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!

«‹›4 »

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Typical Pubbie posted:

Hell yes, I've been waiting for this thread! Have some Libertarian YouTube poop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQBTbsnbuc4 - "My retarded friend wasn't allowed to work for sub minimum wage!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASPjBVQkQk - "The reason there aren't more female libertarians is because women are shallow idiots!"

I refuse to believe a human being could see the preview images on these videos and actually proceed to click on them.

Also:

Caros posted:

Objectivists

The disciples of likely sociopath Ayn Rand

Likely sociopath? Someone dig up the quotes about Native Americans being subhuman trash, or that pedophile/child-murderer she worshipped as an example of the purest expression of freedom.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 05:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 17:03

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Jastiger posted:

Posted this in the other thread, but might get an actual answer here.

A question. Why are advocates of property rights and libertarian folk all about getting rid of estate taxes and stuff like that, yet, I don't see them advocating for all debts and wrongs to be passed on.

Its ok if I hand my kids tax free a billion bucks, half the state of Arkansas, and all the rights to my company TAX FREE. But oh ho ho ho ho ho no, I can set up a legal frame work to absolve them of all debts?

Why should that be allowed?

How does a libertarian handle the debts in their no tax, no government world?

They personally won't have to worry about things like crippling debt leading to basically feudalism, because as soon as all that regulation is out of the way they'll blossom into the brilliant captains of industry they always had the potential to be. Not coincidentally everyone question that starts "Hey, don't libertarians realize that in Freetopia things would be much worse for <x> people because <y>?" has the same answer.

Someone mentioned it in one of the other threads like this, but libertarians are the kind of people who watch Deadwood and think that they would be Al Swearingen, not the dude shoveling poo poo.

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 05:38 on May 23, 2014

# ¿ May 23, 2014 05:35

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Hodgepodge posted:

If only it were possible to form a legal body capable of holding people accountable for fraud. Oh well!

That sounds like government coercion to me, friend!

# ¿ Sep 17, 2014 06:31

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

LolitaSama posted:

It's a den of intolerance and they'd sooner lose every election from now to judgement day than renounce their bigotry.

God, don't I just wish.

It genuinely warms my heart to see someone fall away from libertarianism, especially someone I personally dogpiled along with the rest of D&D back in 2012. Would that it was because the opposing arguments were so solid that you couldn't help but see the light, but hey, the Republicans becoming so openly toxic that it was literally impossible to ignore works too

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 10:06

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Okay guys now replace 'driving a car' with 'owning a gun' and keep going :unsmigghh:

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 01:10

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

shiranaihito posted:

I have no idea where you're getting that from, I doubt it's true (without state involvement), and I don't want to bother investigating.

This and the post where he just dumped a bunch of links was a little too on-the-nose for me to think this guy was real. Sorry buddy, you're gonna have to be less of a caricature of an angry white suburban teenager if you wanna run with the jrodefelds of the internet.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2014 00:37

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

shiranaihito posted:

Did you miss me?

You kept trolling me by calling me names, misrepresenting anything/everything I've said, making statements you know are false, and so on.. and it worked for a while because I actually give a gently caress about what's true and what's rational and objective etc. You don't. You just want to keep trolling me. That was roughly what I expected though. I just didn't anticipate that you'd have *no standards whatsoever*.

As long as I keep actually addressing the deceitful bullshit you spew while ganging up on me, you keep winning. I could play the bullshit-spewing game right back at you, but *you'd enjoy that too*! So, the only winning move here is not to play.

You make unsubstantiated assertions and then pretend to call me out on supposedly making unsubstantiated assertions. You supposedly pride yourselves on being a troll-free forum, but you're all trolls yourselves. After this, you'll accuse me of more things you're actually guilty of yourselves, in an attempt at getting me to keep responding. You say you'd like to have a civilised discussion with me, but that's just a lie. All you want is to troll me.

But really, what a sad existence you all live. Here you are, day in, day out.. week after week, year after year.. celebrating your ignorance, waiting for a victim to troll, and circle-jerking about whatever strikes your fancy. You are a truly pitiful bunch of sad, sad losers. I bet most of you are sociopaths too, and the kind of sub-human scum that has no redeeming qualities.

Don't feel satisfied by this, by the way. I'm not seething with anger here. In fact, if you weren't the kind of utter scum you are, I'd feel some sympathy for you for being basement-dwelling eternal virgins. Hideous land-whales don't count, by the way.

When you're on your deathbeds, how will you view your lives? "I sure as gently caress did my darndest to cause grief to other people! *Yay me*!".. If you think you're fine with that, you've just proven me right. But are you sure? :p .. really, really sure? Will you really be content with never amounting to anything more than a shitstain on the soles of humanity's boots?

Oh, and I really did not pay that $10. I would never have paid to post here, exactly because I already knew roughly what to expect.

Carry on!

Does anyone else find it weird when people think going on and on about depths of depravity or whatever like they're a character from the Crucible is impressive and not at all awkward and kind of embarrassing? I didn't know whether to laugh or just wince really hard.

I also don't know why half of you even bothered with all the effortposts, though. He didn't read any of that and was only interested in getting faux-offended by the one-liners calling him an idiot because that gave him an excuse to bow out when he immediately saw the conversation going in a different direction.

I still want to believe he's just a troll though, because the idea that he is both a grown man and grew up in a country with a better social safety net than most of us could ever dream of is even more depressing :smith:

# ¿ Oct 14, 2014 17:45

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

After kinda half-heartedly trying to defend my beliefs for a couple posts I've decided the topic is Just Too Complicated For Forums, but rest assured I was right all along and let's move on *shits and pisses self, glides away*

# ¿ Nov 1, 2014 18:15

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

QuarkJets posted:

Seriously, jrodefeld, how do you deal with people who act in bad faith?

We've played this game enough in this thread alone to know how this would go:

If you get any answer (you won't) it will be that it's in a company's best long-term interests to not harm consumers or damage their reputation. If you point out the several times in history this has happened anyway because making a bunch of cash quickly and using that to bankroll as much good press as you need is really easy, the reply will be that it's the crony capitalism of the state that shielded the company's from repercussion, and in a truly free market things would be different.

When you ask how the exact same scenario wouldn't be even easier with no environmental regulations and in the extremely unlikely event you actually got a third response, he would pretend you were just generally asking about the definition of a free market and then link a wall of text or twenty minute youtube video.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 12:01

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

He answered the pollution question! And the answer being "posting negative reviews on yelp is a much better solution than the EPA existing" is, while predictable, far from disappointing :allears:

Jrod, can you think of any instance in history where the state more effectively accomplished something than the free market hypothetically would have? Just curious.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 23:30

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Rhjamiz posted:

Wow... uh. Honestly I only just now fully read that post. Goddamn, that's one hell of a crazy pile of words.

No, see, it's the rational man who considers people who disagree with him on an internet forum as evil subhuman monsters that he fantasizes about exterminating.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2014 09:44

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

You don't know what you are talking about. In a libertarian society the people who protect us from violence are: Police, defense contractors, courts, injunctions, the law, restitution, etc. This is how we protect people from violence and punish criminals that engage in violence.

This is not at all dissimilar to what we have today with the following exceptions. There is no monopoly on the provision of defense and police services. There is no compulsory taxation. There are no laws that permit the initiation of force. The law is concerned only with what behavior is forbidden and the only behavior that is forbidden is violence against the person or property of another.

The result inevitably would be a less violence society since the police and courts are concerned only with violent crime rather than enforcing State laws against the innocent or punishing people for using or selling drugs.

People have already sarcastically made these points, but I want to ask them point-blank: how are these things paid for without taxes? If the courts are privately funded, why do you assume they will stay impartial to their benefactors? What if the privately-funded police force starts breaking the law (say, by implying your house might burn down if you don't voluntarily purchase their services), and who are they accountable to in this scenario?

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 18:47

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

I was trying to figure out how bribery would work, but is 'bribery' even a concept in an-cap land? If I were a witness to a crime and was offered $30,000 to forget I saw it, wouldn't it be in my interest to do so? As far as I can tell lying doesn't violate the non-aggression principle.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2014 23:20

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah I don't get the wide-eyed belief that if we just stop voting on laws and let the market handle it there'll be so much less aggression in the world.

Like, we've seen real DROs. They have existed and do exist. They are called the mafia, and if you are their customer, you're probably paying them to protect you from their own muscle smashing up your store or you're paying them outrageous rates on a loan. If you actually are a part of the group and they really do protect you, if you feel you're being treated unfairly you can't vote with your feet and pick another mafia. They will not call a focus group to reevaluate their processes to improve customer retention. They will loving kill you to send a message to everyone else. A rival of theirs will not protect you, unless you can offer a whole lotta money or something else to make your rear end worth starting a mob war over. The other mafias aren't interested in taking on customers that were disloyal to the last one unless you can pay the gently caress up, because otherwise you're just going to be a lot of trouble.

Dismantling democratic government will only empower the mob. This is obvious, but I guess as Libertarians after we've smashed the state, we are supposed to just smirk to ourselves while the mafia is shaking us down and think "see now this just proves that everyone should renounce violence and aggression, we were right all along".

Well clearly the market would have a demand for a mafia that doesn't burn your house down and kill your family if you don't pay protection fees. And after enough bad word of mouth and negative reviews get around, well, that first mafia will be packing their bags pretty quick!

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 04:13

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Silver Spooner posted:

So I'm genuinely curious - in a libertarian society, how would healthcare be rationed? By need? By ability to pay? By something else?

It's the second one. That one right there.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 04:44

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Cancer patients just aren't trying hard enough?

Nope, not a real person. I can't and won't believe someone is willingly that dumb and proud of it.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 08:57

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

QuarkJets posted:

All of your bullshit and horridness aside (for gently caress's sake, what is wrong with you?), Thailand has universal healthcare. So all that you've done is made a tacit admission that a well-funded public healthcare system is superior to the ancap libertarian alternative. In other words, taxes that save lives are moral

To be fair, the ideal solution to most problems in an an-cap society would be "leave for a more socialist country as soon as possible" so it's actually a pretty good answer.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 12:22

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jonnypeh posted:

Well we go back almost 10 years and I guess this ended today. I have few years worth of IRC logs where we argue for hours at a time over anarchist capitalism, in the end he declares victory and calls me a troll because DROs, free markets and voluntarism would do anything better even if I've just explained to him how they wouldn't.

Oh well, that was at least spent well.

It's kinda sad to see a friendship ended because of SA, but if that's how he is normally it doesn't sound like it was that worthwhile of a relationship to begin with. I mean, I have friends/families who are republicans and believe all the worst myths about welfare queens and voter fraud or whatever, but can still act like regular human beings.

Given how immediately defensive and angry shiro was over basic questions and light taunting I don't really see that being the case with him?

I still want him to be a troll, but a troll who dedicated ten years of his life to acting like an angry stupid baby would be even more pathetic than a true believer, so :shrug:

# ¿ Nov 7, 2014 20:59

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

The real objection to the State is, as I've said a thousand times, that the initiation of force is immoral. It violates the principle of universability of ethics. Depending on your definition of "good", government funding on occasion produces things of value. No one is denying that.

The crux of the issue is that you believe the State taking your money (via threat of force) as the ultimate immorality. Every alternative you've proposed will make things even easier for the already-powerful and harder for the already-weak, and your only answer to that is "Well, maybe it won't?" Should society really move towards abolishing the State because maybe company-towns won't happen again and maybe competing, privately-funded police forces won't just turn to warring militias pretty much immediately? Do you really believe suing a polluting company for giving the whole town cancer twenty years later is preferable to the EPA telling them to cut that poo poo out immediately? Better a thousand people get cancer in a free society than even one dollar taken from you in involuntary taxation, right?

Do you actually care about how your ideas would affect society, or is this just one of those 'well, in an ideal, rational world' situations?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2014 22:55

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

bokkibear posted:

If state intervention causes problems, why are nations with nationalised healthcare providing better healthcare for less money?

Ooh, ooh, can I guess the answer? It's one of the following:

1. That's not true because we've never seen a truly free market, because there has never been such a thing. If we did, you would see even lower costs, faster innovations and less corruption.

-or-

2. That may be true, but you had to steal money via coercion to do it so it's immoral by default. Even if it's a net positive for society it will never be moral for that reason.

Coincidentally you can pretty much copy/paste these for any questions you may have about libertarianism and still pretty much nail it.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 00:18

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Well it's not like jrod believes in intellectual copyrights :v:

# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 09:58

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Jrode refusing to discuss a topic anymore because it's coming dangerously close to him being forced to admit fault with libertarianism is about as close as you guys are gonna get to him actually admitting he was wrong. Savor it, Caros et al.

Honestly, it would be more challenging to find an esteemed libertarian thinker who doesn't have some kind of racist beliefs, overt or otherwise. Almost like the whole movement is based around people who really really wish segregation was legal again and needed a veneer of intellectualism to justify it.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 00:04

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

I just love the idea of people in countries with socialized medicine getting deliberately sick. It's just so stupid.

Fevers and vomiting? Looks like a three-day weekend for me! Food poisoning? Sorry boss, I'm not gonna be coming in this week :cool:

Leukemia? Hellooo summer vacation!

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 02:17

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

I think you guys scared him off. You think it was the one-two punch of "everything you believe about healthcare is either ignorant or malicious," pointing out that every libertarian he's cited either is or openly supports avowed racists, or the overt plagiarism that he's completely unwilling to address?

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 23:45

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

Stephan Molyneux

Ugh, fine. I'll amend my original declaration to racist and/or sexist. I was starting on the rest of it but realized by the time I got 1/10th into it someone like Caros or SedanChair would have a list with examples ready to drop, and lo and behold, there it is above me!

jrodefeld posted:

But this has nothing to do with race. He is just saying that we, as human beings, are not equal to each other in many different ways. Some are smarter and others dumber. Some good looking and others ugly. Some athletic and others not. Some ambitious and hard working while others are lazy and unmotivated.

The differences occur between people within a society and culture and between different cultures.

This is just a description of observable reality. The issue is that you all have come to the conclusion that Hoppe and libertarians are racist so you are making logical leaps, filling in the blanks, and attributing the motivation to various passages like the above to racism. But that is not what is being said. You may not like Hoppe or his arguments, but you at least should have the honesty to state his positions correctly and fairly.

"The white man's culture is just better by every possible metric, it has nothing to do with skin color." ~ a non-racist

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 13, 2014

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 08:10

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Wait a second, did jrodefeld really say "slavery is immoral and violent intervention would be justified" like one post after "slavery was totally on the outs anyway and people should have just let it peter out on it's own" :psyduck:

# ¿ Nov 13, 2014 18:41

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Nope, I could totally see myself using violence the way the State does. It would be way easier in libertarian society, in fact. If I had more guns and people, whose going to stop me from taking your poo poo? The police and military that no longer exist? The DRO that me and mine pay far more in dues to than you do, especially now that I've successfully stolen everything you had?

Also gonna guess whenever you asked which of those libertarians you cited are racist and Caros immediately produced links showing half of them are in pro-Confederacy groups that you're going to quietly pretend that didn't happen. Sorry all the people who influenced you are racist shitheels jrode

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Nov 14, 2014

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 07:49

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Somehow the Natural Social Elites are just more noble, more pure than the rest of us, you know? So much so that this nobility must be in their blood or something.

I mean, I get how any kind of attempt at libertarian society would lead to feudalism almost immediately but I didn't expect them to openly tout it as a positive.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 08:24

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

You say that the concept of private property is "obviously" immoral. Then why don't you give away all your possessions? Is it not contradictory for you to own a car, a house, a computer, clothes and a television and expect others to not use them without your permission if you claim to oppose private property?

On the reverse, if you say taxes are so immoral why don't you move to Somalia, free from the violent oppression of the State? Your favorite website recommends the poo poo out of it.

quote:

To be clear, charity and helping others is great. It is fantastic. But never confuse the right to property as synonymous to greed. Remember that it is only those that acquire significant wealth and excess resources through abstaining from consumption (savings) that allow them the ability to contribute significantly to charity. The rest of us living paycheck to paycheck are not able to help the poor much.

Ironically, it is your rejection of private property rights that makes savings impossible. People save nothing without property rights. It is only through savings that real investment can occur. It is only through the accumulation of excess money that social programs and mutual aid and charity can be funded in the first place.

Holy poo poo, do you literally believe billionaires got where they were by being thrifty :psyduck:

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Nov 14, 2014

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 08:34

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

I promised myself I was not going to get baited into a race game, but Caros provided no such thing. All he did was reiterate that he thinks Molyneux is a misogynist, NOT a racist. This is patently false and even if it WERE true, that is an outlier that has nothing to do with your narrative that libertarians are racist. What about the other names I listed? Where were the produced racist and supremacist quotes from them? Crickets.

I guess you missed that post? Here you go man:

Caros posted:

And just for shits and giggles before bed.

Racist or Majorly associated with Racists

Sheldon Richman - Wrote for Reason magazine which as I've mentioned, posted numerous examples of Aparthied support and Holocaust Denial. More damning is the fact that he was a temporary board member for the Institute for Historical Review, which is pretty much the Holocaust Denial think tank (insofar as that is basically all they do). Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Sheldon Richman except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist.

Tom Woods - An easy one. An avowed member of the League of the South which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes (for good reason) as a neo-confederate hate group. Absolutely a racist.

Walter Block - Argued that "Otherwise, slavery wasn't so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory." Yeah... And look! An actual libertarian you've quoted in this thread!

Probably Racist and definitely Associated with Racists

Jacob Hornberger - Massive associations with Ron and Rand Paul, which basically puts him in the same typical social circle as two dog whistle racists. More the the point, he's close friends with Rand Paul's fired advisor "The Southern Avenger." He goes in the maybe only because I can't find proof that he has attended League of the South meetings in person. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Jacob Hornberger except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist.

Scott Horton - League of the South connections. Somewhat tenuous, but I'd say anyone who interviews multiple members of the league of the south in a positive fashion is probably on the borderline. He'll go in the maybe. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Scott Horton except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist.

Might not be Racist.

Anthony Gregory - I can't find poo poo about this guy other than a spartan wikipedia, so you get a pass. Also you have never quoted an article or made any mention of Anthony Gregory except when you are trying to appear to have thinkers who are not racist.

Not Racist

Gary Chartier - I actually can't find a bad thing about him, and a lot of positive stuff. So good on you!

I'm going to get the rest in the morning as it is 1:00 here. Anyone else want to field some, go nuts.

Also

on Molyneux not being a misogynist

EDIT: on a sidenote I really hope this somehow segues into you defending Holocaust denial

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Nov 14, 2014

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 09:01

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

Do you honestly think that two parties would EVER agree to a contract if it was not understood and clear that said contract would be enforced? Sure you can have a verbal contract and personal agreement but in that case it is clear that if one person goes back on their word, you cannot enforce the verbal agreement.

But for business deals and regarding serious matters of import, both parties will want to be explicitly clear that the contract they are signing WILL be enforced should the other party violate the conditions they agreed to. An arbitration body will be assigned and agreed to in the contract.

If you agree to something you agree to it. If it is signed in a legal document that means it is legally binding.

Who enforces these contracts? The privately-funded DROs? What if we have two separate DROs who both think the other party is at fault? What if we are members of the same DRO but the person I'm involved in a contract dispute with contributes significantly more? Should we just take the DROs at their word that they'll remain unbiased?

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 09:04

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

And I don't mean racist in the dictionary sense of the word, because clearly no libertarian I have cited including Hoppe and Rothbard hate all black people because they think they are inferior owing to their skin color. Rather there is not even the hint of racist views and mountains of evidence for being the opposite.

Look man if you're going to go so far down the rabbit-hole that we're at "None of them have ever explicitly hated someone specifically for their skin color, they just associate with Confederate apologists and other white nationalists" than we should stop, because (1)you're either arguing in bad faith knowing that being a racist in public makes you a social pariah, or (2)to actually find fault with the people championing your philosophy might in some way indicate that it's not the be-all end-all, and you are not actually able to handle that after wasting years of life believing in the purity of Free Markets and Non-Aggression.

Fans posted:

There's a lot of Goverment Infrastructure like Roads, Police, Fire that just won't work in a Private Sector without being monstrous. If we ditch ALL of that nevermind how it'd work, who ends up owning it?

This is actually the most interesting question to me and no libertarian has ever actually given a straightforward answer regarding it. It's come up over a dozen times in this thread alone, and I think maybe once there was a kind of "the market would work it out, statist" non-answer. You'd think with how long-winded they are at least one of them would love to go on at length about how wonderful and efficient competing toll roads and police forces would be, but none have really wanted to discuss it for some reason :raise:

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 18:26

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

But he didn't call women "estrogen-based parasites" and more than if I called a specific woman a bitch based on her actions, that meant that I thought all women are bitches.

Molyneux objects to certain behavior by SOME women and he criticizes the modern feminist movement. But how do you extrapolate from this that he hates ALL women? He has condemned men for their actions vis a vis women more times than I could count, yet that doesn't make him a "man hater".

Stefan is a person who thinks pretty highly of himself, as you no doubt are aware. He is also in love with his own use of colorful language. For someone who routinely does three plus hour podcasts and call in shows multiple times every week, he uses phrases such as "estrogen based parasites" to condemn certain behaviors in SOME women.

What is your definition of misogynist? Is that someone who hates all women? Or just someone who criticizes feminists? I'm not saying that the language that Stefan has used at one time or another could not be seen as offensive by many, but I just think that the burden of proof for proving a person a misogynist or a racist is greater than finding a few choice quotes you find politically incorrect.

"He didn't call all black people subhuman niggers, just most of them, the burden of proof remains on you to discover any racial component here."

Hahhaha gently caress you

archangelwar posted:

Have you ever sat down and thought "maybe I am not so good at this"? You seem horribly tone deaf to what racism is and how it impacts society.

Based on his approach to the rest of his philosophy, I'm guessing this thought process goes "This person says the State is bad so they must be good" and works backwards from there. See above.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 22:10

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

God, the PC police are getting so bad lately that you can't even call a woman a dumb oval office who needs to shut up and give me that pussy without all women getting offended. I wasn't talking about the rest of you sluts!

jrodefeld posted:

I will make a concession that Hoppe may indeed personally not understand or approve of the gay lifestyle. There is no question that he is something of a social conservative. Were that the case, I would say that I think such a prejudice is cultural and rather silly, but given that he is a firm believer in the non aggression principle and private property, his views should not be considered any kind of threat to advocates of socially liberal, libertine lifestyles.

I read Hoppe because of his theoretical economic work and logical deductive philosophizing, not for any ancillary thoughts he may or may not have.

And yet, somehow you're not seeing how "has ideas for a better society" and "believes that society would be better if all the homosexuals were gone" might be related in some way :raise:

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 14, 2014

# ¿ Nov 14, 2014 22:17

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

I find it really great that LolitaSama, once a rabid defender of all things libertarian, popped into the thread earlier and discussed how the biggest factor driving him away from the movement was when he realized that almost all of it was just a smokescreen for angry white men who are really upset that minorities and women aren't second-class citizens anymore. Dozens of pages later and jrodefeld is demonstrating that quite astutely.

It's like we've come full-circle :v:

# ¿ Nov 15, 2014 02:26

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

sudo rm -rf posted:

I'd also like to point out that libertarians refuse to acknowledge climate change because the market has absolutely no answers. Market solutions and legal restitution are both reactive. The "free market" can't proactively address collective problems, especially on the scale and scope of something like global warming.

I think you'll find that no problems can't be solved by the Free Market, so the Market's inability to meaningfully address climate change means a priori it doesn't actually exist.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2014 05:32

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

sudo rm -rf posted:

If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success?

This is actually an easy one: any benefit derived by the State is moot because STATIST VIOLENCE was used to achieve it, and besides a true Free Market would be even more efficient with better prices it just hasn't been tried yet.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2014 05:34

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

I should also remind anyone still willing to take jrode's minimum wage bait that the answer "Actually, eliminating minimum wage would just hurt unskilled laborers, an already incredibly vulnerable group that already owns close to 0% of wealth in this country" doesn't actually count because libertarians see those people as lazy parasites who don't want to bother finding a better job.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2014 05:45

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

Remember that those who have their wealth want the system to stay as it is. Capitalists who earn their money in the market tend to turn their focus on lobbying the State. They use the market then rail against the market. If you get to the top the only place to go it down. Businessmen don't want that so they form cartels and monopolize. And the only way to do this is through legislation and State privilege.

Having all the money probably helps. Without the State, what's to stop the guy who already owns the factory from burning down the businesses of any up-and-coming competitors? The police that no longer exist? The DROs that the poor person couldn't afford?

quote:

Those who should favor the free market the most are the poor and middle class. The unfettered market continually overturns the wealth of the rich because the poor have many competitive advantages over them. They are ambitious, have less expenses, can worker cheaper and more efficiently. The wealthy erect economic barriers to the poor, they speak to them condescendingly and paternalisticly. They sell the poor on the idea that they are victims and need to rely on welfare programs. What they really don't want is for the poor to undercut the rich and overturn their wealth through the market.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. You're assumption that without a State (and by extension, a minimum wage and a safety net) the poor's brilliant entrepreneurship will finally shine instead of the majority of them just taking that $3/hr job so their kids don't starve to death. Your inspirational speech doesn't count for much when history shows the results would be more people worse off and even more easily exploited.

quote:

There is an old saying about the free market economy. "Rags to riches back to rags in three generations". It is an observable phenomenon that the privileged children of the rich don't have the same ambition and competence to achieve that their parents, who actually earned their wealth, had. There are certain values that you learn by growing up poor or middle class that you lose if you are raised wealthy. The children of privilege tend to squander much of the wealth of their parents without having all the skills to maintain and grow their wealth and within a few generations the family has fallen back down into the middle class or even lower.

Actually, financial mobility is crazy stagnant. You're both underestimating how much wealth the already-rich have and for some reason assuming less laws means it would be harder for them to continue hoarding that wealth. I mean, they're already willing to break laws and make backroom deals with corrupt lawmakers now, why when you eliminate even those barriers will they begin to play nice?

Seriously, do you have an actual answer to these questions? They're not even 'lifeboat scenarios' at this point, these will be immediate and constant problems in any kind of stateless society and you have yet to give any kind of real solution to any of them. Do you have one?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 04:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 17:03

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

jrodefeld posted:

This is the most ridiculous example I've ever heard. The drug trade is so violent because no State monopolized police services will protect the property rights of those who are engaged in that market. In every example where drugs are legalized, you see this crime rate diminish rapidly as more legitimate businesses replace the black market.

In a free market, the law would exist to arbitrate disputes and protect private property rights. The security of both the dealer and the client will be protected and thus conflict free trade can occur.

This is true, actually. You don't see a lot of crime happening in countries where law enforcement has been fully replaced by drug dealers and their security personnel. This is why Ciudad Juarez is such a peaceful, burgeoning market of free thinkers and entrepreneurs, especially lately.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 10:24

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

«‹›4 »