|
VitalSigns posted:You are quite correct that the government is to blame for accepting idiot libertarian free market ideology and refusing to regulate the derivatives market and the CDS market, and for gutting the regulations that prevented investment banks from gambling with depositors' money or turning the insurance market into a casino. I think this is a much more on point response. The failure to properly regulate the derivatives market was a huge flaw - products which are, ideally, win-win for all parties involved with them turned into such a double-edged sword used the way they were. CDSs in particular are brilliant instruments but their fragrant abuse at the time is almost laughable.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Oh you're doing that thing where you pretend to misunderstand a post, reply with some cryptic leading question to lure people into arguing, then go "huh no why are you jumping to conclusions, my opinion is <something completely identical to the original post you were arguing with>" Hm, okay, I hope that was as good for you as it was for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
I didn't misunderstand anything, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
tbp posted:I think a big part of the problem is the disproportionate influence institutions such as "the banks" and wealthy individuals have on our governmental process, which helps neuter punishment where it is due and enforcement of regulations in times where all seems peachy. It is a complicated story, but there aren't many people here who don't understand what happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:It is a complicated story, but there aren't many people here who don't understand what happened. I think there are from previous discussions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
tbp posted:The banking system hasn't collapsed though. I put the blame more on the government for not enforcing proper regulations than the banks for doing whatever they were allowed. That's like drinking a gallon of bleach and then getting mad at the government for not stopping you So if you believe that the government is responsible in this case, then you would agree that the government should enact better controls on the banks and do a better job of enforcing them, yes? I'm on board with that. We should regulate banks and enforce the gently caress out of those regulations so that poo poo like this can't happen again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's like drinking a gallon of bleach and then getting mad at the government for not stopping you That's not like that, because ultimately there was relatively small amounts of harm for the people in the institutions and those institutions themselves. And yes, I do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
tbp posted:That's not like that, because ultimately there was relatively small amounts of harm for the people in the institutions and those institutions themselves. Then it's like taking ipecac for no reason; all that it does is make you miserable for awhile, but no real harm is done to you. But the loving nanny state should have stopped me from drinking it and having to vomit all morning for nothing quote:And yes, I do. If there was no state, would the banks still not be at fault?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
tbp is saying some confusing stuff. "The government failed to properly regulate and enforce the private sector, therefore we should reject the government." Correct me if I read you wrong, tbp, but I feel like the better answer would be to strengthen regulatory bodies and make efforts to detach politics from wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:tbp is saying some confusing stuff. "The government failed to properly regulate and enforce the private sector, therefore we should reject the government." Correct me if I read you wrong, tbp, but I feel like the better answer would be to strengthen regulatory bodies and make efforts to detach politics from wealth. Yes I agree
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's kind of incredible how different internet libertarians are from their sacred texts. Most internet libertarians seem to basically be dumb hippies who want a world where there's no police brutality and you can smoke dope and unleash your awesome entrepreneurial powers. Many of them seem to genuinely think poverty and crime and everything bad in the world would be solved if you removed the state. It's kind of like Christianity except in reverse
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
tbp posted:Yes I agree Then I'm confused as to where "reject the government" fits in here. It might be a problem in wording, but I feel like rejecting the government and strengthening regulations are incompatible ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
tbp posted:I didn't misunderstand anything, though. You're Socrates16, right? You have the same one-line, low-effort shitposting style.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Need to break out the emergency libertarians to yell at before this thread consumes itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
tbp is not socrates. He's just trolling. He's a pretty good, high-effort troll, so it's usually entertaining. Um, here's some libertarianism, I guess, because the thread needs it: An-cap is dumb. Does an-cap being dumb necessarily invalidate minarchist libertarianism? If we accept that the state has some legitimate functions, is there a way to construct a non-dystopian libertarian state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
isildur posted:If we accept that the state has some legitimate functions, is there a way to construct a non-dystopian libertarian state? Non-dystopian, probably not. Functional? Sure. Have a state which is pared down to literally a military, a tax bureau, a police, and a judicial system, and have the only laws be against violent crime and property crime. It'd be a lovely weak-rear end country with no economy to speak of, but it wouldn't implode immediately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It sounds like the only thing lacking is he didn't end up homeless, not that I wish it on him but I have a hard time believing someone would still be screaming to demolish the government when it was literally the only thing keeping them alive. Yeah, you'd think that, but I've had plenty of arguments with homeless Libertarians and homeless Tea Partiers. (They are much less common than in the regular population though, at least in my experience, but they do exist.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Here's something I don't understand: if you're a public figure espousing libertarianism yet you're taking public money for whatever reason (maybe grants for your business or tax money for your district), how is that not ridiculously hypocritical? If taxes are theft full stop then isn't benefiting from that theft just as bad? I guess I just think that if your morals fly out the window at the slightest inconvenience you're probably a piece of poo poo. Does this bother anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Mooching off of the taxpayer dime is only moral if you bitch and moan nonstop about how evil those who take government money are. This is actually the official Objectivist position as articulated by Ayn Rand herself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
panascope posted:Here's something I don't understand: if you're a public figure espousing libertarianism yet you're taking public money for whatever reason (maybe grants for your business or tax money for your district), how is that not ridiculously hypocritical? If taxes are theft full stop then isn't benefiting from that theft just as bad? I guess I just think that if your morals fly out the window at the slightest inconvenience you're probably a piece of poo poo. Does this bother anyone else? Hypocrisy is a pretty common among libertarians who end up needing to rely on a public safety net: http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare/ edit: beaten, but now with link!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
panascope posted:Here's something I don't understand: if you're a public figure espousing libertarianism yet you're taking public money for whatever reason (maybe grants for your business or tax money for your district), how is that not ridiculously hypocritical? If taxes are theft full stop then isn't benefiting from that theft just as bad? I guess I just think that if your morals fly out the window at the slightest inconvenience you're probably a piece of poo poo. Does this bother anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Hypocrisy is a pretty common among libertarians who end up needing to rely on a public safety net: If the government hadn't stifled my innovation as a natural-born captain of industry then I wouldn't have had to go on the dole in the first place
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Libertarians in high positions growing fat from skimming the public coffers isn't corruption in the eyes of other libertarians, it is shrewdness and playing the system for your own benefit. It is a completely separate thing from moochers and parasites like welfare recipients and minorities getting aid from the state, and once in a blue moon playing it to their increased benefit. They deserve all possible scorn, those lazy fucks!! It's like when you point out that their high priestess Ayn Rand lived generously off welfare during her final years. She wasn't what she herself called a parasite, she was being clever and benefited from the dues owed to her by the state. She was apparently even noble in taking aid from the very state bureaucracy she hated, because she may have stated that she didn't like doing it. Saintly. --- What makes me chuckle about libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists" is that they are so convinced of their own wisdom, rationality, and how they see the world for What It Really Is (as opposed to us lowly silly Statists) when their entire ideology derives from simplistic fairy tale notions of rational actors always conducting business in complete fairness and amity with each other forever. What do you mean, the stronger party is trying to weasel out of a contract?? The private arbitration company will surely rule it illegal!! Oh, they were paid off?? Well then I guess they were in the right to break the contract after all, LawCo said so. High-octane purestrain Just World fallacy. Very entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
tbp posted:CDSs in particular are brilliant instruments but their fragrant abuse at the time is almost laughable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:What makes me chuckle about libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists" is that they are so convinced of their own wisdom, rationality, and how they see the world for What It Really Is (as opposed to us lowly silly Statists) when their entire ideology derives from simplistic fairy tale notions of rational actors always conducting business in complete fairness and amity with each other forever. I think that it also comes down to the idea that they think that the smartest people will win, and since they are smarter than a lot of people*, they will therefore win. They miss the fact that 95% of business dealings in their libertopian future world will come down to low animal cunning, amoral trickery, and raw collaborative might, none of which they can provide in any meaningful measure. They'll be fat individualistic philosophers in a world dominated by seething swarms of starving rats, and they'll be eaten alive. *this is obviously true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
This thread went nowhere and the other two guys weren't as entertaining as jrodefeld, but what always gets me is the fallacy that long-term repeat business is going to be preferable to short-term cash grabs, when the last several decades have shown that shareholders only give a poo poo about the next quarter's profits. And really, why shouldn't they? If I can gut a company and sell it off to make huge amounts of money versus not doing that and hoping to eventually turn a profit over a number of years, why wouldn't I? Rationally I should only be interested in what helps myself accrue power more quickly, and the more money I have immediately the more likely I stay on top, especially in Libertopia. It's also weird that so much of it goes back to assuming that a company's thought process is "we need to keep customers happy" and not "we need to make sure our customers have no other choice." Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
There is a compelling argument to be made for having a glut of money RIGHT NOW is better overall than slightly more money at a significantly later even in the long term due to things like opportunity costs. That should be all the more reason to more closely regulate owner/invest/etc's ability to just loving ravage and wring all the value out of a business and leave nothing but a dry husk and dust for the people left behind.
Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:There IS a compelling argument to be made for having a glut of money RIGHT NOW is better in the long term than slightly more money at a significantly later time due to opportunity costs which should be all the more reason to more closely regulate owner/invest/etc's ability to just loving ravage all the value out of a business and leave nothing but a dry husk and dust for the people left behind. Reminder that the last Republican presidential candidate literally made his fortune working for a company that does this and one of the only good things people had to say about him was that he was 'a good businessman.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
jrod, one thing I can't understand is why did you actually pay  multiple times to register on these forums? You hardly do anything but proselytize about libertarianism in the way that get you mocked and sometimes banned. You would achieve a similar result while preaching to a flock of seagulls. While they could eventually poo poo on your head, at least they would do this free of charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Reminder that the last Republican presidential candidate literally made his fortune working for a company that does this and one of the only good things people had to say about him was that he was 'a good businessman.' Now whenever I see a government program that benefits me, instead of taking advantage of it or turning it down based on my need, I always pause and think "it'd be a good business decision" either way. I feel very prisoners' dilemma-y about the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:jrod, one thing I can't understand is why did you actually pay He's witnessing to us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
isildur posted:tbp is not socrates. He's just trolling. He's a pretty good, high-effort troll, so it's usually entertaining. What he's saying is crystal clear, you'd have to be wilfully dense to misunderstand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
OP has abandoned us 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
He may have run away with his tail between his legs yet again, but like with King Arthur, I know he will cough up and return to us someday 
Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:OP has abandoned us Seriouspost, is this bannable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Badera posted:Seriouspost, is this bannable? It has been the last half a dozen times he's done it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:He's witnessing to us. When pressed do actually do that, he just goes back to arguing obscure points about libertarianism. Previously I asked him what the real event or events in his life that lead him to libertarianism were. What in his own personal individual life made him a libertarian and convinced him that libertarianism was true? ie. to actually witness his libertarianism. He wouldn't. I even offered to do the same about my own beliefs. He's doing apology (not witnessing), but it's an empty and hollow apology without substance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
 Obviously he became a libertarian because of its raw logical appeal. Implying it has anything to do with his particular background or life experiences is insulting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Mods please gas thread and ban OP thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
tekz posted:What he's saying is crystal clear, you'd have to be wilfully dense to misunderstand it. No, it's very easy to understand: he's trolling. Come on, dude, 'post history' exists right there below every post. I can click it and go to The Ray Parlour and see him saying 'I'm trolling D&D'. I can see that you're like, 90% exclusively a Ray Parlour poster, too, explaining your sudden appearance here to defend tbp. He's a good troll, in that he seems to make an actual effort to post things that stir up interesting conversation instead of just threadshitting, but he's not arguing in good faith and never has been. It's not like there's a rule that you have to argue in good faith, but I hate seeing people engage with him like he actually cares about the things he posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:13
|
|