in providing services that exclude minorities.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I heard something on the radio yesterday explaining how a policies involving red lining made racism a rational response to incentives ( I think was on "Tell Me More"). If a neighborhood was deemed transitional, which it was if even a single African American family moved in, nobody (of any race) in the neighborhood could get a loan any more causing property values to precipitously drop. This created a large and very real incentive to prevent any African Americans from moving in neighborhoods else ones house becomes worthless. And coincidentally, Tell Me More is being cancelled because it makes wealthy NPR donors uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
They'll dodge it or reframe it as "Mises' study of human action." Good pundits aren't just gonna blurt out "Xenu" on NPR. Of course if NPR had any guts to confront the think-tank machine they'd do it themselves.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I would say "well that's just Hoppe" but for some reason libertarians never really come around to denouncing him as full-throatedly as they do, say, social democrats. It's more like "ha ha, oh Hans!" Kind of alarming, really.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
JK Rowling made a lot of money because people want to read her books. Hard-hitting analysis is going on, guys.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:When does it stop? Just as soon as it starts working! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Plucky little Bloomberg, stopped by the capitalist forces of _______ Big Gun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Plus the horror of able-bodied people having to look at the handicapped and even tolerate being in close proximity to them God loving loving drat bitch what? What the gently caress? gently caress you! How did I never read that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
There's definitely a strain of strong opposition to war and neocon ideology in the movement. Antiwar.com, the Randolph Bourne Institute, Justin Raimondo and his paleo-conservative strain of Buchananite isolationism etc. They're not even completely wrong in their assessment of why war is propagated, just like Ron Paul wasn't wrong. I'd argue that being anti-war doesn't really have to follow from libertarian ideology--it's just as easy, as shown above, to come up with justifications for war--but neither is it contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:It's worth noting that exactly three seasteads have actually been built over the years and they were all hilarious disasters. One was literally a big pile of sand dumped on top of a coral reef in the 70s, and it has since eroded away to nothing. One was a casino/resort/brothel built on a disused oil platform in the Mediterranean, and it was seized by the Italian government after about two weeks. That's the best thing. They want a seagoing community where appetites for cocaine, trafficked sex workers and unregulated profit can be fulfilled without answering to any law. What they don't realize is that this community already exists and it's called "rich people with yachts."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Aren't their actual "business friendly" places like that already? With names like "Free Trade Zones" or "Economic Opportunity Areas" that type of thing. Places with reduced regulatory burdens or that don't have the normal import export tariffs or that just don't have customs inspections, I think there is quite a lot of variability in what they get out of having to do and that they are all over the place. Of course; don't assume that libertarians know even one thing about the world and what's in it. The freedoms they petulantly demand are in almost all cases available to the investor class they worship.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
quote:He is unquestionably powerful, but unfailingly humble; elusive, but uncomplicated Charles Koch: Baal
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Mr. Cruz is giving away the game (and I suspect he knows this and just doesn't care, thinking that the rest of us won't see it) Not only can I not think of a politician more arrogant and supercilious than Ted Cruz, I can't think of a historical figure who was.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:40
|
|