|
tbp posted:You're not going to see a classless society. Again, are you sure you are talking about socialism, and not communism?
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
tbp posted:This is not the case. This is the case.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:I'm an immigrant, and during 2013 and 2014, as debate over immigration reformed raged on in the US, I saw how extremely anti-immigrant the Republican Party was. It was so extreme I could only imagine intense racist fervor could inspire such zeal. I reluctantly switched over to being a single issue Democrat at first, but started to see everything from a more leftist viewpoint over time. Now I see the same racist fervor of the anti-immigrant right also underlying libertarian ideology. I realized libertarian dislike for welfare was actually driven by the fact that it was viewed as a transfer of wealth from rich whites to poor blacks. The people on Stormfront (the white supremacist forum) spouted the same nonsense conspiracy theories about the federal reserve system as the libertarians, but they colorfully included heavy anti-Semitic arguments that libertarians omitted. You and I had a lot of disagreement (in fact I think it was a thread where a friend of yours was posting your positions and I, among others, encouraged him to have you join for the purpose of debate), but now I think I love you.  Edit: For a little more content, my growth pattern was essentially the same. I encourage you to keep growing and searching and not being satisfied by easy answers. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
We put "fiat currency" side by side with "industrialization, machining, and interchangeable parts" and claim that "fiat currency" was the primary driver behind modern large scale war? If so, why then has war reduced scale dramatically over the past 40 years since we completely dumped the idea of gold reserves?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:increased work effort versus a group of so peer-reviewed studies conducted in the US showing decreases in hours worked You mean the studies that showed a decrease in hours worked only in cohort groups that really should not be working anyway like high school students and single moms? Because that would be a benefit to society.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
These last few pages remind me of the Lolitasama story arc, and he managed to pull out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Did he ever ragequit and proclaim the filthy statist masses of D&D were beneath him? Multiple times
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
jonnypeh posted:I bought him that account. Jesus christ, he is Finnish? Libertarians are truly the most spoiled children who take all that they have for granted (I admit to this even though I grew up po' in the South). I am almost convinced that modern social policies are actually self-destructive in that they make people too comfortable. Humans really are awful 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Why are shocked? Look at Ligur and the True Finn party. I admit to being entirely ignorant of modern Finnish politics, but the True Finns are/were not followers of Austrian economics though, right? Aren't they just lovely xenophobes like most nationalistic parties?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Did you miss me? poo poo, you're right, I am totally convinced by this articulate rebuttal. I see the light now!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I nominate Caros. How exactly does one have a productive debate against praxeology?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Basically this... it would have to be a neutral location with a moderator and agenda before it would be worth the effort. Captain_Maclaine posted:Demonstrating logical inconsistencies and contradictions, I'd suspect. Or, if you'd rather get to the crux of things quicker, just punching them. The primary problem with praxeology is that even logically consistent arguments are often incongruous with empirical evidence or observed behavior. Molyneux has spent years shoring up the "logical consistency" of his positions such that he has generated a view of the world that is pure fiction. But to debate him on pure logical terms would be to concede his fiction, or bog you down in his own logical traps. You could likely win a few listeners who were on the fence, but he would hang up on you well before you could actually get him to admit anything that challenges him. And anyone listening to his podcast is not "on the fence." archangelwar fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Honestly, this is the best way to handle demagogues. If you attack their beliefs they have plausible deniability, and people will be sympathetic to the person being attacked. If you provide a willing ear, and allow them to say what they feel, with gentle leading you can get them to horrify everyone with their true beliefs. I think the major problem is that what we find horrifying might be entirely different to libertarians. When I was a "libertarian" I was OK with some particularly awful poo poo because I believed a magical solution would emerge once the free market was unshackled. And we have quoted Molyneux and his contemporaries in this very thread doing the exact same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Sure, but there's no way you're going to do anything about the diehard believers by getting shouted down on the man's own radio show. Those people are too far gone already. Instead, the idea would be to expose the depths of his beliefs to the less devout or merely curious and possibly provide material for later criticisms. Right, which is why I would not engage them within their own hugbox, I would engage them in a neutral territory under moderated debate. Doing so does not require apology or pushing them down the path to revealing insane beliefs. In such a setting, reasonable observers would be fully engaged with empiricism over praxeology.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Also by calling their interpretation of human psychology something that is so self-evident as to be axiomatic, aren't Austrians severely insulting the entire realms of psychological and social sciences? Psychologists and neurologists haven't nearly fully mapped out what makes people tick, but Austrians just barge in and claim that it's so obvious that they'll consider their theories to be a priori, irrefutable truths. Funny you should mention this as sociology essentially rose as a counter to prevailing economic and social understanding of aggregate human behavior, particularly as it related to economics and capitalist power structures.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
The Russian Civil War: A model for dispute resolution among competing DROs. The world is suddenly much clearer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The question is very apropos, just how independent and scientific is the field of economics anyway? Most of us would agree with this assessment. Economics as a discipline has a lot of perverse incentive to prescribe policy that favors political outcomes. But for whatever reason, you seem to be suggesting that we abandon all semblance of science and empiricism, which is essentially the opposite of the logical solution to the problem you suggest. To me, this suggests that you also would prefer to prescribe policy that favors your political outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Many aspects of regulation actually have nothing to do with economics, so the whole argument that he's making is incredibly (intentionally) misleading Since Human Action == Economic Transaction, then I can only assume that he is confident that regulation (human action) == economics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Jrod, do you believe in a Just World? Do you believe that a libertarian society would result in true meritocracy? Why or why not?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If I am the first user of something, I homestead a piece of land and mix my labor with it, why exactly does another man have a better claim to that land than I do? Because they may use the land more efficiently or to greater social benefit than you do. There are a lot of things humans need to survive. Individual ownership of land is not one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Do you not see how your definition of property rights, based on the ill defined and amorphous concept of "need" or "social benefit" could only lead to far more conflict and violence in society? Can you please point to any single point in history where "first user" principle lead to conflict avoidance? Why should I not be accepting of some level of violence? You are accepting of some levels, why can't I?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did a tax cut happen ever, in the last 80 years? The best part is that even tax cuts are perfectly in line with Keynesian policy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
OK, so let's assume the libertarian revolution occurs and is a resounding success. The first generation of liberteers are able to establish a functional society and a handfull of DROs established to cater to their needs. However, as has been mentioned, DRO membership, while voluntary, is required to meaningfully survive within this new society. Now let's assume you are the offspring of a liberteer. You are also a believer in the great Creedo Liberastrian, but you fundamentally disagree with the foundational agreements offered by the available DROs. For instance, you agree that they should reduce their enforcement of low levels of pollution, they should require greater membership dues to keep out the riff-raff, and should discourage people of color from perpetuating their inferior genes. What do you do, as you must join a DRO to survive, but there are none that cater to your needs? Do you start your own DRO? What if no one else joins, and no other DRO chooses to work with you? Do you strike out on your own, forsaking all your family ties and everything that you know and understand to face uncertain survival? Do you join an existing DRO, and attempt to lobby for a change of policy via democracy? Or do you suck it up and accept the DRO your parents use because of lack of options?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Dude, they don't care about truth. They don't want to figure things out. They keep misrepresenting what you said, making claims they know are false, calling you names and annoying you. They're doing this because they get their psychopathic kicks from making you waste effort and time in trying to help them see how the world actually works. You want to help them, and they just want to abuse you. Look at everything they've said to you, and you'll see it matches what I'm suggesting here. They're inhuman scum, but they're not that dumb. Either I have been reverse-meta-trolled or you have become unhinged. I am strangely aroused.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's also a fair criticism, though? It doesn't completely, or even partially, invalidate or negate any arguments, but it is still an example of hypocrisy. And while it would be extraordinarily difficult to completely divorce oneself from society it is not actually impossible. But even going that far wouldn't necessarily be required if at least some effort was made to take as little advantage of government services as possible, something I highly doubt Jrod actually does. I don't think it is useful, but it is interesting to note the relative position of privilege that one possesses as they go on to deny the value of the state.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, but I'd bet each and every one of us is willing to admit that we do immoral things all the time. I know I do. But I don't think Jrod would agree, he seems to imply that it's not immoral when he does it because [reasons]. While it might point to a character flaw of JRod or a common one among libertarians, I don't really think it provokes any substantial discussion. There is enough meat for the wolves to tear at, this just seems weak.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Another big part of conspiracy theories and libertarianism is the belief of holding secret or suppressed knowledge. Go back and reread how Jrod talks about Austrian Economics being unable to be brought to America until after the 1930s, and how he's constantly linking to articles and essays. He thinks that he has found an obscure font of knowledge and that this makes him special. There is also the feeling that you can solve any problem or understand any academic domain by simply channeling your ultra-logical reasoning powers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:E: There's a point to the UHC vs. private discussion between Caros and Jrod that (while skimming the last post) I didn't see taken up, and that's that most countries that have UHC also have parallel, private health care options available for those who wish to (and can) pay for them. At least I'm reasonably sure of it. Some do, some don't, and generally it is just elective/cosmetic stuff since anything that needs serious treatment will generally be done right away in countries with UHC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I appreciate this. I've got a few more points I want to raise about healthcare but first I want to say that it is appreciated when people take the effort to respond substantively, regardless of whether we agree or not. That is very rare on internet forums. I don't expect you to reply to this post, but if this statement is indicative of your true intentions, then at least read it. Many people have responded substantially to you in the couple of years you have been posting here, myself included. At first we were stymied by your posting style of responding to each post, potentially days apart, so that you would be replying to a post on page 2 after 11 pages had already filled. Additionally, you had a habit of responding to obvious parody posts with complaint. I get that you cannot respond to everyone, and no one here expects you to, especially the people who are offering taunts and snark rather than substance. But even then, it became clear that you were more interested in adopting a proselytizing approach rather than an actual debate. Multiple times you have inferred that we were somehow inferior, stupid, or ignorant, simply because we don't agree with you and your mises.org linkdumps. I used to effortpost in Libertarian threads, being a former Libertarian myself who sat through the forum transformation back in 2004. In fact, I have effort posted in your past threads. You are the reason I no longer effort post, because you proved time and time again that you are arguing in bad faith. I simply do not believe that you are actually willing to debate, as that would imply that you would consider an alternative position if given a valid argument. I have asked you this before in multiple threads before I gave up responding to you (except to maybe sideline snipe on something particularly egregious), but I will ask again since I think a lot of people in this thread would be interested in the answer. What would it take for you to reconsider your position? If you are truly open to debate and consideration of someone's position, what burden or proof or level of argumentation must be offered such that you actually do this? Because if you cannot offer this, then you are not debating in good faith. I know that people like Caros primarily respond so that those on the sidelines will have a better understanding of why he(we) believe Libertarianism is not as advertised, but I have a bad time with bad faith debaters. And I love to debate with people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
JRod, you have been caught repeating fabricated quotes, using incorrect or outright falsified facts and figures, as well as making claims that do not hold up to basic scrutiny. On top of that, you have directly referenced known racists over well understood points of history. Are you sorry for any of this? Do you admit any fault? Have you done any self-reflection over why it may be that you have done this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I disagree. I can say that the sky is green and I am a martian and e=mc squared, and the fact that I'm wrong about the first two is irrelevant to my convictions about the third. He is referencing racists discussing slavery and revised historical narratives around the Civil War, a well understood part of history directly dealing with race relations. It would be one thing if it were a racist discussing cell division and particle theory. But do you think racism might influence opinions concerning the "War of Northern Aggression"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I would like to replace violently funded social services with voluntarily funded social services. I would like the market to increase the quality and lower the cost which will make healthcare services more widely available and better distributed throughout society. I would like to see mutual aid societies and voluntary social service providers compete to best provide assistance to those that need it. The problem is that, if the market fails, there is no recourse for society under your paradigm as it would be aggression to use collective resources to undermine the market. All you can do is insist that the market will not fail, which happens to be a well understood and documented phenomenon. But a state may directly intervene where the market fails. Of course, the state may intervene in many ways, which is why there are different forms of government to address how the state power is brought to bear. We all recognize that it is not perfect, but we accept some levels of imperfection because we know the alternative is abject horror. This comes back to what I asked you before, what would it take for us to convince you to reconsider your position? According to your arguments, it should simply require demonstrating instances of market failures, which undermines your entire system of belief. But we have done that and you have not budged. All it would take to convince me is that market failures are impossible. This is something you have put no effort into advancing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
If we feed people, they may become dependent on food, and need to be fed again 3-6 hours later.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, getting cancer should be disincentive enough. But what of just getting the flu and then getting a week of paid vacation from work? Or free doctor care? Getting a mild case of the flu is not that bad but if you get free doctor care and paid vacation there is far less incentive to avoid that outcome than if you lost a weeks pay and had to pay a couple hundred dollars to see the doctor. OK, let's assume you are correct. So we take away doctor care and paid vacation for the flu. So that person comes to work and coughs on me. And despite the fact that I do EVERYTHING RIGHT, I still get sick, because "germ theory." I am now stuck with the flu through no fault of my own and you have taken away from me access to resources I need to recover.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
JRod, can you point me to a credible health care policy expert that shares your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well of the top three in your post, we actually tax cigarettes specifically because the inevitable illnesses associated with it put a strain on our public healthcare systems. If you do something that is outright stupid like that you do actually end up paying more, but lets get to the very special part of your post. This also ignores the fact that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles tend to cost less in healthcare resources overall due to early termination. They definitely cause more acute illness/injury, however.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:The Hoppe thing is really not the hill you guys want to fight him on, because he is actually right as far as it goes. Private institutions are, and should be allowed to discriminate based on all manner of things even in our current society. The boyscouts don't let in gays, and while that does make the boyscouts homophobic, it does not reflect badly on someone who points out that they still have every right to do that. That particular quote is not. These quotes, on the other hand: quote:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. And this screed quote:Libertarianism, as an intellectual system, was first developed and furthest elaborated in the Western world, by white males, in white male dominated societies. That it is in white, heterosexual male dominated societies, where adherence to libertarian principles is the greatest and the deviations from them the least severe (as indicated by comparatively less evil and extortionist State policies). That it is white heterosexual men, who have demonstrated the greatest ingenuity, industry, and economic prowess. And that it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards quote:The empirical claim of the Left, that there exist no significant mental differences between individuals and, by implication, between various groups of people, and that what appear to be such differences are due solely to environmental factors and would disappear if only the environment were equalized is contradicted by all everyday-life experience and mountains of empirical social research. God this is the gift that keeps on giving. He wrote this poo poo a few months ago. You can't get any more steamy. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:This isn't racist. Stupid as gently caress and filled with incredible overtones about how it is almost certainly the whites who will be the natural social elites? Absolutely. But this statement in and of itself is not actually racist. If it weren't such a thoroughly disgusting subject, I would put effort into the argument that if you encourage racism/bigotry (he is not just saying it can it exist, he is saying it SHOULD exist in those quotes) you are a bigot/racist. Do you give the same benefit of the doubt to the last couple of quotes I edited in?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Also, sorry for the wall of text guys, it needed to be seen to be believed however. And just so everyone is clear, this is posted on lewrockwell.com, a common Libertarian link target in the same vein as mises.org
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:No SedanChair, don't you worry, this empiricism agrees with Libertarianism and so we can accept it. It's only when someone tries to use empiricism or research to say libertarianism is wrong that we can safely ignore it. You see, Leftists use empiricism but Libertarians use empiricism (only I just lied about it supporting me tee hee hee).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 22:51
|
|