|
Pictured below: the point at which Napoleon became less arrogant than Ted Cruz. Cruz would have just kept going until he got shot in the head by one of the four dudes still left alive.
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
I would say that the "natural thought" is "I want a lot of poo poo and I don't want to be responsible to society for what I've gained" and that the post hoc rationalization to be found in ideas like the nonaggression principle would fall under the methodological development of doctrines. That's a small quibble though, interesting post.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I can't wait until those precious welfare youth get dumped out into the real world. Freedom Grad: "But I'm advancing freedom--where's my stipend?" Staples Manager: "It's in my nutsack waiting for you to tease it out." Alternately, the Kochs will subsidize all of them through adulthood.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Well, Nozick is a real philosopher, which is why he was able to wring out libertarianism, see what it was, and abandon it. There's no consistency in the toy philosophers who advance libertarianism.spoon0042 posted:Singapore? I feel as though you haven't yet come to grips with this whole "libertarian" thing. Dubai used to be their Shangri-La before it fell apart.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Inequality is just the genetic nobility of certain bloodlines manifesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It wasn't great. It was loving scary. The article above is total poo poo, though, and the view that everything was happily chugging along and then the dictatorship happened and the Chicago Boys wrecked everything is wrong. There's nothing but assertions in this post.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
"I really don't think you're appreciating the nuance of this situation" *rolls you out of helicopter into ocean*
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
I'm conditionally willing to suffer Venezuelans who deprecate Bolivarianism. People in other nations who cite it as a catastrophe receive extreme skepticism from me. Chileans who retroactively apply it to Allende receive laughter and derision.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Some people just love the crisp sense of purpose that comes from having a president with smart epaulets, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
That's a pithy quote from MLK, I wonder if he came up with that before or after he went to communist training camp.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Yes that was my subtle barb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:And then left again. He's flighty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVi4PUx8bXk
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Don't think about this one too much. It's all the weirder because Branden and his wife agreed that she was lonely and he should...service her. So uh it's not like he was getting anything out of it to begin with other than the pleasure of his idol uh uh christ what a trainwreck
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
It's a real cult not a borderline one. Look up "defoo"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
quote:Prohibits All Pollution – As I noted in my last post, Rothbard himself recognized that industrial pollution violates the NAP and must therefore be prohibited. But Rothbard did not draw the full implications of his principle. Not just industrial pollution, but personal pollution produced by driving, burning wood in one’s fireplace, smoking, etc., runs afoul of NAP. The NAP implies that all of these activities must be prohibited, no matter how beneficial they may be in other respects, and no matter how essential they are to daily life in the modern industrialized world. And this is deeply implausible. Whenever I am reading a long discussion of Rothbard's views, if I just come across it while skimming and don't know the source at first I can never tell whether it is written by a supporter or detractor. It takes something like the bolded sentence to realize that it's a criticism, I'm so used to reading Rothbardites just admitting wild poo poo without any pretense of concern. "Oh yeah, internal combustion engines are totally committing aggression against me." I could see a Rothbardite glibly conceding that on his way to writing a backhanded, diffident blog post in defense of apartheid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:So, we seem to be on track for my contention that most people in this thread are putting little or no efforts into their posts. Also, "Everyone gets to decide for themselves what property is legitimately owned" is not being thrown into anarchy. It's a intrinsic quality that is true of literally any society that doesn't involve mind control. Disputes can only exist when people disagree over what property is legitimately owned. The fact that we have a civil law system should tell you that even with our government, people still decide for themselves who owns what. The only difference is that with a government, the government will occasionally (not even frequently, enlisting government intervention is often quite expensive) intervene to resolve disputes. Now I think it's generally a good idea to have a central entity to resolve disputes, but the government certainly never stops anyone from thinking "Hey, I own the thing that that jerk has over there". I don't understand this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure slavery has a lot to do with the scale of authoritarianism. I always saw it as a mass compulsion, like Jefferson knew what he was doing was wrong, but oh my I just ran the numbers on my nail factory staffed with nine-year-olds. Mmm Sally, that minx is being 15 in front of me again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
isildur posted:But what the hell is the person working that job supposed to eat for a year? Where will he live? dad quote:How will he get to his 2-cent job? dad
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Ultimately if you own salves then you're an authoritarian in my eyes. W-what if I have a skin condition? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Guys maybe the country we're building is too good. Think about it! The United States, Somalia; neither of these is the perfect solution. As usual, the real solution is to be found somewhere in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Libertarians, from jrodefeld on down, sure spend a lot of time accusing others of having poor reading comprehension. However, as a counterpoint to their own accusations, they themselves have become libertarians. So how good can their reading comprehension be?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What is the libertarian explanation for how removing min wage laws will lead to higher wages? It will not. It will reduce unemployment because all those teenagers and women and minorities who could never, ever do anything worth $6 an hour will be able to work. (This is now a mainstream neoliberal position.) e: b
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't think your dad is a centrist. He may claim to be, but if all he talks about and agrees with are Right-Wing talking points, then he's Right-Wing. But centrists are right wing.I mean if you are in the center of the political spectrum as it is perceived in this country, you are right wing. That's what I meant about the libertarian perspective on minimum-wage becoming a mainstream neoliberal position.if you listen to NPR almost any economist they interview will take it as a given that a higher minimum wage will price unskilled workers right out of the job market. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Aerial Tollhouse posted:Economists have been moving away from the consensus that minimum wage leads to unemployment for a while now. The classic line of reasoning for the "minimum wage=unemployment" thing is that setting a price floor will lead to less demand in an idealized view of markets. However, there's all kinds of things that can mess up this simple model, things like the huge bargaining power of corporations or the possibility of higher wages increasing efficiency, and several studies by economists have observed that minimum wage increases do not lead to unemployment. A lot of the economists quoted from right wing sources are chosen more for their political views than for their actual expertise. It seems like economists who understand the effects of "things that can mess up the simple model," while well-represented in academia outside of intro classrooms, are not so common in the media.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I have no idea what the "experience" is that some menial labor to make someone else rich teaches me. Any actual skilled labor that I have done I was trained to do, and did not use skillpoints to learn them that were awarded by some entry level unskilled job. It's your chance to shine, to step and fetch avidly. And sell out your pals! "Notice me! Promote me! I'll help you crack the whip on my former compatriots! I'll be a wal-mart sonderkommando, I'm ruthless and desperate! I'm worth at least 11.50 an hour to you."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:That's great but most people never get beyond the required intro level economics courses. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was seriously taught the Laffer Curve and other neoliberal fairy tales in introduction to macroeconomics. Well the Laffer curve is just pseudoscience.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A third option would be for workers to organize together and form mutualist coops, where workers pool their resources and collectively own the means of production. This would be an intermediate step between being a wage laborer and an entrepreneur. The potential for return on investment would be greater than that of a wage laborer but less than that of an entrepreneur. However the risk to a personal capital would be far lower than an entrepreneur. It would be, in a very real sense, voluntary socialism or even voluntary Marxism. You're right, this is much better than a simple minimum wage. And better still, workers could confiscate not only the means of production from capitalists, but all their accrued wealth, bring them down to the shop floor, and share with them exactly the return on investment which they all receive. After all, business owners collude with the State in creating corporate entities, it's not like they are entitled to their wealth any more than a single mother is to her WIC benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:SOME business owners collude with the State. There is a limited viability to any plan to retroactively redistribute all coercively redistributed wealth that occurred during a century of State control over the economy. Everyone is forced to deal with the system as it exists, to survive in the best manner they can. Now, as I've said before, if property was legitimately stolen and it can be proven to be stolen, then said property should returned to its original owner. However, the burden of proof must rest on those that want to overturn existing private property claims. Hmm very reasonable jrodefeld. People are just surviving however they can, in a rigged system. This leads to inequality and theft. quote:This will all get sorted out in short order during a transition to a free economy. For some reason. quote:The State protections and privileges including the entity called the limited liability "corporation" will fall to the side and these businessmen will no longer have a shield to protect them from liability for their actions. They will either satisfy consumers on the market, or go out of business and look for a new occupation. For some reason, getting rid of all the constraints on businesses will make them less powerful, and all rent-seeking will cease. quote:To conclude, stolen property should be returned, but those that seek to overturn existed property claims must be expected to provide proof of theft. And, no, "theft of labor" as Marx would put it does not count. For some reason. quote:As I've explained elsewhere, since the worker provides his services to the employer voluntarily and they have reverse time preference orders, then no exploitation has occurred. The worker chooses to accept a stable, steady guaranteed income and basically subsidizes the entrepreneur who assumes the risk, the risk to his personal capital and the risk of bankruptcy. Were black ex-slave sharecroppers farming their former masters' crops exploited? Or did they simply have reverse time preference orders?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Unless we decide to make a law for it, of course. Then we can say exactly what a laborer is worth. If businesses don't want to pay it, they can do without workers or go out of business.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:As for Milton Friedman and Hayek, they are both dead wrong in this area, in additional to all their other errors. Friedman is not even a libertarian by any definition. Hayek meanwhile is sound only in his theoretical economic works. Otherwise he is actually a fairly conventional leftist. Hayek is basically the only economist claimed by the Austrians with even a tenuous claim to legitimacy, and he didn't believe in the all this "taxes are theft" lewrockwell.com garbage. He believed in a welfare state much more radical and interventionist than our own. Do you ever stop to think that maybe he would consider you doctrinaire? That he might see what the Austrians have become and be appalled? The people who are "wrong" are the ones who take their mechanistic little axioms about force and coercion and ignore real suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
for gently caress's sakejrodefeld posted:This is where you are wrong. The State is a protection racket that benefits the most powerful and influential lobbyists. The businesses that you assume are being regulated by the State are in fact regulating the masses, their would be competitors while benefiting from a labyrinthine system of regulatory capture and special privilege. This is the opposite of some theoretically objective "rule of law". You're right, it is more restrictive. So how do you enforce it without a state? quote:This is not even close to a reasonable comparison. In the first place, let's not get into the "you're probably a racist" smearing. Wow little gun shy there eh? God forbid I use an example with black people in it. quote:On the market where workers accept job offers voluntarily with employers there is no exploitation. There are pros and cons to choosing to work for yourself or choosing to work as a wage earner for an employer. One of the most clear distinctions is in the taking on of risk. The entrepreneur assumes a lot of risk, risk of failure, risk of losing a great deal of savings in losses, and the delayed gratification that comes from going into debt in the short term to pursue the prospect of profits in the long term. The entrepreneur must pay his employees before he pays himself. If there is no money left over, then he takes a loss and hopes for better in the next quarter. If the business goes bankrupt the workers will have to find new jobs but the employer may have lost a lifetime of savings and investment. Yes I know, which is why I was not talking about slavery. I was talking about sharecroppers who were former slaves, tenant farming the land of their former owners. There's no coercion in the present tense; the ex-slave had a choice between starving and sharecropping, and chose the latter. So there's no exploitation, right? And if you think the plantation owner should have their wealth redistributed, well aren't you contradicting yourself? You said that property should only be redistributed when theft is proven. What if Massa threw all his deeds into the fireplace? Where's the proof that his former slaves mixed their labor with the land? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Legitimacy? You do realize that the Nobel Prize that Hayek won was for him basically just restating a theory that Ludwig Von Mises pioneered more than fifty years prior. Hayek won for his work on rephrasing the Austrian "Theory of the Business Cycle" but he really added little to the theory. Mises did ALL the work and he was the one that deserved that Nobel prize. Please don't call it a Nobel Prize.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Guys, it's late here and I am behind on some work so I'll have check back in tomorrow for more riveting debate. Hopefully jrodefeld can come back and take over, and maybe clarify some of my points. If you feel comfortable tagging out to a poster who needs to tie himself in knots to explain how feudalism and child slavery are acceptable, maybe you should do some ponderin'.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
From earlier.The Mutato posted:Liability insurance would be necessary in a free society. Sounds more like the failing of a monopolised legal system to me. How dare you require that I insure myself! I have a system of beliefs that says insurance is gambling. Are you saying that if I don't insure myself against liability, MEN WITH GUNS will come and force me to do it? These colors don't run, come and take it etc. I will hole up in my compound with myself and my legally contracted indentured servants, who share my beliefs. They welcome the freedom from liability insurance! Well in any case, they are required to say that they welcome it, or I will stop feeding them and eject them from my land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
We keep asking "what about roads?" because it is a really good question and no one has ever come up with a satisfactory response to it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:There are many satisfactory responses, but here's one: That's the best answer, but it's also one that puts you in the wilderness as far as libertarians are concerned. Libertarians say yes, everything does have to be privatized. If you are trying to argue to the contrary you are either lying or have not been following the conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I would say that taken as a whole, as in, including people who don't post on this dumb forum, libertarians in general are not a group to say that Every drat Thing Must Be Privatized. Hence the "small-l libertarians" who are just trying to push policies more toward personal freedom and individual self determination, not actually get an [L] on the ballot or elected President. (Gary Johnson 2016, though!) You're correct, most libertarians are ignorant of the implications of their ideology, and are also ignorant of the beliefs of all the leading thinkers in their movement. They began to call themselves libertarians out of an inchoate desire for accountable government, and if they ever learn anything beyond slogans they'll cease to be libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is that question loaded? It's so hard to tell. Anyone else think maybe it's loaded? I can never be sure. We have the freedom to ask you loaded questions. AlternateAccount posted:But by all means, let's discuss more bullshit edge case nonsense that literally no libertarians are discussing amongst themselves while the government proceeds to engage in nonsensical and aggressive wars, continues a drug policy that's oppressive in the extreme, murders Americans abroad without trial, and wastes billions of dollars a year. Sorry, which libertarians? The ones on Strike The Root? Ron Paul forums? Antiwar.com comments? The Scott Horton show? Lewrockwell.com where every single libertarian who played a role in creating the movement posts essays? Etc. etc. etc. times a million? Is this another case of us knowing libertarians better than you do? woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:And yeah, I guess I have just been totally head-in-the-sand and somehow missed all the meetings where we plotted the overthrow of socialist fire stations and dreamt of the days when we could become private road-barons. This may be intended as snark, but it's just factual. I, and others here, have been at those meetings and you have not. You do not represent libertarianism, unless you are deliberately choosing to specifically represent ignorant and easily manipulated recent converts who have no understanding of the movement's history or goals.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I believe that if this were true, I would find myself at odds with this more "hardcore" sect more often. Perhaps this is a function of geography or demographics, but outside of the internet, I don't find this to yet be the case. I mean I think the proper Libertarian Part is often a clownfilled shitshow, but whatever. Maybe you can become the champion of this new, moderate, "just the tip I promise" form of libertarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 22:29
|
|